Datasets:

nickypro

/

minipile-split

like 0

--- abstract: 'In a very short time the experiments at the LHC have collected a large amount of data that can be used to study minimum bias (MB) collisions and the underlying event (UE) in great detail. The CDF PYTHIA $6.2$ Tune DW predictions for the LHC UE data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ are examined in detail. The behavior of the UE at the LHC is roughly what we expected. The LHC PYTHIA $6.4$ Tune Z1 does an excellent job describing the LHC UE data. The modeling of MB ([*i.e.*, ]{}the overall inelastic cross section) is more complicated because one must include a model of diffraction. The ability of PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune Z1 to simultaneously describe both the UE in a hard scattering process and MB collisions are studied. No model describes perfectly all the features of MB collisions at the LHC.' author: - Rick Field date: 'October 1, 2011' title: 'Min-Bias and the Underlying Event at the LHC' --- [^1] Introduction ============ The total proton-proton cross section is the sum of the elastic and inelastic components, $\sigma_{tot}=\sigma_{\rm EL}+\sigma_{\rm INEL}$. Three distinct processes contribute to the inelastic cross section; single diffraction, double-diffraction, and everything else, which is referred to as “non-diffractive" (ND) component. For elastic scattering neither of the beam particles breaks apart ([*i.e.*, ]{}color singlet exchange). For single and double diffraction one or both of the beam particles are excited into a high mass color singlet state ([*i.e.*, ]{}N\* states) which then decays. Single and double diffraction also corresponds to color singlet exchange between the beam hadrons. When color is exchanged the outgoing remnants are no longer color singlets and one has a separation of color resulting in a multitude of quark-antiquark pairs being pulled out of the vacuum. The non-diffractive component, $\sigma_{\rm ND}$, involves color exchange and the separation of color. However, the non-diffractive collisions have both a soft and hard component. Most of the time the color exchange between partons in the beam hadrons occurs through a soft interaction ([*i.e.*, ]{}no high transverse momentum) and the two beam hadrons “ooze" through each other producing lots of soft particles with a uniform distribution in rapidity and many particles flying down the beam pipe. Occasionally, there is a hard scattering among the constituent partons producing outgoing particles and “jets" with high transverse momentum. ![Illustration of correlations in azimuthal angle $\Delta\phi$ relative to (*left*) the direction of the leading charged particle, PTmax, or to (*right*) the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}. The relative angle $\Delta\phi=\phi-\phi_1$, where $\phi_1$ is the azimuthal angle of PTmax (or [chgjet\#$1$]{}) and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle of a charged particle. There are two [“transverse"]{} regions $60^\circ<\Delta\phi< 120^\circ$, $|\eta|<\eta_{cut}$ and $60^\circ<-\Delta\phi< 120^\circ$, $|\eta|<\eta_{cut}$. The overall [“transverse"]{} region of [$\eta$-$\phi$]{} space is defined by $60^\circ<|\Delta\phi|< 120^\circ$, $|\eta|<\eta_{cut}$. The [“transverse"]{} charged particle density is the number of charged particles in the [“transverse"]{} region divided by the area in [$\eta$-$\phi$]{} space. Similarly, the [“transverse"]{} charged PTsum density is the scalar PTsum of charged particles in the [“transverse"]{} region divided by the area in [$\eta$-$\phi$]{} space. ](Zakopane_Fig1.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig1\] ![CDF Run 1 data from Ref. [@cdfue1] at $1.8{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the density of charged particles ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}. The data are compared with ISAJET $7.32$ without MPI (*top*) and HERWIG $6.4$ without MPI (*bottom*) using the ISAJET and HERWIG default parameters with [$p_T({\rm hard})$]{}$>3{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$. The Monte-Carlo predictions are divided into two categories: charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam and target (beam-beam remnants); and charged particles that arise from the outgoing jets plus initial and final-state radiation (hard scattering component). ](Zakopane_Fig2.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig2\] ![CDF Run 1 data from Ref. [@cdfue1] at $1.8{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the density of charged particles ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}. The data are compared with PYTHIA $6.206$ with MPI (*top*) using the PYTHIA default parameters with [$p_T({\rm hard})$]{}$\ge0$ with the CTEQ3L, CTEQ4L, and CTEQ5L parton distribution functions. (*bottom*) Two CDF PYTHIA $6.2$ tunes, Tune A and Tune B. Tune A was adjusted to fit the CDF Run 1 data with PARP($67$) $=4.0$ and Tune B was adjusted to fit the same data but with PARP($67$) $=1.0$. ](Zakopane_Fig3.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig3\] ![(*top*) PYTHIA Tune A predictions at $630{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ for the charged PTsum density ($p_T\!>\!0.4\,{\rm GeV/c}$, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{} with $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$) $=0.0$, $0.16$ (default), and $0.25$. The CDF Run 1 data at $630{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ from Ref. [@cdf630] indicated a value of the PTsum density of around $0.54{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ at [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}$\approx50{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ (red line) which favors the PARP($90$) $=0.25$ curve. (*bottom*) Shows the $2$-to-$2$ hard scattering cut-off, $p_{T0}$, versus center-of-mass energy from PYTHIA Tune A with the default value PARP($90$) $=0.16$ and the Tune A value of PARP($90$) $=0.25$. ](Zakopane_Fig4.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig4\] ![The CDF Run 1 data from Ref. [@cdfzpt] on the Z-boson [$p_T$]{} distribution ($<\!p_T(Z)\!>\approx11.5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$) compared with (*top*) PYTHIA Tune A ($<\!p_T(Z)\!>=9.7{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$) and PYTHIA Tune AW ($<\!p_T(Z)\!>=11.7{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$) and compared with (*bottom*) PYTHIA Tune DW and HERWIG $6.4$ (without MPI). ](Zakopane_Fig5.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig5\] ![Shows the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, as function of PTmax for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{} and [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{} at $0.2{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $14{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ from PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune DWT at the particle level. The STAR data from RHIC [@star] favor the energy dependence of Tune DW. ](Zakopane_Fig6.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig6\] ![(*top*) Shows the predictions at the particle level of PYTHIA Tune DW for the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, as a function of PTmax for charged particles ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) at $0.2{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $14{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. (*bottom*) Shows the extrapolations of PYTHIA Tune A, Tune DW, Tune DWT, Tune S320, Tune P329, and pyATLAS to the LHC at $14{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. ](Zakopane_Fig7.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig7\] ![Shows the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region for charged particles ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) at 7 TeV as defined by PTmax, [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}, and $P_T$(muon-pair) predicted from PYTHIA Tune DW at the particle level. For muon-pair production the two muons are excluded from the charged particle density. Charged particle jets are constructed using the Anti-KT algorithm with $d=0.5$. ](Zakopane_Fig8.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig8\] ![(*top*) Shows the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, a function of PTmax for charged particles ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) at $0.2{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, $0.9{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, $10{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, and $14{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ as predicted by PYTHIA Tune DW at the particle level. Also, shows the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, at PTmax $=5.25{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ for charged particles ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) as a function of the center-of-mass energy on a linear plot (*middle*) and a logarithmic plot (*bottom*). ](Zakopane_Fig9.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig9\] Min-bias (MB) is a generic term which refers to events that are selected with a “loose" trigger that accepts a large fraction of the overall inelastic cross section. All triggers produce some bias and the term “min-bias" is meaningless until one specifies the precise trigger used to collect the data. The underlying event (UE) consists of particles that accompany a hard scattering such as the beam-beam remnants (BBR) and the particles that arise from multiple parton interactions (MPI) . The UE is an unavoidable background to hard-scattering collider events. MB and UE are not the same object! The majority of MB collisions are soft while the UE is studied in events in which a hard-scattering has occurred. One uses the“jet" structure of the hard hadron-hadron collision to experimentally study the UE [@cdfue1]. As shown in Fig. 1, on an event-by-event bases, the leading charged particle, PTmax, or the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, can be used to isolate regions of [$\eta$-$\phi$]{} space that are very sensitive to the modeling of the UE. The pseudo-rapidity is defined by $\eta=-\log(\tan(\theta_{cm}/2))$, where $\theta_{cm}$ is the center-of-mass polar scattering angle and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle of outgoing charged particles. In particular, the [“transverse"]{} region defined by $60^\circ<|\Delta\phi|< 120^\circ$, where $\Delta\phi=\phi-\phi_1$, where $\phi_1$ is the azimuthal angle of PTmax (or [chgjet\#$1$]{}) and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle of a charged particle is roughly perpendicular to the plane of the hard $2$-to-$2$ parton-parton scattering and is therefore very sensitive to the UE. QCD Monte-Carlo generators such as PYTHIA [@pythia6] have parameters which may be adjusted to control the behavior of their event modeling. A specified set of these parameters that has been adjusted to better fit some aspects of the data is referred to as a tune [@skands1]. In Section 2, I will review briefly the CDF PYTHIA $6.2$ tunes. PYTHIA Tune DW does a very nice job in describing the CDF Run 2 underlying event data. In Section 3, we will take a close look at how well PYTHIA Tune DW did at predicting the behavior of the UE at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ at the LHC. We will see that Tune DW does a fairly good job in describing the LHC UE data. However, Tune DW does not reproduce perfectly all the features of the data and after seeing the data one can construct improved LHC UE tunes. The first ATLAS LHC tune was Tune AMBT1 [@ambt1] and CMS has Tune Z1 and Tune Z2 which I will discuss in Section 4. MB and the UE are not the same object, however, in PYTHIA the modeling of the UE in a hard scattering process and the modeling of the inelastic non-diffractive cross section are related. In Section 5, I will examine how well the PYTHIA tunes fit the LHC MB data. The summary and conclusions are in Section 6. Studying the UE at CDF ====================== Figure 2 shows some of the first comparisons to come from the CDF UE studies [@cdfue1]. The CDF Run 1 data at $1.8{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the density of charged particles in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, are compared with ISAJET $7.32$ [@isajet] (without MPI) and HERWIG $6.4$ [@herwig] (without MPI) using the ISAJET and HERWIG default parameters with [$p_T({\rm hard})$]{}$>3{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$. The Monte-Carlo predictions are divided into two categories: charged particles that arise from the break-up of the beam and target (beam-beam remnants); and charged particles that arise from the outgoing jets plus initial and final-state radiation (hard scattering component). HERWIG $6.4$ has improved modeling of the parton-showers (modified leading-log), whereas ISAJET simply uses the leading-log approximation. The modified leading-log takes into account the angle-ordering of the shower that is indicated by higher order corrections. Clearly, the hard-scattering component of HERWIG does a much better job in describing the data than does the hard-scattering component of ISAJET. However, it became clear that the beam-beam remnants of HERWIG were too soft to describe the CDF Run 1 UE data. To describe the data one needs to include MPI. [**Parameter**]{} [**Tune A**]{} [**Tune B**]{} [**Tune DW**]{} [**Tune D6**]{} [**Tune DWT**]{} ------------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ [PDF]{} CTEQ5L CTEQ5L CTEQ5L CTEQ6L CTEQ5L [MSTP(81)]{} $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ [MSTP(82)]{} $4$ $4$ $4$ $4$ $4$ [PARP(82)]{} $2.0$ $1.9$ $1.9$ $1.8$ $1.9409$ [PARP(83)]{} $0.5$ $0.5$ $0.5$ $0.5$ $0.5$ [PARP(84)]{} $0.4$ $0.4$ $0.4$ $0.4$ $0.4$ [PARP(85)]{} $0.9$ $0.9$ $1.0$ $1.0$ $1.0$ [PARP(86)]{} $0.95$ $0.95$ $1.0$ $1.0$ $1.0$ [PARP(89)]{} $1800$ $1800$ $1800$ $1800$ $1960$ [PARP(90)]{} $0.25$ $0.25$ $0.25$ $0.25$ $0.16$ [PARP(62)]{} $1.0$ $1.0$ $1.25$ $1.25$ $1.25$ [PARP(64)]{} $1.0$ $1.0$ $0.2$ $0.2$ $0.2$ [PARP(67)]{} $4.0$ $1.0$ $2.5$ $2.5$ $2.5$ [MSTP(91)]{} $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ [PARP(91)]{} $1.0$ $1.0$ $2.1$ $2.1$ $2.1$ [PARP(93)]{} $5.0$ $5.0$ $15.0$ $15.0$ $15.0$ : Parameters for several PYTHIA 6.2 tunes. Tune A and Tune B are CDF Run 1 UE tunes. Tune DW, D6, and DWT are CDF Run 2 tunes which fit the Run 2 UE data and fit the Run 1 $Z$-boson [$p_T$]{} distribution. Tune DW and Tune DWT are identical at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ but have a different energy dependence. Tune D6 is similar to Tune DW but uses CTEQ6L. []{data-label="table1"} Figure 3 shows the first attempts to tune the parameters of PYTHIA $6.2$ to fit the CDF Run 1 UE data and Table 1 give the value of the parameters for the some of the CDF tunes. The perturbative $2$-to-$2$ parton-parton differential cross section diverges like $1/\hat p_T^4$, where $\hat p_T$ is the transverse momentum of the outgoing parton in the parton-parton center-of-mass frame. PYTHIA regulates this cross section by including a smooth cut-off $p_{T0}$ as follows: $1/\hat p_T^4\rightarrow 1/(\hat p_T^2+p_{T0}^2)^2$. This approaches the perturbative result for large scales and is finite as $\hat p_T\rightarrow0$. The primary hard scattering processes and the MPI are regulated in the same way with the one parameter $p_{T0}=$ PARP($82$). This parameter governs the amount of MPI in the event. Smaller values of $p_{T0}$ results in more MPI due to a larger MPI cross-section. PARP($67$) sets the high [$p_T$]{} scale for initial-state radiation in PYTHIA $6.2$. It determines the maximal parton virtuality allowed in time-like showers. The larger the value of PARP($67$) the more initial-state radiation in the event. Tune A has more initial-state radiation and less MPI and Tune B has less initial-state radiation and slightly more MPI. However, as can be seen in Fig. 3 one cannot discriminate between them by simply looking at the activity in the [“transverse"]{} region. The CDF studies indicated that $p_{T0}$ is around $2{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. However, this cut-off is expected depend on the center-of-mass energy of the hadron-hadron collision, $E_{cm}$. PYTHIA parameterizes this energy dependence as follows: $p_{T0}(E_{cm})=(E_{cm}/E_0)^\epsilon$, where $E_0=$ PARP($89$) is the reference energy and the parameter $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$) determines the energy dependence. Fig. 4 shows how the PARP($90$) parameter for Tune A was determined. I determined the value of $\epsilon=$ 0.25 by comparing the UE activity in the CDF data at $1.8{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $630{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ [@cdf630]. Figure 5 shows that Tune A does not fit the CDF Run 1 Z-boson [$p_T$]{} distribution very well [@cdfzpt]. PYTHIA Tune AW was adjusted to fit the Z-boson [$p_T$]{} distribution as well as the underlying event at the Tevatron. The UE activity of Tune A and Tune AW are nearly identical. PYTHIA Tune DW is very similar to Tune AW except Tune DW has PARP($67$) $=2.5$, which is the preferred value determined by the DØ Collaboration in fitting their dijet $\Delta\phi$ distribution [@d0pub]. The MPI tune depends on the choice of parton distribution function (PDF). One must choose a PDF and then tune to fit the UE. Tune A, B, AW, and DW use CTEQ5L. Tune D6 is similar to tune DW except it uses CTEQ6L as the PDF. Note that in changing from CTEQ5L to CTEQ6L, $p_{T0}=$ PARP($82$) decreased by a factor of $1.8/1.9\approx0.95$ in order to get the same UE activity. PYTHIA Tune A, AW, DW, and D6 use $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$) $=0.25$, which is much different than the PYTHIA $6.2$ default value of $0.16$. Tune DWT uses the default value of $0.16$. Tune DW and Tune DWT are identical at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, but Tune DW and DWT extrapolate to other energies differently. Tune DWT produces more activity in the UE at energies above the Tevatron than does Tune DW, but predicts less activity than Tune DW in the UE at energies below the Tevatron as shown in Fig. 6. The data from the STAR Collaboration at $0.2{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ at RHIC data [@star] favor the energy dependence of Tune DW and rule out the energy dependence of Tune DWT. Fig. 7 shows the extrapolations of PYTHIA Tune A, Tune DW, Tune DWT, Tune S320, Tune P329, and pyATLAS to the LHC ($14{\,\textrm{TeV}}$). Tune pyATLAS is the original ATLAS tune that used the default parameter of PARP($90$) $=0.16$. Both Tune DWT and the old pyATLAS tune are ruled out by the RHIC UE data [@star]. Tune S320 is the original Perugia0 tune from Peter Skands [@skands1] and Tune P329 is a “professor" tune from Hendrik Hoeth. In November of 2009 Tune DW, Tune S320, and Tune P329 seemed to be converging on the same predictions for the LHC. I began to feel that we could make accurate LHC predictions with some confidence. Fig. 8 shows the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region at 7 TeV as defined by PTmax, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, and the muon-pair in Drell-Yan production as predicted from PYTHIA Tune DW. The density of charged particles in the [“transverse"]{} region goes to zero as PTmax or [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{} go to zero due to kinematics. If PTmax is equal to zero then there are no charged particles anywhere in the $\eta$ region considered. Similarly for [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}. However, if the $PT$(muon-pair) goes to zero there is still the hard scale of the mass of the muon-pair and, hence, the charge particle density is not zero at $PT$(muon-pair) $=0$. Figure 9 show the center-of-mass energy dependence of the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region predicted by PYTHIA Tune DW. The height of the “plateau" in the [“transverse"]{} region does not increase linearly with the center-of-mass energy. For energies above the Tevatron it increases more like a straight line on a log plot (or a small power of $E_{cm}$). The UE activity is predicted by PYTHIA Tune DW to increase by about a factor of two in going from $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ to $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and then to increase by only about $20\%$ in going from $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ to $14{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. ![(*left column*) Fake data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ on the transverse charged particle density (*top left*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom left*) as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet ([$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The fake data (from PYTHIA Tune DW) are generated at the particle level assuming $0.5$ M min-bias events at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ ($361,595$ events in the plot). (*right column*) Early CMS data [@cmsue1] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ on the transverse charged particle density (*top right*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom right*) as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet ([$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation ($216,215$ events in the plot). ](Zakopane_Fig10.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig10\] ![(*left column*) Early CMS data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsue2] on the transverse charged particle density (*top left*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom left*) as defined by the leading charged particle jet ([chgjet\#$1$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. (*right column*) Early ATLAS data [@atlas1] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the transverse charged particle density (*top right*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom right*) as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and $|\eta|<2.5$. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig11.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig11\] ![(*left column*) Early CMS data on the ratio of $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ ($7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ divided by $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ from Fig. 11) for the transverse charged particle density (*top left*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom left*) as defined by the leading charged particle jet ([chgjet\#$1$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation. (*right column*) ATLAS data on the ratio of $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ from Fig. 11 for the transverse charged particle density (*top right*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom right*) as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and $|\eta|<2.5$. The data are corrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig12.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig12\] ![(*top*) CDF data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ from Ref. [@cdfue2] on the charged particle density ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading calorimeter jet, [jet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T({\rm jet}\#1)$]{} compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. Also compares the CDF data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ with the recent CMS data [@cmsue3] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ (*bottom*) on the [“transverse"]{} charged particle density ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig13.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig13\] PYTHIA 6.2 Tune DW and the LHC UE Data ====================================== The left column of Figure 10 shows two plots that I presented at the MB&UE CMS Workshop at CERN on November 6, 2009 before we had LHC data. The plots show generator level predictions of PYTHIA Tune DW at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ for the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle (PTmax) and the leading charged particle jet ([$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{} and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The plots also show fake data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ generated from PYTHIA Tune DW assuming $500,000$ MB events ($361,595$ events in the plot). The fake data agree perfectly with Tune DW since it was generated from Tune DW! This is what I expected the data to look like if CMS received $500,000$ MB triggers at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$. The right column of Figure 10 shows the data CMS collected at the LHC during the commissioning period of December 2009 [@cmsue1]. The data are uncorrected and compared with PYTHIA Tune DW after detector simulation ($216,215$ events in the plot). CMS did not quite get $500,000$ MB triggers, but we got enough to get a first look at the underlying event activity at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$. PYTHIA Tune DW did a fairly good job in describing the features of this data, but it does not fit the data perfectly. It does not fit the real data quite as well as it fits the fake data! However, we saw roughly what we expected to see. Figure 11 shows early CMS [@cmsue2] and ATLAS [@atlas1] data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density compared with the predictions of PYTHIA Tune DW. Here CMS useed the leading charged particle jet ([chgjet\#$1$]{}) to define the transverse region and ATLAS used the leading charged particle, PTmax. The ATLAS data are corrected to the particle level and compared with Tune DW at the generator level. The CMS data are uncorrected and compared with Tune DW after detector simulation. Tune DW predicted about the right amount of activity in the “plateau", but does not fit the low [$p_T$]{} rise very well. Figure 12 shows early CMS and ATLAS data on the ratio between $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ ($7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ divided by $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$) for the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. Tune DW predicted that the transverse charged particle density would increase by about a factor of two in going from $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ to $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and that the transverse PTsum density would have a slightly larger increase. Both these predictions are seen in the data, although Tune DW does not fit very well the energy dependence of the low [$p_T$]{}  approach to the “plateau". Figure 13 shows the CDF data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cdfue2] on the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading calorimeter jet, [jet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T({\rm jet}\#1)$]{} together with the recent CMS data [@cmsue3] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{} compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. I would say that the agreement at all three energies is fairly good. Tune DW, however, is not a perfect fit to the LHC UE data. It does not fit the Tevatron data perfectly either! We expect a lot from the QCD Monte-Carlo models. We want them to fit perfectly which is, of course, not always possible. ![(*left column*) CMS data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsue3] on the transverse charged particle density (*top left*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom left*) as defined by the leading charged particle jet ([chgjet\#$1$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared and with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. (*right column*) CMS preliminary data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the transverse charged particle density (*top left*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom left*) as defined by the leading charged particle jet ([chgjet\#$1$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared and with PYTHIA Tune Z2 at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig14.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig14\] ![CMS data on the ratio of $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ ($7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ divided by $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ from Fig. 14) for the transverse charged particle density (*top*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom*) as defined by the leading charged particle jet ([chgjet\#$1$]{}) for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared and with PYTHIA Tune Z1, Tune Z2, and PYTHIA 8 Tune 4C [@corke] at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig15.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig15\] [**Parameter**]{} [**Tune Z1**]{} [**Tune Z2**]{} [**AMBT1**]{} ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------- [PDF - Parton Distribution Function]{} CTEQ5L CTEQ6L LO\* [PARP(82) - MPI Cut-off]{} $1.932$ $1.832$ $2.292$ [PARP(89) - Reference energy, E$_0$]{} $1800$ $1800$ $1800$ [PARP(90) - MPI Energy Extrapolation]{} $0.275$ $0.275$ $0.25$ [PARP(77) - CR Suppression]{} $1.016$ $1.016$ $1.016$ [PARP(78) - CR Strength]{} $0.538$ $0.538$ $0.538$ [PARP(80) - Probability colored parton from BBR]{} $0.1$ $0.1$ $0.1$ [PARP(83) - Matter fraction in core]{} $0.356$ $0.356$ $0.356$ [PARP(84) - Core of matter overlap]{} $0.651$ $0.651$ $0.651$ [PARP(62) - ISR Cut-off]{} $1.025$ $1.025$ $1.025$ [PARP(93) - primordial kT-max]{} $10.0$ $10.0$ $10.0$ [MSTP(81) - MPI, ISR, FSR, BBR model]{} $21$ $21$ $21$ [MSTP(82) - Double gaussion matter distribution]{} $4$ $4$ $4$ [MSTP(91) - Gaussian primordial kT]{} $1$ $1$ $1$ [MSTP(95) - strategy for color reconnection]{} $6$ $6$ $6$ : PYTHIA 6.4 parameters for the ATLAS Tune AMBT1 and the CMS UE Tune Z1 and Z2. Parameters not shown are set to their defuult value. []{data-label="table2"} ![ATLAS data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@atlas2] on the transverse charged particle density (*top*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*bottom*) as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, as a function of PTmax for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and $|\eta|<2.5$. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig16.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig16\] ![CMS data from Fig. 14 on the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, versus [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{} up to $30{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ (*top*) and up to $100{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ (*middle*) compared with the ATLAS data from Fig. 16 on the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, versus PTmax. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. (*bottom*) Dependence of the transverse charged particle density on the charged particle jet radius as predicted by PYTHIA Tune Z1. Charged particle jets are constructed using the Anti-KT algorithm with $d=0.2$, $0.5$, and $1.0$. The charged particles have [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and $|\eta|<2.5$ and the leading charged particle jet is restricted to be in the region $|\eta({\rm chgjet}\#1)|<1.5$. ](Zakopane_Fig17.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig17\] ![ATLAS data at $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@atlas2] on the transverse charged particle density (*top*) and the transverse charged PTsum density (*middle*) as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, as a function of PTmax for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}and $|\eta|<2.5$ and for charged particles with $p_T> 0.1{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. (*bottom*) Ratio of the ATLAS data with $p_T> 0.1{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ and [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{} ($100{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$ cut divided by $500{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$ cut) for the transverse charged particle density and the charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, as a function of PTmax compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. ](Zakopane_Fig18.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig18\] ![(*top*) CDF data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ from Ref. [@cdfue2] on the charged particle density ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!1$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading calorimeter jet, [jet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T({\rm jet}\#1)$]{} compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. Also compares the CDF data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ with the CMS data [@cmsue3] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ (*bottom*) on the [“transverse"]{} charged particle density ([$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, [$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig19.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig19\]  \[Zakopane\_fig20\] PYTHIA 6.4 CMS UE Tune Z1 and Tune Z2 ===================================== Tune DW is a PYTHIA $6.2$ tune (Q$^2$-ordered parton showers, old MPI model) designed by me to fit the CDF underlying event data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. Now that we have LHC data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ both ATLAS and CMS have LHC tunes. The ATLAS Tune AMBT1 [@ambt1] is a PYTHIA $6.4$ tune ($p_T$-ordered parton showers, new MPI model) designed to fit the ATLAS LHC MB data for Nchg $\ge 6$ and [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{} ([*i.e.*, ]{}“diffraction suppressed MB"). They also included their underlying event data for PTmax $>5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, but the errors on the data are large in this region and hence their UE data did not have much influence on the resulting tune. The ATLAS AMBT1 tune does significantly better at fitting the LHC “diffraction suppressed MB" data, but does not do so well at fitting the LHC underlying event data. I started with the ATLAS Tune AMBT1 and varied a few of the parameter to improve the fit to the CMS underlying event data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. The parameters of the ATLAS Tune AMBT1 and the CMS UE Tune Z1 are shown in Table 2. Tune Z1 is a PYTHIA $6.4$ tune that uses the CTEQ5L PDF. CDF wanted also a PYTHIA $6.4$ tune that uses the CTEQ6L PDF. I know from my experience with Tune DW and Tune D6 (Table 1) that in going from CTEQ5L to CTEQ6L that I would have to decrease the value of $p_{T0}=$ PARP($82$), so I decreased it by a factor of $0.95$ (which is precisely the Tune D6 to Tune DW ratio) and produced Tune Z2. The parameters of Tune Z2 are also shown in Table 2. In my haste, I set $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$) $=0.275$ for Tune Z2 which is the same value that I deermined for Tune Z1. Figure 14 shows the more recent CMS data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsue3] on the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}. This data are corrected to the particle level and compared and with PYTHIA Tune Z1 and Tune Z2. Tune Z1 does a much better job in describing the low [$p_T$]{} rise to the plateau than Tune DW. Tune Z2 does not describe the CMS UE data quite as well as Tune Z1. Figure 15 shows CMS data on the ratio of $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ and $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ ($7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ divided by $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$) for the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1, Tune Z2, and the PYTHIA 8 Tune 4C from Corke and Sjöstrand [@corke]. Tune Z1 and Tune Z2 have the same value of PARP($90$) $=0.275$, however, Tune Z1 fits the energy dependence quite nicely while Tune Z2 does not. In constructing Tune Z2, I forgot that the PDF also affects the energy dependence. When I changed from CTEQ5L (Tune Z1) to CTEQ6L (Tune Z2) I should have also changed $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$) as well as PARP($82$). The PYTHIA 8 Tune 4C uses CTEQ6L but has $\epsilon=0.19$ and fits the energy dependence very nicely. However, Tune 4C does not fit the LHC UE data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ as well as Tune Z1 does. Figure 16 shows the latest ATLAS data [@atlas2] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, for charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{} and $|\eta|< 2.5$. The data are corrected to the particle level and compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. Tune Z1 describes very well both the CMS and ATLAS UE data. Fig. 17 compares the CMS data using [chgjet\#$1$]{} with the ATLAS data which uses PTmax approach. Tune Z1 describes the differences between the CMS [chgjet\#$1$]{} and the ATLAS PTmax approach very well. It is interesting that the activity in the “plateau" of the [“transverse"]{} region is larger for the [chgjet\#$1$]{} approach than it is for the PTmax analysis. Could it be that when one requires a charged particle jet with a certain value of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{} that you bias the UE to be more active, because a more active UE can contribute some [$p_T$]{} to the leading charged particle jet? In an attempt to understand this, in Fig. 17 I looked at the dependence of the transverse charged particle density on the charged particle jet size ([*i.e.*, ]{}radius) as predicted by PYTHIA Tune Z1. I constructed charged particle jets using the Anti-KT algorithm with $d=0.2$, $0.5$, and $1.0$. The charged particles have [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}  and $|\eta|< 2.5$ and the leading charged particle jet is restricted to be in the region $|\eta({\rm chgjet}\#1)|<1.5$. For very narrow jets the UE “plateau" is nearly the same as in the PTmax approach. As the jets become larger in radius the UE “plateau" becomes more active! The object that is being used to define the [“transverse"]{} region can bias the UE to be more active. Amazing! Figure 18 shows the recent ATLAS data at $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@atlas2] on the transverse charged particle density and the transverse charged PTsum density as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, for charged particles with $p_T>0.1{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ and $|\eta|< 2.5$ compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. Fig. 18 also shows the ratio of the ATLAS data with $p_T>0.1{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ and $p_T>0.5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. All of the CDF UE measurements involved charged particles with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}. This is the first look at the UE in the region below $500{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$ and there are a lot of soft particles! The transverse charged particle density increases by about a factor of $2$ in going from $p_T>0.5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ to $p_T>0.1{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$. Tune Z1 describes this increase better than Tune DW, however, Tune Z1 still does not have quite enough soft particles. Figure 19 shows the CDF data at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading calorimeter jet, [jet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T({\rm jet}\#1)$]{} together with the CMS data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the charged particle density in the “transverse” region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, as a function of [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{} compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. Fig. 19 shows the CMS PYTHIA $6.4$ Tune Z1 and Fig. 13 shows the CDF PYTHIA $6.2$ Tune DW. Neither of the tunes describe perfectly all three energies. Tune Z1 is in very good agreement with the UE data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ but is a little high at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. One can see this in Fig. 20 which shows the PYTHIA Tune Z1 $2$-to-$2$ hard scattering cut-off, $p_{T0}$, at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ as determined by fitting the CMS UE data in Fig. 14 together with functional form of PYTHIA, $p_{T0}(W_{cm})=(W_{cm}/W_0)^\epsilon$, with $P_{T0}=$ PARP($82$) $=1.932{\,\textrm{GeV}}$, $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$) $=0.275$, and $W_0=1.8{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. Here $W_{cm}=E_{cm}$ is the hadron-hadron center-of-mass energy. Fig. 20 also shows the value of $p_{T0}$ at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ that would fit better the CDF data in Fig. 19. The PYTHIA functional form predicts a smaller cut-off at $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ resulting in a more active UE than observed in the CDF “leading jet" data in Fig. 19 [@skands2]. I believe it is premature to consider other functional forms for $P_{T0}(W_{cm})$. I believe that we will find a PYTHIA tune that simultaneously describes $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$, $1.96{\,\textrm{TeV}}$, and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. Remember the energy dependence of the UE depends not only on $\epsilon=$ PARP($90$), but also on the choice of PDF! ![(*top*) The inelastic (INEL) data from ALICE and UA5 at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ [@alice1] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune S320. (*bottom*) Same as the top plot except the Monte-Carlo model predictions have been multiplied by a factor of $1.11$. ](Zakopane_Fig21.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig21\] ![(*top*) The non-single diffraction (NSD) data from CMS at $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsmb1] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. The solid curve is NSD and the dashed curve is inelastic non-diffraction (ND) component. (*bottom*) The inelastic (INEL) data from ALICE [@alice2] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$, with $p_T>$ PTcut and at lease one charged particle with $p_T>$ PTcut and $|\eta|<0.8$ for PTcut $= 0.15{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, $0.5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, and $1.0{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. The solid curve is the INEL and the dashed curve is inelastic non-diffraction (ND) component. ](Zakopane_Fig22.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig22\] ![(*top*) The inelastic (INEL) data from ALICE [@alice1] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ [@alice1] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. The solid curve is the INEL and the dashed curve is non-single diffraction (NSD) component. (*middle*) The inelastic (INEL) data from ALICE [@alice2] at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$, with $p_T>$ PTcut and at lease one charged particle with $p_T>$ PTcut and $|\eta|<0.8$ for PTcut $= 0.15{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, $0.5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, and $1.0{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. (*bottom*) The non-single diffraction (NSD) data from CMS [@cmsmb1] at $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. The solid curve is NSD and the dashed curve is inelastic non-diffraction (ND) component. ](Zakopane_Fig23.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig23\] ![(*right*) The non-single diffraction (NSD) data from CMS $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsmb1] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta d\phi$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. The data and theory on $dN/d\eta$ in Fig. 23 has been divided by $2\pi$ to construct the number of particles per unit [$\eta$-$\phi$]{}. (*left*) ATLAS data from Fig. 18 at $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle, PTmax, as a function of PTmax for charged particles with $p_T > 0.1{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$ compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. The activity in the UE of a hard scattering process (*left*) is a factor of two greater than in an average MB collision (*right*). ](Zakopane_Fig24.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig24\] ![(*top*) The non-single diffraction (NSD) data from CMS at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsmb2] on the charged particle multiplicity distribution ([$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}, all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. (*bottom*) Data from CMS at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsue3] on the charged particle multiplicity distribution ([$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}, [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}) in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, for [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}$> 3.0{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. The data have been corrected to the particle level and compared with Tune Z1 at the generator level. ](Zakopane_Fig25.eps) \[Zakopane\_fig25\] PYTHIA Tunes and the LHC MB Data ================================ Since PYTHIA regulates both the primary hard scattering and the MPI with the same cut-off, $p_{T0}$, with PYTHIA one can model the overall “non-diffractive” (ND) cross section by simply letting the transverse momentum of the primary hard scattering go to zero. The non-diffractive cross section then consists of BBR plus “soft” MPI with one of the MPI occasionally being hard. In this simple approach the UE in a hard-scattering process is related to MB collisions, but they are not the same. Of course, to model MB collisions one must also add a model of single (SD) and double diffraction (DD). This makes the modeling of MB much more complicated than the modeling of the UE. One cannot trust the PYTHIA 6.2 modeling of SD and DD. Figure 21 shows the inelastic (INEL) data from ALICE and UA5 at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ [@alice1] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune DW and Tune S320 [@skands1]. Both these tunes are about $11\%$ below the data. The INEL cross section is the sum of ND + SD + DD. Fig. 22 shows the non-single diffraction (NSD) data from CMS $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsmb1] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$ (all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. The solid curve is NSD and the dashed curve is inelastic non-diffraction (ND) component. The NSD cross section is the sum of ND + DD. Fig. 22 also shows the INEL data from ALICE at 900 GeV [@alice2] on the charged particle density, $dN/d\eta$, with $p_T>$ PTcut and with at lease one charged particle with $p_T>$ PTcut and $|\eta|<0.8$ for PTcut $=0.15{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, $0.5{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$, and $1.0{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ compared with PYTHIA Tune DW. Tune DW was tuned to fit the Tevatron data with [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}. Two things change when we extrapolate from the Tevatron to the LHC. Of course the center-of-mass energy changes, but also we have started looking at softer particles ([*i.e.*, ]{}$p_T < 500{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$). Fig. 22 shows that Tune DW does okay for [$p_T\!>\!0.5\,{\rm GeV/c}$]{}, but does not produce enough soft particles below $500{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$. One can also see that, at least in PYTHIA $6.2$, the modeling of SD and DD is more important at the lower [$p_T$]{} values. Figure 23 compares the CMS and ALICE charged particle densities, $dN/d\eta$, with PYTHIA 6.4 Tune Z1. Tune Z1 does a better job at fitting the MB data than does Tune DW and it produced more soft particles below $500{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$ than does Tune DW. However, Tune Z1 does not fit the MB data perfectly. Figure 24 compares the activity in the UE of a hard scattering process with an average MB collision. The activity in the UE of a hard scattering process at $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ is roughly a factor of two greater than it is for an average MB collision and Tune Z1 describes this difference fairly well. In PYTHIA this difference comes from the fact that there are more MPI in a hard scattering process than in a typical MB collision. By demanding a hard scattering you force the collision to be more central ([*i.e.*, ]{}smaller impact parameter), which increases the chance of MPI. Figure 25 shows the data from CMS at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ [@cmsmb2] on the charged particle multiplicity distribution ([$|\eta|\!<\!2$]{}, all [$p_T$]{}) compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1 and the data from CMS at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ on the charged particle multiplicity distribution in the [“transverse"]{} region as defined by the leading charged particle jet, [chgjet\#$1$]{}, for [$P_T$(chgjet\#$1)$]{}$>3.0{\,\textrm{GeV/c}}$ compared with PYTHIA Tune Z1. You are asking a lot of the QCD Monte-Carlo model when you expect it to simultaneously describe both MB and the UE in a hard scattering process. I think it is amazing that Tune Z1 does as well as it does in describing both! Summary and Conclusions ======================= The PYTHIA $6.2$ Tune DW which was created from CDF UE studies at the Tevatron did a fairly good job in predicting the LHC UE data $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. The behavior of the UE at the LHC is roughly what we expected. Remember this is “soft" QCD! The LHC PYTHIA $6.4$ Tune Z1 does a very nice job describing the UE data at $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$. The UE is part of a hard scattering process. MB collisions quite often contain no hard scattering and are therefore more difficult to model. Since PYTHIA regulates both the primary hard scattering and the MPI with the same cut-off, $p_{T0}$, with PYTHIA one can model the overall non-diffractive (ND) cross section by simply letting the transverse momentum of the primary hard scattering go to zero. In this approach the UE in a hard-scattering process is related to MB collisions, but they are not the same. Of course, to model MB collisions one must also add a model of single (SD) and double diffraction (DD). Tune Z1 does a fairly good job of simultaneously describing both MB and the UE in a hard scattering process. I think it is amazing that it does as well on MB as it does! There are a lot of factors of two floating around. The charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region increases by about a factor of two in going from $900{\,\textrm{GeV}}$ and $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ (Fig. 15). At $7{\,\textrm{TeV}}$ the charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region increases by about a factor of two in going from $p_T>500{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$ to $p_T>100{\,\textrm{MeV/c}}$ (Fig. 18). The charged particle density in the [“transverse"]{} region is about a factor of two larger than the density of particles in a typical MB collision (Fig. 24). All of these factors of two are described fairly well by PYTHIA Tune Z1. PYTHIA $8$ [@pythia8] also does a fairly good job on many of the MB observables, but so far it does not fit the LHC UE data as well as Tune Z1. In order to describe the bulk of the LHC MB data one must include a model of diffraction. Experimentally, it is not possible to uniquely separate diffractive from non-diffractive collisions. However, one can construct samples of “diffraction enhanced MB" and “diffraction suppressed MB" events and compare with the models. The “diffraction enhanced MB" samples are selected by requiring some type of rapidity gap [@cmsfwd; @atlas3]. We have learned that PYTHIA $6$ does a poor job of modeling of diffraction. PHOJET [@phojet] and PYTHIA $8$ do a better job with diffraction. In a very short time the experiments at the LHC have collected a large amount of data that can be used to study MB collisions and the UE in great detail. This data can be compared with the Tevatron MB and UE data to further constrain and improve the QCD Monte-Carlo models we use to simulate hadron-hadron collision. At present none of the tunes describe perfectly the UE data at both the Tevatron and the LHC. However, I believe the tunes will continue to improve. We are just getting started! The future will include more comparisons with PYTHIA $8$, HERWIG++ [@hw++], and SHERPA [@sherpa]. [99]{} *Charged Jet Evolution and the Underlying Event in Proton-Antiproton Collisions at $1.8$ TeV*, The CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{}, 092002, (2002). T. Sjöstrand, Phys. Lett. [**157B**]{}, 321 (1985); M. Bengtsson, T. Sjöstrand, and M. van Zijl, Z. Phys. [**C32**]{}, 67 (1986); T. Sjöstrand and M. van Zijl, Phys. Rev. [ **D36**]{}, 2019 (1987). T. Sjöstrand, P. Eden, C. Friberg, L. Lonnblad, G. Miu, S. Mrenna and E. Norrbin, Computer Physics Commun. [**135**]{}, 238 (2001). *The Perugia Tunes*, P. Skands, 2009, arXiv:0905.3418v1. *Charged Particle Multiplicities in pp Interactions at $0.9$ and $7$ TeV in a Diffractive Limited Phase-Space Measured with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC and New PYTHIA 6 Tune*, The ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2010-031. F. Paige and S. Protopopescu, BNL Report BNL38034, 1986 (*unpublished*), version 7.32. G. Marchesini and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys [**B310**]{}, 461 (1988); I. G. Knowles, Nucl. Phys. [**B310**]{}, 571 (1988); S. Catani, G. Marchesini, and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. [**B349**]{}, 635 (1991). *The Underlying Event in Hard Interactions at the Tevatron Proton-Antiproton Collider*, The CDF Collaboration , Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{}, 072002 (2004). *Measurement of the Z PT Distribution in Proton-Antiproton Collisions at at $1.8$ TeV*, The CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2937-2941 (1991). Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 221801 (2005). *Underlying Event Studies at RHIC*, Helen Caines, arXiv:0910.5203v1. *First Measurement of the Underlying Event Activity at the LHC with $0.9$ TeV*, The CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. [**C70**]{}, 555-572, 2010, arXiv:1006.2083 \[hep-ex\]. *Measurement of the Underlying Event Activity at the LHC at $7$ TeV and Comparison with $0.9$ TeV*, CMS Physics Analysis Summary, CMS-PAS-QCD-10-010, CERN, 2010. *Track-Based Underlying Event Measurements in pp Collisions at $900$ GeV and $7$ TeV with the ATLAS Detector at the LHC*, The ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2010-029. *Studying the Underlying Event in Drell-Yan and High Transverse Momentum Jet Production at the Tevatron*, The CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{}, 034001 (2010), arXiv:1003.3146. *Measurement of the Underlying Event Activity at the LHC at $7$ TeV and Comparison with $0.9$ TeV*, The CMS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2011) 109, arXiv:1107.0330. *Interleaved Parton Showers and Tuning Prospects*, Richard Corke and Torbjörn Sjöstrand, JHEP 1103:032 (2011), arXiv:1011.1759v1 \[hep-ph\]. *Measurement of Underlying Event Characteristics using Charged Particles in collisions $900$ GeV and $7$ TeV with the ATLAS Detector*, The ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. [**D83**]{} (2011) 112001, arXiv:1012.0791. See also, *Energy Scaling of Minimum-Bias Tunes*, Holger Schulz and Peter Skands, arXiv:1103.3649v1 \[hep-ph\]. *First Proton-Proton Collisions at the LHC as Observed with the ALICE Detector: Measurement of the Charged Particle Pseudorapidity Density at 900 GeV*, The ALICE Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. [**C65**]{}, 111 (2010), arXiv:0911.5430. *Transverse-Momentum and Pseudorapidity Distributions of Charged Hadrons in Collisions at 7 TeV*, The CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 02200 (2010), arXiv:1005.3299. Talk presented by C. Zampolli at the LPCC MB&UE Working Group Meeting, CERN, June 9, 2010. *Charged Particle Multiplicities in pp Interactions at $0.9$, $2.36$, and $7$ TeV*, The CMS Collaboration, J. High Energy Phys. [**01**]{}, 079 (2011), arXiv:1011.5531. *A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1*, T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**178**]{}, 852–867 (2008), arXiv:0710.3820 \[hep-ph\]. *Observation of Diffraction in Proton-Proton Collisions at $900$ and $2360$ GeV Centre-of-Mass Wnergies at the LHC*, The CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS FWD-10-001. *Studies of Diffractive Enhanced Minimum Bias Events in ATLAS*, The ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2010-048. F.W. Bopp, R. Engel and J. Ranft, arXiv:hep-ph/9803437. R. Engel, J. Ranft and S. Roesler, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{}, 1459 (1995). M. Bahr et al., *Herwig++ Physics and Manual*, Eur. Phys. J. [**C58**]{} (2008), arXiv:0803.0883 \[hep-ph\]. M. Bahr et al., *Herwig++ 2.3 Release Note*, arXiv:0812.0529 \[hep-ph\]. T. Gleisberg, et al. JHEP 0402 (2004) 056 \[hep-ph/0311263\]; T. Gleisberg, et al. JHEP 0902 (2009) 007, arXiv:0811.4622 \[hep-ph\]. [^1]: Lectures presented at the 51$^{st}$ Cracow School of Theoretical Physics: *The Soft Side of the LHC*.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In the previous paper \[Yamada, Chaos, Solitons $\&$ Fractals, [**109**]{},99(2018)\], we investigated localization properties of one-dimensional disordered electronic system with long-range correlation generated by modified Bernoulli (MB) map. In the present paper, we report localization properties of phonon in disordered harmonic chains generated by the MB map. Here we show that Lyapunov exponent becomes positive definite for almost all frequencies $\omega$ except $\omega=0$, and the $B-$dependence changes to exponential decrease for $B > 2 $, where $B$ is a correlation parameter of the MB map. The distribution of the Lyapunov exponent of the phonon amplitude has a slow convergence, different from that of uncorrelated disordered systems obeying a normal central-limit theorem. Moreover, we calculate the phonon dynamics in the MB chains. We show that the time-dependence of spread in the phonon amplitude and energy wave packet changes from that in the disordered chain to that in the periodic one, as the correlation parameter $B$ increases.' address: 'Yamada Physics Research Laboratory, Aoyama 5-7-14-205, Niigata 950-2002, Japan' author: - 'Hiroaki S. Yamada' title: 'Localization of disordered harmonic chain with long-range correlation ' --- Phonon, Acoustic wave, Localization, Bernoulli map, Delocalization, Long-range, Correlation 72.15.Rn, 71.23.-k, 71.70.+h, 71.23.An u | Introduction ============ It has been established that one-dimensional disordered system (1DDS) has a pure point energy spectrum and its eigenfunctions are exponentially localized in an infinite system [@ishii73; @kotani82]. As a result, the ensemble averaged transmission coefficient of a large enough system decreases exponentially with respect to the system size $N$ [@erdos81]. This statement is established for standard 1DDS without particular reference to electronic or phonon system [@ishii73]. On the other hand, it has been reported that in binary disordered systems special delocalized states exist. For example, the diagonally disordered dimer model corresponding to a one-dimensional tight-binding binary alloy should have extended states the number of which is proportional to $\sqrt{N}$ for a finite system size [@phillips91]. In addition to this, a set of extended modes close to the critical frequency has been confirmed in the disordered one-dimensional dimer harmonic chain [@adame93; @sanchez94]. It is difficult to experimentally investigate the effect of structural correlation on the localization of one-dimensional the electronic systems due to the electron-electron interaction. The correlation effect have been experimentally realized by using a one-dimensional optical systems [@barthelemy08; @marin14; @choi17]. Indeed, in recent years, there have been experimental studies on photonic localization in disordered glasses in which light waves perform a Lévy flight [@barthelemy08] and anomalous localization in microwave waveguide with long-range correlated disorder [@marin14]. In our earlier papers, we have also numerically investigated the localization phenomena of electronic systems with long-range correlations generated by the modified Bernoulli map (MB) with stationary-nonstationary chaotic transition (SNCT) [@yamada18]. The detailed property of the MB map is given in Refs. [@aizawa84; @aizawa89; @tanaka95; @akimoto05; @akimoto07; @akimoto08]. In particular, wave packet dynamics in the nonstationary potential has been investigated [@moura98; @yamada15]. The sequence exhibits asymptotic non-stationary chaos characterized by the power spectrum $S(f) \sim 1/f^\alpha$ ($f<<1$), where $f$ denotes frequency and $\alpha$ is spectrum index, for $\alpha >1$. We shall refer to such a system MB chain in the following [@aizawa84; @akimoto05]. In the MB chain, it is possible to create the potential sequence that changes its property from short-range correlation (SRC) including $\delta-$correlations to the long-range correlation (LRC), if we regulate the correlation parameter $B$. The relation between the spectrum index $\alpha$ and the correlation parameter $B$ of the MB map is given by Eq.(\[eq:alpha-B\]) in the text. However, the studies on the properties of the phonon system with LRC, as compared with those in the electron system, are rather scare [@lu88; @tong99; @datta95; @fabian97; @allen98]. In particular, there are many unclear points as to phonon dynamics of the disordered harmonic chains with LRC [@shahbazi05; @naumis06; @bahraminasab07; @esmailpour08; @richoux09; @garcia10; @lepri10; @costa11b; @sales12; @juniora15; @albuquerque15; @zakeri15]. In this paper, disordered phonon systems with LRC generated by MB map are studied numerically. We aim at reporting the characteristic $B-$dependences of the Lyapunov exponent (L-exponent), and the phonon dynamics. Although the L-exponent is positive throughout the entire set of $B$ regions studied here, the $B-$dependence decreases linearly for $ B <2 $, and it decays exponentially for $B> 2$. The distribution of the L-exponent over the ensemble for the disorder configuration exhibits some slow convergence as $N \to \infty$, unlike that of uncorrelated disordered systems because of its LRC. In addition, we investigate the time-dependence of the initially localized wave packet in the MB chain due to the displacement excitation by changing the correlation parameter. We confirm that the spread of the energy wave packet exhibits subdiffusive behaviour, compared to ballistic one as $B$ increases. This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we shall briefly introduce the phonon model and the modified Bernoulli map. In Sect.\[sec:lyap\] we report about the behaviour of the $B-$dependence of Lyapunov exponent at some frequencies by the numerical calculation. We show the correlation of the mass sequence effects on the convergence property of the distribution as the system size increases. In Sect.\[sec:dynamics\], phonon dynamics in the MB chains is investigated by changing the correlation parameter. The summary and discussion are presented in the last section. Appendix \[app:transmission\] shows that the anomalous distribution of phonon transmission coefficient over ensemble have a non-universal form, which is different from that in uncorrelated disordered chains. Model {#sec:model} ===== Here we consider the harmonic chain model represented by the following equation of motion: m\_n=-K\_[n-1,n]{}(u\_n-u\_[n-1]{}) +K\_[n,n+1]{}(u\_[n+1]{}-u\_[n]{}), \[eq:equation-of-motion\] where $u_n$ is the displacement from its equilibrium position of the $n-$the atom and $m_n$’s and $K_{n,n+1}$’s are sequences of masses and force constants of nearest neighbour atoms, respectively. We deal with two types of phonon model, the one is with disordered masses but constant force constants $K_{n,n+1}=K(=1)$ (mass model), and the other is spring disordered model with constant mass $m_n=m(=1)$ (spring model). The one model is transformed into the other model by a dual transformation [@toda66]. In the long wavelength approximation of the mass model, we obtain a scalar wave equation, using continuous variables $x$, =, and for the continuous variable version of the spring model we get the following wave equation: = , where $e(x)$ is the $x-$dependent elastic stiffness and $m_0$ is the mass density of the medium. These phonon systems start to be equivalent to that of off-diagonal tightly binding electronic system $-t_{n,n+1}v_{n+1}-t_{n-1,n}v_{n-1}+\beta v_{n}=Ev_n$ with constant diagonal element $\beta$ by a transformation using mass-reduction as follows: u\_n v\_n,\ - t\_[n,n+1]{} . Furthermore, the particle-hole symmetry for $E=0$ in the off-diagonal electronic system corresponds to the translation mode of $\omega=0$ in the phonon system. For weak correlations, all the eigenmodes with $\omega>0$ are localized. The uniform mode ($\omega=0$) remains extended in the thermodynamic limit. In this paper we deal with mass model that the mass sequences $m_n$’s is generated by a modified Bernoulli (MB) map with LRC. The MB map is one-dimensional map proposed in order to reveal the statistical properties of an intermittent chaos [@aizawa84], X\_[n+1]{} = X\_[n]{} + 2\^[B-1]{}X\_[n]{}\^[B]{} & (0 X\_[n]{} &lt; 1/2)\ X\_[n]{} - 2\^[B-1]{}(1-X\_[n]{})\^[B]{} & (1/2 X\_[n]{} 1), \[eq:map\] where $B$ is a non-negative bifurcation parameter which controls the strength of correlation among the sequence $X_n$’s. We use the symbolized sequence according to the following rule: m\_n = m\_a & 0X\_[n]{}&lt; 1/2\ m\_b & 1/2X\_[n]{} 1. \[eq:binary\] as a sequence of the masses. The mass ratio $R=m_b/m_a$ stands for the parameter controlling the strength of the disorder. The power spectrum in the low frequency limit ( $f<<1$) and thermodynamic limit ($N \to \infty$) $S(f)=\frac{1}{N}\left|\sum_{n=0}^N m_ne^{-i2\pi f n/N}\right|^2$ ($f=0,1,2,...,N-1$) should behave as S(f) \~ f\^0 & 1 B &lt; 3/2\ f\^[-]{} & 3/2 B , \[eq:power\] where . \[eq:alpha-B\] The bifurcation parameter $B=1$ exhibits an exponential damping of the correlation. In the range of $1<B<3/2$, the resulting white power spectrum proves that the sequence has only SRC. The theoretical interpretation of the power spectral density has been given by renewal process analysis for the semi-markovian symbolic dynamics [@aizawa84c]. And it has been reported that the numerical result also supports the theoretical result [@aizawa84]. Here, it is important to mention the difference between the MB chain and the model with Lévy-type disorder in Ref.[@zakeri15]. There is a common point in that the inverse power-law distributions are used in order to characterize the correlation, but there is a significant difference in the nonstationary characterized by the power spectrum $S(f) \sim f^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha \geq 1$ [@zakeri15]. The Lévy-type disorder model generates the nonstationary sequence with $\alpha=1$ at a point of the control parameter of the correlation (Lé exponent), while MB chain with $B \geq 2$ can generate various nonstationary sequence with $1 \leq \alpha < 2$. Assuming the monochromatic time dependence $u_n(t)=e^{-i\omega t}u_n(t=0)$ for Eq.(\[eq:equation-of-motion\]) we obtain the stationary equation of motion, -m\_n\^2 u\_n=-K\_[n-1,n]{}(u\_n-u\_[n-1]{}) +K\_[n,n+1]{}(u\_[n+1]{}-u\_[n]{}), \[eq:equation-of-motion-2\] characterized by a frequency $\omega$. The phonon spectrum $G(\omega^2)$ of the mass model ($m_a=1.0,m_b=2.0$) is shown in Fig.\[fig:phonon-dos-1\]. This spectrum for the case of $B=1.01$ is strongly resembling that in the uncorrelated chains. This spectra is characterized by a singular-peak structure and infinitesimally small gaps dubbed the special frequencies [@hori72; @dean72]. A complicated structure in phonon amplitude and phase is related to this singular structure of the phonon spectra. We can also observe a structure like the van-Hove singularity in a periodic lattice in the case of $B=1.8$ as a result of LRC. Naturally the same features are observed. The details will be reported in elsewhere. We keep our eyes on the localization properties of phonon amplitude in the next section. ![ (Color online) Spectra of squared frequencies for the MB chains with $m_a=1, m_b=2$ of the bifurcation parameter (a)$B=1.01,$ and (b)$B=1.8$. We used a fixed boundary condition and the system size is $N=2^{15}$. The mesh of a horizontal line is $0.02$. []{data-label="fig:phonon-dos-1"}](phonon-dos-1.eps){width="7.5cm"} Localization of phonon amplitude {#sec:lyap} ================================ In this section, we study the Lyapunov exponent depending on the correlation parameter $B$ by using the transfer matrix method [@scales97; @yamada01]. Transfer matrix and Lyapunov exponent ------------------------------------- The equation (\[eq:equation-of-motion-2\]) can be written in terms of the product of the transfer matrix $T_n$ as $$\begin{aligned} \left( \begin{array}{c} u_{n+1} \\ u_{n} \\ \end{array} \right) = T_n \left( \begin{array}{c} u_n \\ u_{n-1} \\ \end{array} \right) =\Pi_{i=1}^{n} T_i \left( \begin{array}{c} u_1 \\ u_{0} \\ \end{array} \right), \label{eq:transfer-matrix-1} $$ where $$\begin{aligned} T_n= \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{(K_{n-1,n}+K_{n,n+1}-m_n\omega^2)}{K_{n,n+1}} & -\frac{K_{n-1,n}}{K_{n,n+1}}\\ 1 & 0 \end{array} \right). \label{eq:transfer-matrix-2}\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in the asymptotic property of the amplitude $u_n$ for $n \to \infty$ or the corresponding limit theorem for the product of the matrices. The asymptotic behaviour of Eq. (\[eq:transfer-matrix-1\]) with respect to the system size is characterized by the L-exponent of the phonon amplitude of finite size $N$ as follows: \_N=, where $M(n)=\Pi_{i=1}^n T_i$, $\bm{u}_0=(u_1,u_0)^T=(1,0)^T$ when the set of the initial values $u_0$ and $u_1$ is given. The frequency dependence of the localization length $\xi_N \simeq 1/\gamma_N$ for acoustic and electromagnetic waves in a one-dimensional randomly layered media is also studied analytically [@scales97]. Figure \[fig:lyap-energy-1\] shows the $\omega^2-$dependence of the averaged L-exponents $\left< \gamma_N \right>$ in the MB chains. The zero mode $\omega=0$ corresponds to the extended state in the translational motion mode. In the case of SRC ($B=1.1$), it can be confirmed that $\gamma_N \propto \omega^2$($\omega <<1$, $N>>1$). Looking at the smaller side of $\omega$ that works for dynamics, we see that L-exponent decreases as $ B $ increases. The $\omega-$dependence of the L-exponent has been investigated for the anomalous localization in one-dimensional chains with Lévy-type disorder and the power-law dependence for the Lévy exponent is found [@zakeri15]. We investigate whether the state is delocalized by increasing $B$ or not. ![ (Color online) The ensemble averaged Lyapunov exponents $\left< \gamma_N \right>$ of MB chains of the size $N=2^{16}$ as a function of squared frequency at $B=1.1, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5$. The ensemble size is $2^{11}$. []{data-label="fig:lyap-energy-1"}](lyap-energy-1.eps){width="7.0cm"} The $B-$dependence of the averaged Lyapunov exponents $\left<\gamma_N \right>$ are shown in Fig.\[fig:llyap-av\](a). It almost linearly decreases until $B \simeq2$ and it experiences exponential decrease up to zero $\left<\gamma_N \right>\simeq 0$ for $B>2$. We examined the case of $\omega^2=1.01$, but similar results are obtained for the other frequency in $0 <\omega^2 <2$. Such a behaviour is resembling that reported for the acustic system in Ref.[@costa11a]. Furthermore, the behaviour of the phonon amplitude is qualitatively similar to that in an electronic system [@yamada18]. The numerical result of the well-examined electronic systems generated by the MB map strongly suggests that the L-exponent is positive even for $B \geq 2$, at least in the investigated range ($2 \leq B \leq 3$). This result is consistent with many claims that there is no transition to delocalization in the regime $\alpha <2$, in many electronic systems which are well studied numerically by using the finite-size scaling [@moura98; @shima04; @kaya07; @gong10]. Correspondingly, in the phonon system examined in this paper, for $B \geq 2$ and increasing $N$, the averaged L-exponent does not seem to become zero except for $\omega=0$. However, as shown in in the Fig.\[fig:llyap-av\](a), it is suggested that the dependence on $B$ changes with $B \simeq 2$ from linear decay to exponential decay, i.e. $\left< \gamma_N \right> \sim e^{-c(B-2)}$. This change of the $B-$dependence corresponds to the chaos-chaos transition at $B=2$ of the MB map. We define the normalized localization length (NLL) to characterize the tail of the wavefunction [@yamada15; @costa11a; @shima04; @yamada04], \_N . It is useful to study the localization and delocalization property that $\Lambda_N$ decreases (increases) with the system size $N$ for localized (extended) states, and it becomes constant for the critical states. The $B-$dependence of the NLL are shown in Fig.\[fig:llyap-av\](b). It is found that the even for $2<B (<3)$ the NLL decreases and the localization length $1/\left< \gamma_N \right>$ is less than the system size $N$ in the thermodynamic limit $N \to \infty$. As a result, we can say that the states are exponentially localized for the case of $\omega^2=1.01$. lt is worth noting that Furstenberg’s theorem can be applied to the product of matrices for at least the stationary regime $B<2$, because the sequence is a renewal process with a finite average residence time in the MB chain [@ishii73]. As a result, L-exponent in the infinite system is positive-definite and sample independent with probability l for any non-vanishing and finite initial vector [@goda91; @yamada96]. More detailed investigation is necessary in the nonstationary regime with the power spectrum $S(f) \sim f^{-\alpha}$ with $1\leq \alpha<2$ because the nonstationary sequence is not the sufficient condition for the delocalization. ![ (Color online) (a)The ensemble averaged Lyapunov exponents $\left< \gamma_N \right>$ of the phonon amplitude for $\omega^2=1.01$ as a function of the bifurcation parameter. The cases of $N=2^{16}, 2^{18}, 2^{20}$ are plotted. The ensemble size is $2^{15}$. The inset shows the logarithmic plot. (b)The normalized localization length of the phonon amplitude for $\omega^2=1.01$ as a function of the bifurcation parameter. []{data-label="fig:llyap-av"}](lyap-ave-2.eps){width="8.2cm"} Convergence of the distribution ------------------------------- Previous section demonstrates, the $B-$dependence of the average value of L-exponent is similar to that of the electronic system. The correlation effect is also expected to show up in the form at the anomalous distribution and variance, as in the case of electronic system. Therefore, we will confirm the point. ![ (Color online) Histograms of the distribution of L-exponent of phonon amplitude in the MB chains with some system size $N=2^9-2^{16}$ for squared frequency $\omega^2=1.01$ in the cases of (a)$B=1.3$, (b)$B=1.8$ and $B=2.2$. We have used mass model with $ma=1, m_b=2$ and a mesh of histogram in a horizontal line is $0.001$. The ensemble size is $2^{15}$. []{data-label="fig:yaphis-101"}](yaphis-101.eps){width="9.0cm"} ![ (Color online) Histograms of the distribution of L-exponent of phonon amplitude in the MB chains with some system size $N=2^9-2^{16}$ for squared frequency $\omega^2=2.1$ in the cases of (a)$B=1.3$, (b)$B=1.8$ and $B=2.2$. We have used mass model with $ma=1,m_b=2$ and a mesh of histogram in a horizontal line is $0.001$. The ensemble size is $2^{15}$. []{data-label="fig:yaphis-21"}](yaphis-21.eps){width="9.0cm"} Figures \[fig:yaphis-101\] and \[fig:yaphis-21\] show the distribution of L-exponent of phonon amplitude over $2^{15}$ samples. We have performed the calculations for the mass model with a mass ratio $(R=2)$ at some values of squared frequency $\omega^2$. Distribution of almost Gaussian type are observed in the case of $B=1.3$ , in which the structural correlation is of short range. The behaviour of the distribution is quite similar to that of the uncorrelated disordered system, while the distribution obeys normal central-limit theorem (CLT). The multi-peak structure is observed in the distributions for the case of $B=2.2$ at the squared frequency $\omega^2=2.1$. Two sharp peaks on the both sides of the main distribution in Fig.\[fig:yaphis-21\](c) come from the LRC, which proves a certain amount of very long pure and almost pure subsystems. We consider the fluctuation of L-exponent distribution using the scaling form, N\^[-(B)]{}, to fit the numerical data. The estimated value of $\kappa(B)$ is plotted in Fig.\[fig:yap-sd-1\]. For $1<B<3/2$, the value of $\kappa$ is roughly $1/2$, implying that the convergent property of the distribution with respect to $N$ obeys or approximately obeys CLT. However, for $3/2<B<2$, the distribution converges more slowly than that obeying the CLT. This property is a remarkable feature as the correlation increases. Moreover, convergence of distribution is hardly observed for $B \geq 2$. In particular, in the case of $\omega^2=2.01$, it accumulates to $\left< \gamma_N \right> \simeq 0$, so variance of distribution increases. As a result, the $B-$dependence of the L-exponent and the convergence property of distribution form change around SNCT $B \simeq 2$ of the MB map. ![ (Color online) The exponent $\kappa(B)$ of the power for the standard deviation of the L-exponent of the phonon amplitude as a function of the bifurcation parameter. The cases of $\omega^2=1.01,2.1,3.1$ are plotted. []{data-label="fig:yap-sd-1"}](lyap-sd-1.eps){width="7.5cm"} The apparently anomalous distribution of the L-exponent is also reflected in the distribution of the transmission coefficient which is closer to the physical quantity. The data showing the abnormality of the distribution of the phonon transmission coefficient different from the usual uncorrelated disordered ones are in the Appendix. Phonon dynamics {#sec:dynamics} =============== In this section, we study the time-evolution of vibrational wave packet described by the equation of motion in Eq.(\[eq:equation-of-motion\]) on the MB chains with the long-range correlated random masses by using the leap-frog integration scheme [@okabe96] with the time mesh $\Delta t=0.0001$. As initial conditions ($t=0$), we chose a delta function at middle site of the chain, and the zero velocities at all the sites as follows; u\_n(t=0)=U\_0\_[n,N/2]{}\ v\_n(t=0)=0. \[eq:initial\] Further we chose $U_0=1$. Although other choices are possible, the qualitative conclusions of this report are independent of the initial conditions. To qualitatively measure the degree of localization of the phonon, we evaluate the spreading of the wave packet by the mean square displacement of the phonon amplitude $m_2(t)$ [@naumis06], the participation ratio of the amplitude $P(t)$ [@lu88; @tong99], and the energy spread of the wave packet $E(t)$ [@datta95; @allen98; @albuquerque15] as a function of time. Below, we see how these three quantities change when $B$ increases, compared with a case of binary periodic chain (BP). Mean square displacement $m_2(t)$ --------------------------------- First, we compute the time-dependence of the second order moment; m\_2(t) = \_[n=1]{}\^N (n- )\^2 , \[eq:msd\] where $\left<..\right>$ denotes the average over the initial values of the MB map. Figure \[fig:m2(t)-1\] shows the numerical result of the root mean square displacement $\sqrt{m_2(t)}$ in the MB chains with $B=1.1,1.7,3.0$. The log-log plot of the data reveals $\sqrt{m_2(t)} \sim t^\mu$, and numerically estimated $\mu$ is shown in the inset. It occurs that for weak correlation cases it is subdiffusive $0.7 \lesssim \mu<1$, and the index $\mu$ gradually approaches 1 as the $B$ increases, which proves the ballistic spreading. This tendency agrees with that reported by Naumis [*et al*]{} [@naumis06]. Accordingly, to sum up, it can be said that the difference due to the change in B is small. ![ (Color online) The time evolution of the wave packet spreading $\sqrt{m_2(t)}$ of the phonon amplitude in the MB chains with the initial condition (\[eq:initial\]) for $B=1.1,1.7,3.0$. The inset shows the index $\mu$ as a function of $B$, estimated by numerical data of $\sqrt{m_2(t)}$. Result of the binary periodic chain (BP) is also plotted as a reference. Note that the data are plotted in double logarithmic scales. The ensemble size is $100$. []{data-label="fig:m2(t)-1"}](m2-1.eps){width="8.0cm"} Participation ratio $P(t)$ -------------------------- We define the time-dependent participation ratio (PR) of the displacement $u_n(t)$ by the following equation, P(t) &=& , \[eq:pr\] It is clear that $P(t) \simeq \xi_{p}^2$ for an exponentially localized case, where $\xi_{p}$ is the localization length of the wave packet. On the other hand, if the wave packet is extended $P(t)$ will be of order of unity, $P(t) \sim O(1)$ [@lu88]. Figure \[fig:P(t)-1\](a) shows time-dependence of the PR in the logarithmic scale. It follows that the localization length $\xi_p$ increases as $B$ increases, and it is very different from the behavior of the binary periodic system. In Fig.\[fig:P(t)-1\](b), the squared localization length $\xi_p^2$ of the phonon amplitude is shown, which is numerically estimated by $P(t) \simeq \xi_{p}^2$ for $t>>1$. It can be seen that $\xi_{p}^2$ increases gradually for $B<2$ and rapidly increases for $B>2$ as $B$ increases. ![ (Color online) (a)The time-dependence of the participation ratio $P(t)$ in the MB chains with the initial condition (\[eq:initial\]) for $B=1.1,1.7,3.0$. Result of the binary periodic chain (BP) is also plotted as a reference. Note that the data are plotted in logarithmic scales. The ensemble size is $100$. (b)The squared localization length $\xi_p^2$ of the phonon amplitude which is numerically estimated by the participation ratio for $t>>1$. []{data-label="fig:P(t)-1"}](Pt-1.eps){width="7.5cm"} Energy diffusion $E(t)$ ----------------------- The energy of the disordered chain is distributed in a time-varying fashion between their kinetic and potential energies. Here, we can define the actual mid-value of the energy of the pulse as follows: R(t)=, where $E_n(t)$ denotes the local energy at site $n$. Furthermore, the spread of the energy for the initial displacement excitation can be defined by the second order moment as follows; E(t) &=& . \[eq:e-diff\] Although the fluctuation of the position $R(t)$ of the centre of the energy exists, the energy spreading Eq.(\[eq:e-diff\]) is essentially the same as in the case of $\nu=2$ in the Eq.(47) in the reference [@lepri10], It has been reported that in the uncorrelated random chains while the participation number remains finite, i.e. localized state, the energy spread is shown to be way $E(t) \sim t^{0.5}$ (short-wavelength limit) after displacement excitation owing to the unscattered states of the order $O(\sqrt{N})$ around $\omega=0$ [@datta95]. In periodic chains, $E(t)$ exhibits the ballistic spread as $E(t) \sim t^{2}$. It is expected, as shown in Fig.\[fig:E(t)-1\], that the energy spread asymptotically approaches the behaviour $E(t) \sim t^{0.5}$ appears at infinite time for $B=1.1$. This corresponds to the case of uncorrelated 1DDS. Numerically, it is consistent with the result of the references [@zakeri15; @albuquerque15]. Furthermore, it seems that the transition from $E(t) \sim t^{0.5}$ behavior to $E(t) \sim t^2$ is occurring at $B$ large. The $B-$dependence of the index $\delta$ evaluated by fitting for $E(t) \sim t^\delta$ is shown in the inset in Fig.\[fig:E(t)-1\]. It turns out that $\delta$ rapidly increases from $\delta \simeq 0.5$ and gradually increases toward $\delta \simeq 2$ in the case of the binary periodic systems, as $B$ becomes large. At least in the SRC regime ($B<3/2$) it is $\delta \simeq 0.5$, but more detailed numerical investigation is needed on how to increase $\delta$ for $B> 3/2$. ![ (Color online) (a)The time-dependence of the energy spread $E(t)$ in the MB chains with the initial condition (\[eq:initial\]) for $B=1.1,1.7,3.0$. Result of the binary periodic chain (BP) is also plotted as a reference. Note that the data are plotted in double logarithmic scales. The ensanble size is $100$. Three bold lines correspond to $t^{0.5}$, $t^1$ and $t^2$, respectively. The inset shows the power law index $\delta$ as a function of the bifurcation parameter $B$ which is numerically estimated by the time-dependence of the energy spread $E(t)$. []{data-label="fig:E(t)-1"}](Et-1.eps){width="8.0cm"} Summary and discussion ====================== We have studied here some statistical properties of L-exponent of phonon amplitude in a one-dimensional disordered harmonic chain with LRC, which is generated by MB map. The Lyapunov exponents are positive-definite except for the zero mode $\omega=0$. the $B-$dependence of the L-exponent and the convergence property of the distribution clearly change around the SNCT $B \simeq 2$ for the MB map. The convergence properties of the distribution of those quantities with system size $N$ do not obey the central-limit theorem at least for $B>3/2$. As $B$ increases, the convergence becomes more slow. The slow convergence corresponds to the anomalous large deviation property of the symbolic sequence [@aizawa89]. Moreover, here we have investigated the phonon dynamics of the initially localized displacement excitation in the correlated disordered chains. There is a tendency that the participation ratio of the phonon amplitude is maintained at its finite value even if the correlation parameter $B$ increases, i.e. localized state persists. On the other hand, it has been found that the spread of the local phonon energy changes from the behavior, $t^{0.5},$ to the ballistic one, $t^{2}$, along with the increase of $B$. The diffusion index $\delta$ rapidly increases around SNCT $B \simeq 2$ of the MB map. Still, for the phonon dynamics it is necessary to obtain a more detailed numerical result. In this report, we dealt with the harmonic phonon system, but, if the anharmonic terms are introduced in the phonon dynamics, localization effect due to the existence of the breathers modes should also be expected to occur. Finally, the effect of the long-rang correlation on thermal conduction should also be an interesting feature to investigate [@lepri03; @iubini18]. The localization phenomenon in the disordered system with strong correlation appears in various natural phenomena regardless of the electron and phonon systems. For example, seismic wave propagation in a heterogeneous rock can also be localized due to the multiple scattering and interference of the wave [@sahmi05]. We expect that the present work would stimulate further studies of the localization in the diverse systems. Anomalous distribution of the phonon transmission coefficient {#app:transmission} ============================================================= In the same way as in the case of electronic system [@stone81; @mello87; @stone91; @yamada91; @nishiguchi93], this appendix should present investigations of the correlation effect on the statistical property of the phonon transmission coefficient (PTC) of a finite chain. We consider a finite chain embedded into an infinite perfect lattice with a constant mass ($m=1$), as compared with those in the uncorrelated cases ($B=1.1$). It depends only on the transfer matrix $M(N)$ itself and is independent of the boundary condition. The PTC $T(N)$ of a finite system $N$ is given as, T(N)= [ |-M\_[11]{}e\^[-iK]{}+M\_[21]{}-M\_[12]{}+M\_[22]{}e\^[iK]{}|\^2, ]{} where $M_{i,j}$ denotes the $i,j$ matrix element of the transfer matrix $M(N)$ in Eq.(\[eq:binary\]) and the $K$ means wavevector of incident wave from semi-infinite perfect lattice with the lattice constant. The dispersion relation in the perfect lattice is $\omega^2=2(1-\cos K)$ [@stone81]. For the sake of understanding the anomalous feature of the distribution over ensemble in detail, we study the relation between the cumulants of distribution for PTC. Some typical relations between the cumulants for the uncorrelated case $B=1.1$ are shown in Fig.\[fig:Fig4\] [@yamada91]. It is well observed that some data are plotted on universal curve regardless of the mass ratio. Though these data is only an example of the case of an for a incident wave with a squared frequency $\omega^2=2$, we can confirm that it is true also for the other cases when the bifurcation parameter is in white-power-spectrum regime $(1< B <3/2)$. This kind of universality has been strongly suggested to exist in electronic random 1DDS by using several methods [@mello87]. On the other hand, some remarkable deviations are observed in the relations between stimulants for some values of the bifurcation parameter ($3/2< B <2$) in Fig.\[fig:Fig5\], compared with the universal one. Here, we can say that the distribution of the PTC in MB system does depend on the bifurcation parameter $B$ controlling the structural correlation and it also depends on the mass ratio $R=m_b/m_a$ in 1DDS with LRC. Recently, it has been theoretically and experimentally investigated that the anomalous localizations on the transmission of electron and the distribution are caused by the correlated disorder [@falceto10]. ![ (Color online) Numerical results of the second- and the third-order cumulant ($C_2$, $C_3$) of the distribution of the PTC at $\omega^2=2$ as a function of the first-order cumulant for MB chains with the bifurcation parameter $B=1.1$. The cases of $m_a=1$ and $m_b=0.9, 0.8$ and $0.7$ are plotted. []{data-label="fig:Fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="7.0cm"} ![ (Color online) The cumulant relations for MB chains with the bifurcation parameter $B=1.7$. The result of $m_a$=1 and $m_b=0.7, 0.9$ are plotted. The data of $B=1.1$ in Fig.\[fig:Fig4\] are added as a reference. []{data-label="fig:Fig5"}](Fig5.eps){width="7.0cm"} Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The author would like to thank Professor M. Goda for discussion about the correlation-induced delocalization at early stage of this study, and Professor E.B. Starikov for proof reading of the manuscript. The author also would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Physics Division of The Nippon Dental University at Niigata for my stay, where part of this work was completed. Author contribution statement {#author-contribution-statement .unnumbered} ============================= The sole author had responsibility for all parts of the manuscript. [00]{} K. Ishii, Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. [**53**]{}, 77(1973). S.Kotani, Taniguchi Sympo. SA.Katata(1982), ed.by K.Ito (Kinokuniya,1984) [**225**]{}; M. Minami, Commun. Math. Phys. [**103**]{}, 387(1986). P. Erdos and R.C. Herndon, Adv. Phys. [**31**]{}, 429(1981). P. Phillips and H.L. Wu, science [**252**]{}, 1805(1991). F.D. Adame, E. Macia and A. Sanchez, Phys.Rev. B [**48**]{}, 6054(1993). A. Sanchez, E. Macia and F.D. Adame, Phys.Rev. B [**49**]{}, 147(1994). P. Barthelemy, J. Bertolotti, and D. S. Wiersma, Nature (London) [**453**]{}, 495 (2008). A.A. Fernandez-Marin, J.A. Mendez-Bermudez, J. Carbonell, F. Cervera, J. Sanchez-Dehesa, and V.A. Gopar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 233901 (2014). Wonjun Choi, Cheng Yin, Ian R. Hooper, William L. Barnes, and Jacopo Bertolotti, Phys. Rev. E [**96**]{}, 022122 (2017). H.S. Yamada, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, [**109**]{}, 99-106 (2018). Y. Aizawa and T. Kohyama, [*Chaos and Statistical Methods*]{}, edited by Y. Kuramoto, (Springer 1984), p.109. Y. Aizawa, C. Murakami and T. Kohyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**79**]{}, 96(1984). Y. Aizawa, Prog.Theor.Phys.Suppl. [**99**]{}, 146(1989). K. Tanaka and Y. Aizawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**96**]{}, 547(1995). T. Akimoto and Y. Aizawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**114**]{}, 737-748(2005). T.Akimoto and Y. Aizawa, J. Korean Phys. Soc. [**50**]{}, 254 (2007). T. Akimoto, J. Stat. Phys. [**132**]{}, 171 (2008). F.A.B.F.de Moura, and M.L.Lyra, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3735(1998). H.S. Yamada, Eur. Phys. J. B [**88**]{}, 264 (2015); Eur. Phys. J. B [**89**]{}, 158 (2016). J. P. Lu and J. L. Birman, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 8067(1988). P. Tong, B. Li, and B. Hu, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 8639(1999). P.K. Datta and Kundu, Phys.Rev. B [**51**]{}, 6287(1995). J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, R3328(R)(1997). P. B. Allen and J. Kelner, Am. J. Phys. [**66**]{}, 497-506(1998). F. Shahbazi, A. Bahraminasab, S. M. V. Allaei, M. Sahimi, and M. R.R. Tabar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 165505(2005). G. G. Naumis, F. Salazar and C. Wang, Philosophical Magazine [**86**]{}, 1043-1049 (2006). A. Bahraminasab, S. M. V. Allaei, F. Shahbazi, M. Sahimi, M. D. Niry, and M. R. R. Tabar, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 064301(2007). A.Esmailpour, [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{} 134206(2008). O. Richoux, E. Morand, and L. Simon, Annals of Physics [**324**]{}(2009). A.M. Garcia-Garcia and E.Cuevas, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 033412(2010). S. Lepri, R. Schilling, and S. Aubry, Physical Review E [**82**]{}, 056602 (2010). A E B Costa and F A B F de Moura, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter [**23**]{}, 065101(2011). M.O.Sales, S. S. Albuquerque and F A B F de Moura, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter [**24**]{}, 495401(2012). M.P.S. Juniora, M.L. Lyra, and F.A.B.F. de Moura, Acta Physica Polonica B [**46**]{}, 1247-1254 (2015). S S de Albuquerque, J L L dos Santos, F A B F de Moura and M. L. Lyra, J. Phys. : Condensed Matter, [**27**]{}, 175401(2015). Sepideh S. Zakeri, Stefano Lepri, and Diederik S. Wiersma, Phys. Rev. E [**91**]{}, 032112 (2015). M. Toda, Prog.Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**36**]{}, 113(1966). J. Hori, [*Spectra1 Properties of Disordered chains and Lattices*]{} (Oxford, Pergamon, 1968). P. Dean, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**44**]{}, 127(1972). John A. Scales, and Erik S. Van Vleck, J. Comput.Phys. [**113**]{}, 27-42(1997). H.Yamada and T.Okabe, Phys. Rev. E [**63**]{}, 026203(2001). A E B Costa and F A B F de Moura, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**22**]{}, 573-580 (2011). H.Shima, T.Nomura and T.Nakayama, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 075116(2004). T. Kaya, Eur. Phys. J. B [**55**]{}, 49(2007). L.Y. Gong, P.Q. Tong, and Z.C. Zhou, Eur. Phys. J. B [**77**]{}, 413-417(2010). H.Yamada, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{} 014205(2004); H.Yamada, Phys. Lett. A [**325**]{} 118(2004). M .Goda, H. Yamada, Y. Aizawa, K. Kurumi, A. Shudo and H. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**60**]{}, 2295(1991); H.Yamada, M.Goda and Y.Aizawa, J. Phys. Condens.Matter [**3**]{}, 10045(1991). H.Yamada and M. Goda, Physica B [**219 and 230**]{}, 364-367(1996). T.Okabe, H.Yamada and M. Goda, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**7**]{}, 613-633 (1996). S. Lepri, R. Livi, and A. Politi, Phys. Rep. [**377**]{}, 1 (2003). S. I. P.D. Cintio, S. Lepri, R. Livi, and L. Casetti, Phys. Rev. E [**97**]{}, 032102 (2018). M. Sahimi and S. E. Tajer, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 046301(2005). A.D. Stone, J.D. Joannopoulos and D. J. Chadi, Phys. Rev. B [24]{}, 5583 (1981). P.A. Mello, Phys.Rev. B [**35**]{}, 1082(1987); A.A. Abrikosov and I.A. Ryzhkin, Adv.in Phys. [**27**]{}(L979)147. A.D. Stone,P.A. Mello, K.A.Muttalib and J.-L,Pichard, [*Mesoscopic Phenomena in Solid*]{} eds B.L. Altshuler, P.A. Lee and R.A. Webb (North-Holland 1991) and references therein. H.Yamada, M. Goda and Y. Aizawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**60**]{}, 3501(1991). N. Nishiguchi, S.Tamura and F. Nori, Phys.Rev. B [**48**]{}, 2515(1993). F. Falceto and V. A. Gopar, Europhys. Lett. [**92**]{}, 57014(2010).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Quantum nonlocality and contextuality are two phenomena stemming from nonclassical correlations. Whereas the former requires entanglement that is consumed in the measurement process the latter can occur for any state if one chooses a proper set of measurements. Despite this stark differences experimental tests of both phenomena were similar so far. For each run of the experiment one had to use a different copy of a physical system prepared according to the same procedure, or the system had to be brought to its initial state. Here we show that this is not necessary and that the state-independent contextuality can be manifested in a scenario in which each measurement round is done on an output state from the previous round.' author: - Marek Wajs - 'Su-Yong Lee' - Paweł Kurzyński - Dagomir Kaszlikowski bibliography: - 'Article.bib' title: 'State-recycling method for testing contextuality' --- *Introduction.* In a standard Bell scenario a pair of observers share a bipartite system on which they perform local measurements [@Bell1964; @Clauser1969]. The results of these measurements may not be explainable by local realistic theories, however to observe it one needs a quantum system prepared in an entangled state. The entanglement contained in this state is consumed during the measurement and the resulting post-measurement state is local and useless for further Bell tests. A similar effect, although more subtle, takes place in the state-dependent contextuality scenarios. For example, in the Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovski (KCBS) test [@Klyachko2008] an initial state of the system can exhibit contextuality with respect to a specific set of measurements, but all the post-measurement states are noncontextual if tested in the same KCBS test. It is therefore natural to think of states exhibiting nonlocality or contextuality as some resourceful states, whereas the remaining states can be considered as resourceless. In this sense, the resourceful states can pass the test at the cost of becoming resourceless. Since every such test requires a sufficient amount of data to statistically determine its outcome, more than one measurement has to be performed. This requires an ensemble of resourceful states from which one draws a system in each measurement round, or a resetting procedure in which one brings back resourcefulness to the post-measurement state. The above interpretation makes the state-independent contextuality a different phenomenon. Every quantum state of a more than two-level system can exhibit contextuality if one prepares a special set of measurements [@Kochen1967; @Peres1990; @Mermin1990; @Mermin1993; @Cabello2008]. Due to this fact one cannot divide the set of all states into resourceful and resourceless since there is no resource consumption. Therefore, one is inclined to ask: *How to reuse post-measurement states in some state-independent contextuality scenario?* There are two additional motivations behind this question. First of all, if there were an efficient method of state-recycling it would radically simplify any experimental implementations of contextuality tests in which measurements are non-destructive (e.g. trapped ion experiments [@Kirchmair2009]). Moreover, from the fundamental point of view it is still unclear what kind of resource contextuality is and how to quantify it with respect to some meaningful tasks [@Grudka2014]. Showing that post-measurement states can be efficiently reused in state-independent contextuality tests would suggest that in order to look for resourcefulness of contextuality one should not associate it to nonlocality and entanglement. A search for a new fundamental meaning of contextuality is in order. In this work we propose a state-recycling method to investigate contextuality. We show that in the Peres-Mermin state-independent contextuality scenario [@Peres1990; @Mermin1990; @Mermin1993], which can be also expressed in a form of an inequality [@Cabello2008], the post-measurement states can be reused in the next measurement round. Moreover, because the set of post-measurement states is finite, if sufficiently many measurement rounds are performed each state will be measured in every measurement context. As a result, the measurement process on recycled states can be described as a Markov chain from which one obtains necessary statistics to evaluate the result of the test on all the states. Alternatively, it can be viewed as a test on an effective state that corresponds to the stationary distribution of the process. Eventually, we consider imperfect measurements and show that even in the presence of imperfect measurement settings our state-recycling model is still capable of detecting contextuality. *State-independent contextuality scenario.* Contextuality is a general phenomenon that can be formulated outside of quantum theory and as such it can be studied within the operational framework of black boxes [@Simon2001; @Larsson2002]. This framework uses only the concepts of preparation, transformation and measurement. However, we want to study contextuality in realistic systems and the only known contextual systems are quantum ones. We therefore study the problem of state-recycling within the quantum formalism. We consider the scenario commonly known as the Peres-Mermin square [@Peres1990; @Mermin1990; @Mermin1993]. It consists of nine dichotomic $\pm 1$ observables on a four-level system for which one can distinguish two two-level degrees of freedom $$\begin{aligned} \label{MPsquare} % \begin{matrix} % A_1 = \sigma_x \otimes \openone & A_2 = \openone \otimes \sigma_y & A_3 = \sigma_x \otimes \sigma_y \\ % A_4 = \openone \otimes \sigma_x & A_5 = \sigma_y \otimes \openone & A_6 = \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_x \\ % A_7 = \sigma_x \otimes \sigma_x & A_8 = \sigma_y \otimes \sigma_y & A_9 = \sigma_z \otimes \sigma_z % \end{matrix} %\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_i$ are Pauli matrices. Each row and column consists of three jointly measurable observables. The assumption of noncontextuality states that a measurement outcome of each observable does not depend on the measurement context, i.e., whether it is measured with the observables from the same row, or with the ones from the same column. However, the above assumption is invalid because quantum observables are contextual. Triples of the observables in each row and column are jointly measurable because of a pairwise commutation. Note that the product $R_3$ of the three operators in the last row yields $-1$ whereas the products ($R_i$, $i=1,2$) of three operators in any other row or column ($C_i$, $i=1,2,3$) give $+1$. This gives $\prod_{ i \in \{ 1,2,3 \} } R_i C_i = -1$. However, in order to calculate this product each operator is used twice. Therefore, noncontextuality implies that no matter what value is assigned to each observable this product should be equal to $+1$. The above *paradox* can be expressed in terms of an inequality [@Cabello2008] $$\begin{gathered} \label{Inequality} % \langle A_1 A_2 A_3 \rangle + \langle A_4 A_5 A_6 \rangle - \langle A_7 A_8 A_9 \rangle \\ + \langle A_1 A_4 A_7 \rangle + \langle A_2 A_5 A_8 \rangle + \langle A_3 A_6 A_9 \rangle \le 4 %\end{gathered}$$ The upper bound for this inequality comes from a simple optimization procedure over all possible values $A_i = \pm 1$ that takes into account the noncontextuality assumption. It is straightforward to show that for the quantum spin operators we will find the left-hand side of (\[Inequality\]) equal to 6 because the products of all triples are $\openone$ except for $A_7 A_8 A_9 = -\openone$. *Measurements.* There are six possible measurement contexts in the Peres-Mermin scenario and in principle the measurement of each context can give one of eight possible outcomes: $+++$, $++-$, etc. However, if the measurements are perfectly implemented, there can be at most four different outcomes. This fact lies at the very root of quantum state-independent contextuality. In this case, a measurement of some triple of observables is a projection of the quantum state of the system onto one of four eigenstates of the triple, irrespective of whether the triple of measurements were done simultaneously or sequentially. Let us define the triple-eigenstates as $|b_{j_i}\rangle$, where $j=1,...,6$ denotes the triple and $i=1,...,4$ denotes the basis state. There are 24 different states, 16 local (corresponding to tensor products of eigenstates of $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_y$ – triples $j=1,\dots,4$) and 8 nonlocal (4 Bell states corresponding to the last row $j=5$ and 4 rotated Bell states corresponding to the last column $j=6$). *State-recycling scheme.* In the standard contextuality scenario one performs each measurement round on a different system drawn from an ensemble. It is assumed that the ensemble is described by the state $\rho$. For each measurement round an experimenter randomly chooses one of six measurement contexts and after many rounds one obtains enough data to evaluate the inequality (\[Inequality\]) – see Fig. \[fig1\] (a). ![Schematic representation of the standard test of contextuality in which each measurement round is performed on a different system drawn from an ensemble (a) and of the state-recycling scenario in which each measurement round is performed on the same system (b).[]{data-label="fig1"}](atom.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth"} Here we propose a different approach in which a single copy of a system, initially prepared in some state $\rho_0$, is measured in a randomly chosen basis $j$ and as a result ends up in some post-measurement state $|b_{j_i}\rangle$ called a *triple state*. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\rho_0$ is one of the 24 triple states. Then, the experimenter randomly chooses which triple $j'$ to measure next and the same system is plugged again to the measuring device. The system ends up in the triple state $|b_{j'_{i'}}\rangle$. This procedure is repeated for $N$ rounds – see Fig. \[fig1\] (b). In each round the probability for a state $|b_{j_i}\rangle$ ending up as $|b_{j'_{i'}}\rangle$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{MatrixA} % T_{j_i, j'_{i'}} = \frac{1}{6} \mathrm{Tr} \left( M_{j_i} M_{j'_{i'}} \ \right), %\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{j_i} = |b_{j_i} \rangle \langle b_{j_i}|$. The random choice of the measurement triple gives us the factor of $1/6$. Note that the quantity $T_{j_i, j'_{i'}}$ is symmetric, i.e., $T_{j_i, j'_{i'}}=T_{j'_{i'},j_i}$ and that its evaluation requires no knowledge of any other earlier state. Therefore, the many-round measurement is a Markov chain defined on a 24-state space. The state of the system after $t$ measurement rounds can be represented as a 24-dimensional probability vector ${\bf p}(t)$ describing a probability distribution over all triple states. Note, that although the triple states are not all mutually orthogonal, we can distinguish the outcomes of measurements because we store information about which triple is measured and the four eigenstates of each triple are mutually orthogonal. The transition matrix $T$ of a process is given by Eq. (\[MatrixA\]) – see Appendix for an explicit form. One step of this process is given by ${\bf p}(t+1)=T{\bf p}(t)$. It is easy to verify that after many rounds the state of the system converges to the stationary distribution $\pi = T \pi$ which is a uniform distribution over all 24 triple states. *Interpretation.* We consider two alternative interpretations of the contextuality test based on the above Markov chain. In the first interpretation the state-recycling scheme leads to tests of contextuality on all 24 triple states. Note that if the process starts in a state $|b_{j_{i}}\rangle$, then after sufficiently many rounds it comes back to the same state. A crucial observation is that physically the state $|b_{j_{i}}\rangle$ that is obtained via recurrence has exactly the same properties as the initial state. This leads to a conclusion that from the experimental point of view one cannot observe a difference between state preparation in a scenario in which subsequent states are drawn from an ensemble and a scenario in which subsequent states appear as a result of the recurrence in a state-recycling scheme. After the recurrence the next measurement is chosen randomly, therefore for a large number of rounds one can obtain enough data to evaluate the inequality (\[Inequality\]) for $|b_{j_{i}}\rangle$ as an input state. However, since we already know that the system state converges to the stationary distribution $\pi$, which is evenly distributed over all possible states, one can evaluate the inequality (\[Inequality\]) for any triple state, given that sufficiently many measurements were performed. The expected number of steps to achieve the stationary distribution $\pi$ with an accuracy $\epsilon$, i.e., the mixing time, is bounded from above by $$\begin{aligned} % t_{\mathrm{mix}} ( \epsilon ) \le \frac{3}{2} \log\left(\frac{24}{\epsilon}\right). %\end{aligned}$$ See Appendix for details. For $\epsilon$ of the order of $10^{-3}$, $10^{-5}$, and $10^{-10}$ the mixing times are less than 16, 23, and 40, respectively. If we further assume that one gathers data once the system reached the distribution $\pi$ then each triple state can be obtained with equal probability $\frac{1}{24}$. One can show that an average number of sequential measurements one needs to perform on the stationary state to detect all triple states is 91 – see Appendix. *Alternative interpretation.* Instead of considering contextuality tests on all 24 triple states, one can consider a single test of contextuality on a stationary state $\pi$. Because of indistinguishability between a stationary state and an ensemble represented by the quantum state $$\begin{aligned} % \rho_{\pi}=\frac{1}{24}\sum_{i,j}|b_{j_i}\rangle\langle b_{j_i}| = \frac{\openone}{4}, %\end{aligned}$$ measurement data collected after $\frac{3}{2} \log\left(\frac{24}{\epsilon}\right)$ steps can be considered as data measured on the state $\rho_{\pi}$. There is however one disadvantage in the above reasoning. One has to be aware of the fact that after the measurement the state is $|b_{j_i}\rangle$, therefore the next measurement is not performed on $\rho_{\pi}$. However, the knowledge of the triple state that is plugged into the next measuring device is conditioned on the knowledge of the previous measurement outcome. In the end, the averaging procedure that is applied to evaluate (\[Inequality\]) effectively reduces the post-measurement state to $\rho_{\pi}$. Note, that in a sense this problem is also present in the standard scenarios in which an ensemble is represented by a mixed state $\sum_i p_i |\psi_i\rangle\langle \psi_i|$. The only difference is that in our case the knowledge of an exact preparation is known to the experimenter, whereas in the ensemble case this knowledge is encoded on some other inaccessible system. Therefore, the above interpretation relies on the assumption that this difference is irrelevant. In addition, in the standard ensemble scenario one can try to solve this problem by preparing a larger ensemble of entangled systems $\sum_i \sqrt{p_i} |\phi_i\rangle|\psi_i\rangle$. In this case one can use Bell-type arguments that the knowledge of the sub-ensemble preparation simply does not exist prior to a measurement on an auxiliary system. *Errors.* While performing a sequence of measurements, we cannot ignore errors which are created by fluctuations of control parameters [@Szangolies2013]. These errors will lead to a detection of more than four outcomes and hence the inequality (\[Inequality\]) is no longer maximally violated [@Guhne2014]. The errors occur because of a lack of control and in particular if measurement device settings fluctuate one cannot determine the post-measurement state with a perfect accuracy. In our error model we assume that errors come from an imperfect alignment of measuring devices. Each triple of measuring devices is perfectly aligned with a probability $p$ and completely out of control with a probability $1-p$. Therefore, the four outcomes corresponding to the triple states are detected with the probability $p$ and the remaining four outcomes, to which we refer as *error states*, are detected with the probability $1-p$. From the point of view of the Markov chain describing the imperfect scenario, the probability space is now 48-dimensional. To calculate a new transition matrix we assume that each error state is represented by the maximally mixed state $\frac{\openone}{4}$. Note that even if in some measurement round an error state is detected, in the next round one can still detect a triple state with the probability $p$. Therefore, the state-recycling scheme is self-correcting. The new transition matrix can be schematically represented in the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{MatrixT} % T_{err}= % \begin{pmatrix} % \begin{array}{c|c} T_1 & T_2 \\ \hline T_3 & T_4 \end{array} % \end{pmatrix}, %\end{aligned}$$ where $T_1 = p T$ is the previous matrix (\[MatrixA\]) multiplied by $p$. The other parts of the above matrix (\[MatrixT\]) refer to transitions to, from and between the error states. They read $T_2 = \frac{ p }{24} \openone_{24 \times 24}$ and $T_3 = T_4 = \frac{ 1 - p }{24} \openone_{24 \times 24}$, where $\openone_{n \times n}$ is the $n \times n$ matrix with all elements equal to one. In brief, the matrix $T_2$ describes the transitions from the error states to the triple states. The opposite process is encoded by $T_3$. Finally, $T_4$ describes transitions between the error states. Note that $T_{err}$ is stochastic as its columns sum up to 1. The stationary distribution of $T_{err}$ corresponds to its eigenvector with the eigenvalue 1 and is $\pi = \left( \frac{p}{24}, \ldots, \frac{p}{24}, \frac{1-p}{24}, \ldots , \frac{1-p}{24} \right)$, where the first 24 entries correspond to the triple states and the last 24 to the error states. It means that after sufficiently many steps all triple states are equally probable to be detected. This is also true for the error states. Moreover, the probability of the triple state detection is the same as the probability $p$ of the perfect setup alignment. In the presence of noise the violation of the inequality (\[Inequality\]) is not maximal. If we assume that the data is collected after the stationary state is obtained, the influence of noise can be easily calculated. Since the triple states appear with the probability $p$ and the error states with the probability $1-p$, one has $\langle A_i A_j A_k \rangle = 2p -1$ ($1-2p$ in the case of $\langle A_7 A_8 A_9 \rangle$). As a result, the inequality (\[Inequality\]) reads $$\begin{aligned} % 12p - 6 \le 4. %\end{aligned}$$ It leads to the conclusion that the accuracy of the measurement setup has to be greater than $p > 5/6 \approx 0.83$ to see the violation. *Discussion.* Despite the advantage of using a single copy of a system, the state-recycling scheme can be vulnerable to a memory loophole. Apart from the loophole already discussed in Ref. [@Kleinmann2011], it might be possible that the system stores information about the measurement triples measured in the past allowing for some contextual hidden variable model. This model can take advantage of this data to mimic the contextual behaviour. One can reasonably assume that in scenarios in which every measurement round is performed on a different system drawn from an ensemble such a possibility is highly unlikely since the stored information would have to be communicated from one system to the other. However, in the state-recycling scheme every measurement is performed on a single system, therefore the contextual hidden variable model would not need additional communication. Although we do not construct any such model, we argue that its existence would require additional resources [@Kleinmann2011]. In the state-recycling scheme one tests a quantum system on which only two bits of classical information can be efficiently stored. On the other hand, to store information about which triple was measured one requires an additional $\log_2 6$ bits of an auxiliary memory per triple. Therefore, in order to simulate contextuality on a classical system one would require a system capable of storing more data than the original quantum system. One has to be aware that the problem of hidden variables in contextuality tests is slightly different from the one in Bell tests. In the case of Bell tests there exists a strong physical argument against the possibility of local realistic description (assuming the free will of observers). In order to reproduce the results of the Bell test on classical systems one would require superluminal communication, which is forbidden by the special relativity theory. On the other hand, in the case of contextuality there are no strong physical arguments against contextual hidden variables. The arguments against them are of practical nature, i.e., a simulation of contextuality on classical systems would be inefficient from the point of view of resources [@Kleinmann2011]. Following Occam – it is more efficient to describe contextuality as a nonclassical effect. Finally, we would like to stress that our motivation is not to propose a test of contextuality that is more robust against loopholes. We propose a test whose implementation is fundamentally different and requires less experimental preparation. *Acknowledgements*. We acknowledge discussions with Adan Cabello. This work is supported by the National Research Foundation and Ministry of Education in Singapore. S.Y.L., P.K. and D.K. are also supported by the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi). Appendix ======== Transition matrix ----------------- Here we give an explicit form of the transition matrix governing the state-recycling scheme $$\begin{aligned} % T= % \begin{pmatrix} % \begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccccccc} \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 \\ \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} \\ \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 & 0 \\ \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} & 0 \\ \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & 0 & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{1}{24} & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1}{6} \\ \end{array} % \end{pmatrix} %\end{aligned}$$ It is symmetric and one can verify that the eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue 1, the stationary state, is of the form $$\begin{aligned} \pi=\frac{1}{24}(1,1,\dots,1).\end{aligned}$$ The remaining eigenvalues are $\frac{1}{3}$ (9 eigenvalues) and $0$ (14 eigenvalues). Mixing time ----------- Next, we calculate the expected number of steps to achieve the stationary distribution $\pi$ (we follow Ref. [@Levin2008]). First, we need to define a distance between two probability distributions $\mu$ and $\nu$ on a finite set $\Omega$ $$\begin{aligned} % ||\mu - \nu|| = \max_{A \subset \Omega} |\mu (A) - \nu (A)|. %\end{aligned}$$ In our case $\Omega = \left\{ |b_{j_i} \rangle \right\}$. Next, we define a quantity which tells us how far from stationary probability we are in the $t$-th step $$\begin{aligned} % d(t) = \max_q || {\bf p}(t)_q - \pi_q ||, %\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ denotes the $q$-th coordinate of a probability vector. Then the mixing time, i. e., time $t$ needed for $\vec{p}(t)$ to be approximated by $\pi$, is given by $$\begin{aligned} % t_{\mathrm{mix}} ( \epsilon ) = \min \left\{ t : d(t) \le \epsilon \right\},% \ \ \text{and} \ \ %\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ denotes the accuracy of the approximation. For the above Markov chain the following inequality holds $$\begin{aligned} \label{UpperBound} % t_{\mathrm{mix}} ( \epsilon ) \le \log \left( \frac{ 1 }{ \epsilon \pi_{\mathrm{min}} } \right) \frac{1}{1 - \lambda_{*}}, %\end{aligned}$$ where $\pi_{\mathrm{min}} = \min_{q} \pi_q$ and $\lambda_{*} < 1$ is the second greatest eigenvalue of $T$. Since $\lambda_{*}=\frac{1}{3}$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{mime} % t_{\mathrm{mix}} ( \epsilon ) \le \frac{3}{2} \log \left( \frac{ 24 }{ \epsilon } \right). %\end{aligned}$$ Expected number of measurements to detect all triple states ----------------------------------------------------------- We use the solution of *coupon collector’s* problem to calculate the average number of times we need to keep repeating the measurement procedure to detect all $n=24$ possible triple states. Originally, the coupon collector’s problem concerns how many times on average one needs to draw a coupon with replacement from some larger ensemble to collect all different coupons. There are many different generalisations of this problem, e.g. to the scenarios of non-uniformly distributed probabilities of finding each coupon or collectors not necessarily looking for all possible coupons [@Flajolet1992]. Here we consider a general case of the state-recycling protocol in which errors can occur. We can formulate our problem of finding all possible triple states of the system in the state-recycling scenario as collecting coupons with almost-uniform probability distribution, meaning that an extra coupon, which does not belong to the collection (error state), might be drawn with probability $p_0$ and the probability of a coupon from collection (triple state) of size $n$ is $p_i = \frac{1 - p_0}{n} $, $i = 1, 2, \ldots, 24$. Thus, we treat all $24$ error states as one undesired coupon of probability $p_0 = 24 \times \frac{1-p}{24}$, where $p$ is the probability that the measurement setup is perfectly aligned. Let $T_n$ be a random variable describing a number of collected coupons until elements of every type are found for the first time. Then for $n$ coupons with almost-uniform probability distribution and one extra element the average value of $T_n$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} % \mathbb{E} \left( T_n \right) = \frac{ n }{ 1 - p_0 } \sum_{ i = 1}^{ n } \frac{ 1 }{ i } %\end{aligned}$$ We recalled this result from [@Anceaume2014], where far more general case was considered. For perfect measurements $p_0=0$ we get $T_n \approx 90.6$.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this article, we prove that if the group Fourier transform of a certain finitely supported function on the Heisenberg motion group is of arbitrary finite rank, then the function must be zero. We also prove an analogous result on the quaternion Heisenberg group. In the end, we discuss the concept of strong annihilating pair for the Weyl transform.' address: 'Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India 781039.' author: - 'Somnath Ghosh and R.K. Srivastava' title: 'Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem for the Heisenberg motion group and quaternion Heisenberg group' --- Introduction {#section1} ============ In an interesting article [@B] Benedicks’ proved that if $f\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^n),$ then both the sets $\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n:f(x)\neq0\}$ and $\{\xi\in \mathbb{R}^n:\hat{f}(\xi)\neq0\}$ cannot have finite Lebesgue measure, unless $f=0.$ Concurrently, in the article [@AB], Amrein-Berthier reached the same conclusion via the Hilbert space theory. The aforesaid fundamental result got further attention in general Lie groups. Let $G$ be a locally compact group and $\hat{m}$ denotes the Plancherel measure on the unitary dual group $\hat{G}.$ Then $G$ is said to satisfy qualitative uncertainty principle (QUP) if for each $f \in L^2(G)$ with $m\{x\in G: f(x)\neq 0\}<m(G)$ and $$\label{exp79} \int_{\hat{G}}\text{rank}\hat f(\lambda)\,d\hat{m}(\lambda)<\infty$$ implies $f=0.$ In [@H], QUP was proved for the unimodular groups of type I. A brief survey of QUP is presented in [@FS]. In the case of the Heisenberg group, the condition (\[exp79\]) of QUP implies $\hat f$ should be supported on a set of finite Plancherel measure together with $\text{rank}\hat f(\lambda)$ is finite for almost all $\lambda.$ In [@NR], Narayanan and Ratnakumar proved that if $f\in L^1(\mathbb{H}^n)$ is supported on $B\times \mathbb{R}$, where $B$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$, and $\hat{f}(\lambda)$ has finite rank for each $\lambda,$ then $f=0.$ Thereafter, Vemuri [@V] replaced the compact support condition on the set $B$ by finite measure. In [@CGS] authors consider $B$ as a rectangle in $\mathbb R^{2n}$ while proving an analogous result on step two nilpotent Lie groups and a version of this result, with a strong assumption on rank, derived therein for the Heisenberg motion group. Later in the article [@GS], this result is extended to arbitrary set $B$ of finite measure for general step two nilpotent Lie groups. We prove the result on the Heisenberg motion group and quaternion Heisenberg group when $B$ is an arbitrary set of finite measure using the Hilbert space theory. However, specifying the appropriate set of projections in the setups of Heisenberg motion group and quaternion Heisenberg group was a major bottleneck. This result, as of now, is the most general analogue of Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem in these set ups. Finally, we define a strong annihilating pair for the Weyl transform and present some comparison with the above result. Heisenberg motion group ======================= The Heisenberg group $\mathbb H^n=\mathbb C^n\times\mathbb R$ is a step two nilpotent Lie group having center $\mathbb R$ that equipped with the group law $$(z,t)\cdot(w,s)=\left(z+w,t+s+\frac{1}{2}\text{Im}(z\cdot\bar w)\right).$$ By Stone-von Neumann theorem, the infinite dimensional irreducible unitary representations of $\mathbb H^n$ can be parameterized by $\mathbb R^\ast=\mathbb R\smallsetminus\{0\}.$ That is, each $\lambda\in\mathbb R^\ast$ defines a Schrödinger representation $\pi_\lambda$ of $\mathbb H^n$ via $$\pi_\lambda(z,t)\varphi(\xi)=e^{i\lambda t}e^{i\lambda(x\cdot\xi+\frac{1}{2}x\cdot y)}\varphi(\xi+y),$$ where $z=x+iy$ and $\varphi\in L^2(\mathbb{R}^n).$ Having chosen sublaplacian $\mathcal L$ of the Heisenberg group $\mathbb H^n$ and its geometry, there is a larger group of isometries that commute with $\mathcal L$, known as Heisenberg motion group. The Heisenberg motion group $G$ is the semidirect product of $\mathbb H^n$ with the unitary group $K=U(n).$ Since $K$ defines a group of automorphisms on $\mathbb H^n,$ via $k\cdot(z,t)=(kz,t),$ the group law on $G$ can be expressed as $$(z,t,k_1)\cdot(w,s,k_2)=\left(z+k_1w, t+s-\frac{1}{2}\text{Im} (k_1w\cdot\bar z),k_1k_2\right).$$ Since a right $K$-invariant function on $G$ can be thought as a function on $\mathbb H^n,$ the Haar measure on $G$ is given by $dg=dzdtdk,$ where $dzdt$ and $dk$ are the normalized Haar measure on $\mathbb H^n$ and $K$ respectively. For $k\in K$ define another set of representations of the Heisenberg group $\mathbb H^n$ by $\pi_{\lambda,k}(z,t)=\pi_\lambda(kz,t).$ Since $\pi_{\lambda,k}$ agrees with $\pi_\lambda$ on the center of $\mathbb H^n,$ it follows by Stone-Von Neumann theorem for the Schrödinger representation that $\pi_{\lambda,k}$ is equivalent to $\pi_\lambda.$ Hence there exists an intertwining operator $\mu_\lambda(k)$ satisfying $$\pi_\lambda(kz,t)=\mu_\lambda(k)\pi_\lambda(z,t)\mu_\lambda(k)^\ast.$$ Then $\mu_\lambda$ can be thought of as a unitary representation of $K$ on $L^2(\mathbb R^n),$ called metaplectic representation. For details, we refer to [@BJR]. Let $(\sigma,\mathcal H_\sigma)$ be an irreducible unitary representation of $K$ and $\mathcal H_\sigma=\text{span}\{e_j^\sigma:1\leq j\leq d_\sigma\}.$ For $k\in K,$ the matrix coefficients of the representation $\sigma\in\hat K$ are given by $$\varphi_{ij}^\sigma(k)=\langle\sigma(k)e_j^\sigma, e_i^\sigma\rangle,$$ where $i, j=1,\ldots, d_\sigma.$ Let $\phi_\alpha^\lambda(x)=|\lambda|^{\frac{n}{4}}\phi_\alpha(\sqrt{|\lambda|}x);~\alpha\in\mathbb Z_+^n,$ where $\phi_\alpha$’s are the Hermite functions on $\mathbb R^n.$ Since for each $\lambda\in\mathbb R^\ast,$ the set $\{\phi_\alpha^\lambda : \alpha\in\mathbb N^n \}$ forms an orthonormal basis for $L^2(\mathbb R^n),$ letting $P_m^\lambda=\text{span}\{\phi_\alpha^\lambda:~ |\alpha|=m\},$ $\mu_\lambda$ becomes an irreducible unitary representation of $K$ on $P_m^\lambda.$ Hence, the action of $\mu_\lambda$ can be realized on $P_m^\lambda$ by $$\label{exp50} \mu_\lambda(k)\phi_\gamma^\lambda=\sum_{|\alpha|=|\gamma|}\eta_{\alpha\gamma}^\lambda(k)\phi_\alpha^\lambda,$$ where $\eta_{\alpha\gamma}^\lambda$’s are the matrix coefficients of $\mu_\lambda(k).$ Define a bilinear form $\phi_{\alpha}^\lambda\otimes e_j^\sigma$ on $L^2(\mathbb R^n)\times\mathcal H_\sigma$ by $\phi_{\alpha}^\lambda\otimes e_j^\sigma=\phi_{\alpha}^\lambda e_j^\sigma.$ Then $\{\phi_{\alpha}^\lambda\otimes e_j^\sigma: \alpha\in\mathbb N^n,1\leq j\leq d_\sigma\}$ forms an orthonormal basis for $L^2(\mathbb R^n)\otimes\mathcal{H}_\sigma.$ Denote $\mathcal H_\sigma^2=L^2(\mathbb R^n)\otimes\mathcal{H}_\sigma.$ Define a representation $\rho_\sigma^\lambda$ of $G$ on the space $\mathcal H_\sigma^2$ by $$\rho_\sigma^\lambda(z,t,k)=\pi_\lambda(z,t)\mu_\lambda(k)\otimes\sigma(k).$$ In the article [@S], it is shown that $\rho_\sigma^\lambda$ are all possible irreducible unitary representations of $G$ those participate in the Plancherel formula. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we shall denote the partial dual of the group $G$ by $ G'\cong\mathbb R^\ast\times\hat K.$ The Fourier transform of $f\in L^1(G)$ defined by $$\hat f(\lambda,\sigma) =\int_K\int_\mathbb{R}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} f(z,t,k)\rho_\sigma^\lambda(z,t,k)dzdtdk,$$ is a bounded linear operator on $\mathcal H_\sigma^2.$ As the Plancherel formula [@S] $$\int_K\int_{\mathbb{H}^n} |f(z,t,k)|^2 dzdtdk=(2\pi)^{-n}\sum_{\sigma\in\hat K}d_\sigma \int_{\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}}\|\hat f(\lambda,\sigma)\|^2_{HS}|\lambda|^nd\lambda$$ holds for $f\in L^2(G),$ it follows that $\hat f(\lambda,\sigma)$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator on $\mathcal H_\sigma^2.$ In order to prove our main result on the Heisenberg motion group $G,$ it is enough to consider a similar proposition for the Weyl transform on $G^\times=\mathbb C^n\times K.$ For that, we require to set some preliminaries about the Weyl transform on $G^\times.$ Let $f^\lambda$ be the inverse Fourier transform of the function $f$ in the $t$ variable defined by $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp57} f^\lambda(z,k)=\int_{\mathbb R}f(z,t, k)e^{i\lambda t}dt.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\hat f(\lambda,\sigma)=\int_K\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} f^\lambda(z,k)\rho_\sigma^\lambda(z,k)dzdk,$$ where $\rho_\sigma^\lambda(z,k)=\rho_\sigma^\lambda(z,0,k).$ For $(\lambda, \sigma)\in G',$ define the Weyl transform $W_\sigma^\lambda$ on $L^1(G^\times)$ by $$W_\sigma^\lambda(g)=\int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n}g(z,k)\rho_\sigma^\lambda(z,k)dzdk.$$ Then $\hat{f}(\lambda,\sigma)=W_{\sigma}^\lambda (f^\lambda),$ and hence $W_\sigma^\lambda(g)$ is a bounded operator if $g\in L^1(G^\times).$ On the other hand, if $g\in L^2(G^\times)$ then $W_\sigma^\lambda(g)$ becomes a Hilbert-Schmidt operator satisfying the Plancherel formula $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp51} \int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n}|g(z,k)|^2dzdk =(2\pi)^{-n}|\lambda|^n\sum_{\sigma\in\hat K} d_\sigma\left|\left|W_\sigma^\lambda(g)\right|\right|_{HS}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we prove the inversion formula for the Weyl transform $W_{\sigma}^\lambda$ which is a key ingredient while proving our main result. For this, we need the fact that $$\label{exp52} \rho_{\sigma}^\lambda(z,k_1)\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda (w,k_2)=e^{-\frac{i\lambda}{2} \text{Im} (k_1 w.\bar{z})} \rho_{\sigma}^\lambda (z+k_1 w ,k_1k_2),$$ where $(z,k),( w ,s)\in G^\times.$ $(\textbf{Inversion formula})$\[th50\] Let $g\in L^1\cap L^2(G^\times).$ Then $$\label{exp55} g(z,k)=(2\pi)^{-n}\sum\limits_{\sigma\in \hat{K}}d_\sigma \text{tr} (W_{\sigma}^\lambda(g)(\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda)^*(z,k)),$$ where the series converges in $L^2$- sense. For $(z,k_1)\in G^\times,$ we have $$\begin{aligned} W_{\sigma}^\lambda(g)(\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda)^*(z,k_1)&=\int_{G^\times} g(w,k_2)\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda(w,k_2) \rho_{\sigma}^\lambda(-k_1^{-1}z,k_1^{-1}) dw dk_2 \\ &=\int_{G^\times} g(w,k_2)e^{\frac{i\lambda}{2} \text{Im} (k_2k_1^{-1}z.\bar{w})} \rho_{\sigma}^\lambda (w-k_2k_1^{-1}z,k_2k_1^{-1}) dw dk_2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\text{tr}\left(W_{\sigma}^\lambda(g)(\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda)^*(z,k_1)\right)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned} \sum\limits_{\substack {\gamma\in \mathbb{N}^n\\ 1\leq j\leq d_{\sigma}}} \int_{G^\times} g(w,k_2)e^{\frac{i\lambda}{2} \text{Im} (k_2k_1^{-1}z.\bar{w})} \left\langle \rho_{\sigma}^\lambda(w-k_2k_1^{-1}z,k_2k_1^{-1}) (\phi_\gamma^\lambda \otimes e_j^\sigma),\phi_\gamma^\lambda \otimes e_j^\sigma \right\rangle d w ds.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[exp50\]), the above expression takes the form $$\begin{aligned} \sum\limits_{\substack{\gamma\in\mathbb{N}^n\\1\leq j\leq d_{\sigma}}}\sum_{|\alpha|=|\gamma|}\int_{K} \eta_{\gamma \alpha}^\lambda(k_2k_1^{-1}) \int_{\mathbb{C}^n}g(w,k_2)e^{\frac{i\lambda}{2} \text{Im} (k_2k_1^{-1}z.\bar{w})} \phi_{\alpha\gamma}^\lambda(w-k_2k_1^{-1}z)\varphi_{jj}^\sigma(k_2k_1^{-1})dw dk_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_{\alpha\gamma}^\lambda(x)=\langle\pi_\lambda(x)\phi_\alpha^\lambda,\phi_\gamma^\lambda\rangle.$ Then by the Peter-Weyl theorem for the compact groups, we derive that $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp53} \sum\limits_{\sigma\in \hat{K}}d_\sigma \text{tr}(W_{\sigma}^\lambda(g)(\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda)^*(z,k_1)) &=\sum\limits_{\gamma\in \mathbb{N}^n} \sum_{|\alpha|=|\gamma|} \eta_{\gamma \alpha}^\lambda(I) \int_{\mathbb{C}^n}g(w,k_1)e^{\frac{i\lambda}{2} \text{Im} (z.\bar{w})} \phi_{\alpha\gamma}^\lambda(w-z)dw \nonumber \\ &=\sum\limits_{\gamma\in \mathbb{N}^n}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} g(w,k_1)e^{\frac{i\lambda}{2} \text{Im} (z.\bar{w})}\phi_{\gamma \gamma}^\lambda(w-z)dw, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $I$ is the identity element in $K.$ Thus in view of the inversion formula for the Weyl transform on the Heisenberg group, we infer that $$\begin{aligned} \sum\limits_{\sigma\in \hat{K}}d_\sigma \text{tr}(W_{\sigma}^\lambda(g)(\rho_{\sigma}^\lambda)^*(z,k_1)) =(2\pi)^ng(z,k_1).\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we assume $\lambda=1$ and denote $W_{\sigma}=W_{\sigma}^{1}.$ Define the Fourier-Wigner transform $V_\zeta^\eta$ of the functions $\zeta,\eta\in \mathcal{H}_\sigma^2$ on $G^\times$ by $$V_\zeta^\eta(z,k)=\left\langle\rho_\sigma(z,k)\zeta,\eta\right\rangle.$$ The following orthogonality relation is derived in [@CGS]. A version of this result also appeared in [@S]. \[lemma50\] For $\zeta_l, \eta_l\in \mathcal{H}_\sigma^2,~l=1,2,$ the following orthogonality relation holds true. $$\int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n}V_{\zeta_1}^{\eta_1}(z,k)\overline{V_{\zeta_2}^{\eta_2}(z,k)}dzdk= (2\pi)^n\left\langle \zeta_1,\zeta_2 \right\rangle\overline{\left\langle \eta_1,\eta_2 \right\rangle}.$$ In particular, $V_\zeta^\eta\in L^2(G^\times).$ Let $V_\sigma=\overline{\text{span}} \{V_\zeta^\eta:\zeta,\eta\in \mathcal{H}_\sigma^2\}$ and set $\Psi_{\alpha,j}^\sigma=\phi_{\alpha}\otimes e_j^\sigma.$ Since $B_\sigma=\{\Psi_{\alpha,j}^\sigma~:\alpha\in\mathbb N^n, 1\leq j \leq d_\sigma\}$ forms an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}_\sigma^2,$ by Lemma \[lemma50\], we infer that $$V_{B_\sigma}=\left\{V_{\Psi_{\alpha_1,j_1}^\sigma}^{\Psi_{\alpha_2,j_2}^\sigma}:~ \Psi_{\alpha_1,j_1}^\sigma,\Psi_{\alpha_2,j_2}^\sigma\in B_\sigma\right\}$$ is an orthonormal basis for $V_\sigma.$ Next, we recall the Peter-Weyl theorem, which as a corollary, gives Proposition \[prop51\]. [@Su]\[th Peter-Weyl\] *[(Peter-Weyl).]{} Let $\hat K$ be the unitary dual of the compact group $K.$ Then $\{\sqrt{d_\sigma}\phi_{ij}^\sigma:1\leq i,j\leq d_\sigma, \sigma\in\hat K\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $L^2(K).$* \[prop51\] The set $\bigcup\limits_{\sigma\in\hat K}V_{B_\sigma}$ is an orthonormal basis for $L^2(G^\times).$ Moreover, $V_{B_\sigma}$ is an orthonormal basis for $V_{\sigma},$ and hence by Proposition \[prop51\], we infer that $L^2(G^\times)=\bigoplus\limits_{\sigma\in\hat K}V_{\sigma}.$ For convenience, throughout this section, we shall assume $A$ is a Lebesgue measurable subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$ with finite measure. Next, we define a set of orthogonal projection operators which is core in formulating a problem analogous to the Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem. Let $\mathcal B_{\sigma}^N$ be an $N$ dimensional subspace of $\mathcal{H}_\sigma^2.$ Then there exists an orthonormal basis $\{\psi_l^\sigma :l\in \mathbb{N}\}$ of $\mathcal{H}_\sigma^2$ such that $\mathcal B_\sigma^N=\left\{\psi_l^{\sigma}: 1\leq l\leq N \right\}.$ For $\sigma_{o}\in \hat{K},$ define an orthogonal projection $P_N$ of $\mathcal{H}_{\sigma_{o}}^2$ onto $\mathcal{R}(P_N)=\mathcal B_{\sigma_o}^N.$ Further, we define a pair of orthogonal projections $E_A$ and $F_N$ of $L^2(G^\times)$ by $$E_A g =\chi_{A\times K}~g \quad \mbox{and} \quad W_{\sigma}(F_N g)=\begin{cases} P_N W_{\sigma_o}(g) &\text{if }\sigma=\sigma_o,\\ 0 &\text{otherwise,} \end{cases}$$ where $\chi_{A\times K}$ denotes the characteristic function of $A\times K.$ Then it is easy to see that $\mathcal{R}(E_A)=\{g\in L^2(G^\times): g = g~\chi_{A\times K}\}$ and $$\mathcal{R}(F_N) =\{g\in L^2(G^\times):\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma_o}(g))\subseteq\mathcal B_{\sigma_o}^N \text{ and }\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma}(g)) =0,\,\sigma(\neq\sigma_o)\in \hat{K}\}.$$ Now, we derive a key lemma that enables us to recognize $E_AF_N$ as an integral operator. \[lemma51\] $E_AF_N$ is an integral operator on $L^2(G^\times).$ Let $g\in L^2(G^\times)$. By inversion formula (\[exp55\]) we get $$\begin{aligned} (F_Ng)(z,k_1)&=a_{\sigma_o}\text{tr}(\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1) W_{\sigma_o}(F_Ng))\\ &=a_{\sigma_o}\text{tr}(P_NW_{\sigma_o}(g)\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1))\\ &=a_{\sigma_o}\int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} g( w ,k_2) tr \left(P_N \rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2) \rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\right)d w dk_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{\sigma_o}=(2\pi)^{-n}d_{\sigma_o}.$ Hence $$\begin{aligned} (E_AF_Ng)(z,k_1)&=a_{\sigma_o}\chi_{A\times K}(z,k_1)(F_Ng)(z,k_1) \\ &=a_{\sigma_o}\chi_{A\times K}(z,k_1)\int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} g( w ,k_2) \text{tr} \left(P_N \rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2)\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\right)d w dk_2\\ &=a_{\sigma_o}\int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} g( w ,k_2)\mathcal{K}((z,k_1),( w ,k_2))d w dk_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $ \mathcal{K}\left((z,k_1),( w ,k_2)\right)=a_{\sigma_o}\chi_{A\times K}(z,k_1) \text{tr} \left(P_N \rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2)\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\right).$ Further, the integral operator $E_AF_N$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and satisfies the following dimension condition. \[lemma52\] $E_AF_N$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator with $\|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2=c_{\sigma_o}m(A)N$, where $c_{\sigma_o}=(2\pi)^n m(K)a_{\sigma_o}^2.$ From Lemma \[lemma51\] it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2 &= \int_{G^\times}\int_{G^\times}|\mathcal{K}((z,k_1),( w ,k_2))|^2 d w dk_2 dz dk_1 \\ &=a_{\sigma_o}^2 \int_{G^\times}|\chi_{A\times K}(z,k_1)|^2\int_{G^\times}|\text{tr}\left(P_N \rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2)\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\right)|^2 d w dk_2dzdk_1.\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{G^\times}|\text{tr} \left(P_N \rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2)\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\right)|^2 d w dk_2\\ =&\int_{G^\times}\Big|\sum\limits_{1\leq l\leq N} \langle\rho_{\sigma_o} ( w ,k_2)\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1) \psi_l^{\sigma_o},\psi_l^{\sigma_o}\rangle \Big|^2 d w dk_2 \\ =&\int_{G^\times}\Big|\sum\limits_{1\leq l\leq N} \langle\rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2) \eta_l^{\sigma_o},\psi_l^{\sigma_o}\rangle \Big|^2 d w dk_2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_l^{\sigma_o}=\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\psi_l^{\sigma_o}\in \mathcal{H}_{\sigma_o}^2.$ Since, $$\langle\eta_{l_1}^{\sigma_o},\eta_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}\rangle=\langle\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1) \psi_{l_1}^{\sigma_o},\rho_{\sigma_o}^*(z,k_1)\psi_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}\rangle=\langle \psi_{l_1}^{\sigma_o},\psi_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}\rangle=\delta_{l_1l_2},$$ the above integral becomes $$\begin{aligned} &\int_{G^\times}\Big| \sum\limits_{1\leq l\leq N} \langle\rho_{\sigma_o}( w ,k_2) \eta_l^{\sigma_o},\psi_l^{\sigma_o}\rangle \Big|^2 d w dk_2 =\int_{G^\times}\Big| \sum\limits_{1\leq l\leq N} V_{\eta_l^{\sigma_o}}^{\psi_l^{\sigma_o}}( w ,k_2)\Big|^2 d w dk_2 \\ =&\sum\limits_{1\leq l_1,l_2\leq N}\int_{G^\times} V_{\eta_{l_1}^{\sigma_o}}^{\psi_{l_1}^{\sigma_o}}( w ,k_2) \overline{V_{\eta_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}}^{\psi_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}}( w ,k_2)}d w dk_2\\ =&(2\pi)^n \sum\limits_{1\leq l_1,l_2\leq N}\langle\eta_{l_1}^{\sigma_o},\eta_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}\rangle \overline{\langle\psi_{l_1}^{\sigma_o},\psi_{l_2}^{\sigma_o}\rangle} =(2\pi)^nN.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2 = a_{\sigma_o}^2m(A)m(K)(2\pi)^n N.$ We need the following result that describes an interesting property of Lebesgue measurable sets [@AB]. Denote $ w A=\{z\in \mathbb{C}^n:z- w \in A\}.$ [@AB]\[lemma53\] Let $B$ be a measurable set in $\mathbb{C}^n$ with $0<m(B)<\infty.$ If $B_0$ is a measurable subset of $B$ with $m(B_0)>0,$ then for each $\epsilon>0$ there exists $ w \in \mathbb C^n$ such that $$m(B)<m(B\cup w B_0)<m(B)+\epsilon.$$ We also need the following basic fact about the orthogonal projection, which help in deciding the disjointness of the projections $E_A$ and $F_N$ while $m(A)<\infty.$ For given orthogonal projections $E$ and $F$ of a Hilbert space $\mathcal H,$ let $E\cap F$ denote the orthogonal projection of $\mathcal H$ onto $\mathcal{R}(E)\cap \mathcal{R}(F).$ Then $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp74} \| E\cap F \|_{HS}^2=\dim\mathcal{R}( E\cap F)\leq \| EF \|_{HS}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Let $F_{N}^{\perp}=I-F_N,$ and $A'$ be the complement of $A.$ \[prop52\] Let $A$ be a measurable subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$ of finite Lebesgue measure. Then the projection $E_A\cap F_N=0$. Assume towards a contradiction that there exists a non-zero function $g_0$ in $\mathcal{R}( E_A\cap F_N)$. Then $\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma_o}(g))\subseteq\mathcal B_{\sigma_o}^N$ and $\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma}(g))=0$ for $\sigma(\neq \sigma_o)\in \hat{K}$. Consider $A_0=\{z\in A: g_0(z,k)\neq 0 \text{ for some }k \in K \}$. Then $0<m(A_0)<\infty$. Choose $s\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $s>2c_{\sigma_o}m(A_0)N.$ Now, we construct an increasing sequence of sets $\{A_l:l=1,\ldots,s\}.$ Using Lemma \[lemma53\] with $\epsilon=\frac{1}{2c_{\sigma_o}N}$, $B_0=A_0$ and $B=A_{l-1},$ there exists $ w _l\in \mathbb{C}^n$ such that $$m(A_{l-1})<m(A_{l-1}\cup w _lA_0)<m(A_{l-1})+\frac{1}{2c_{\sigma_o}N}.$$ Denote $A_l=A_{l-1}\cup w _lA_0$. Then from (\[exp74\]), we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp56} \dim\mathcal{R}( E_{A_s}\cap F_N) \leq c_{\sigma_o}m(A_s)N < \left\{m(A_0)+\frac{s}{2c_{\sigma_o}N} \right\}c_{\sigma_o}N<s.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we construct $s+1$ linearly independent functions in the space $\mathcal{R}( E_{A_s}\cap F_N),$ after verifying $\mathcal{R}(F_N)$ is a twisted translation invariant space. Let $g_l(z,k)=e^{\frac{i}{2}Im(z.\bar{ w _l})}g_0(z- w _l,k)$. Then for $\eta^{\sigma_o} \in \mathcal{H}_{\sigma_o}^2$ and $p>N,$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \langle W_{\sigma_o}(g_l)\eta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle &=\int_{G^\times} g_l(z,k) \langle \rho_{\sigma_o}(z,k)\eta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle dz dk \\ &=\int_{G^\times} e^{\frac{i}{2}Im(z.\bar{ w _l})} g_0(z- w _l,k) \langle \rho_{\sigma_o}(z,k)\eta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle dz dk \\ &=\int_{G^\times} e^{\frac{i}{2}Im(z.\bar{ w _l})} g_0(z,k) \langle \rho_{\sigma_o}(z+ w _l,k)\eta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle dz dk.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rho_{\sigma_o}(z,k)\rho_{\sigma_o}(k^{-1} w ,I)=e^{\frac{i}{2}Im(z.\bar{ w })} \rho_{\sigma_o}(z+ w ,k),$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \langle W_{\sigma_o}(g_l)\eta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle &=\int_{G^\times} g_0(z,k)\langle \rho_{\sigma_o}(z,k)\rho_{\sigma_o}(k^{-1} w _l,I)\eta^{\sigma_o}, \psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle dz dk \\ &=\int_{G^\times} g_0(z,k) \langle \rho_{\sigma_o}(z,k)\zeta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle dz dk \\ &=\langle W(g_0)\zeta^{\sigma_o},\psi_p^{\sigma_o}\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma_o}(g_l))\subseteq\mathcal B_{\sigma_o}^N.$ Similarly, it can be shown that $\mathcal{R} (W_{\sigma}(g_l))=0$ for $\sigma(\neq \sigma_o)\in \hat{K}.$ Since $A_m=A_0\cup w _1A_0 \cup\cdots\cup w _m A_0$ and $g_l=0$ on $(w_lA_0)'$, we have $E_{A_m}g_l=g_l$ for $l=0,1,\ldots,m$. Furthermore, $E_{A_m \setminus A_{m-1}}g_l=0$ for $l=0,\ldots,m-1$ and $E_{A_m \setminus A_{m-1}}g_m\neq 0$. Therefore, it shows that $g_m$ is not a linear combination of $g_0,\ldots,g_{m-1}$. Hence, $g_0,\ldots,g_s$ are $s+1$ linearly independent functions in $\mathcal{R}( E_{A_s}\cap F_N)$ that contradicts (\[exp56\]). This completes the proof. Now, we prove Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem for the Weyl transform $W_\sigma.$ For this, we recall the following fact. Let $g\in L^2(G^\times).$ By Proposition \[prop51\] we get $g=\bigoplus\limits_{\sigma\in\hat K}g_\sigma.$ \[prop50\] Let $g\in L^2(G^\times)$ and $\{(z,k)\in G^\times:g_\sigma(z,k)\neq0\}\subseteq A_\sigma \times K,$ where $m(A_\sigma)<\infty,$ whenever $\sigma \in \hat{K}.$ If $W_{\sigma}(g)$ is a finite rank operator for each $\sigma,$ then $g=0.$ For $\varphi, \psi\in\mathcal H_\sigma^2$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp54} \left\langle W_{\sigma}(g)\varphi,\psi\right\rangle &= \int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n} g(z,k) \left\langle\rho_\sigma(z,k)\varphi,\psi\right\rangle dzdk \nonumber\\ &= \int_{K}\int_{\mathbb{C}^n}{g_\sigma}(z,k)\left\langle\rho_\sigma(z,k)\varphi,\psi\right\rangle dzdk \nonumber\\ &=\left\langle W_{\sigma}(g_{\sigma})\varphi,\psi\right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma_o}(g_{\sigma_o}))=\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma_o}(g))$ be a finite dimensional subspace of $\mathcal H_{\sigma_o}^2$ and $\mathcal{R}(W_{\sigma}(g_{\sigma_o}))=0$ for $\sigma(\neq \sigma_o)\in \hat{K}$. Thus by Proposition \[prop52\] we get $g_{\sigma_o}=0.$ Since $\sigma_o \in \hat{K}$ is arbitrary, we infer that $g=0.$ As a consequence of Proposition \[prop50\], we obtained the following Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem for the Heisenberg motion group. If $f\in L^2(G),$ then from Proposition \[prop51\] we get $f^\lambda=\bigoplus\limits_{\sigma\in\hat K}f^\lambda_\sigma.$ \[th51\] Let $f\in L^2(G)$ be such that $\{(z,k)\in G^\times:f^\lambda_\sigma(z,k)\neq0\}\subseteq A_\sigma \times K,$ where $m(A_\sigma)<\infty$ for each $\sigma \in \hat{K}.$ If $\hat{f}(\lambda,\sigma)$ is a finite rank operator for each $(\lambda,\sigma) \in \mathbb{R}^* \times \hat{K},$ then $f=0.$ Quaternion Heisenberg group =========================== In this section, we prove an analogue of Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem for the quaternion Heisenberg group. For this, we describe notations and preliminary facts about the quaternion Heisenberg group. For more details, see [@CM; @CZ]. The quaternion Heisenberg group is step two nilpotent Lie group with centre $\mathbb R^3.$ Let $\mathbb{Q}$ be the set of all quaternions. For $q=q_0+iq_1+jq_2+kq_3 \in \mathbb{Q}$, the conjugate of $q$ is defined by $\bar{q}=q_0-iq_1-jq_2-kq_3.$ The inner product in $\mathbb{Q}$ is defined by $\langle q,\tilde{q}\rangle = \text{Re}(\bar{q}\tilde{q}).$ This leads to $|q|^2=\langle q,q\rangle=\sum\limits_{l=0}^3 q_l^2,$ and we get the relations $\overline{q\tilde{q}}=\bar{\tilde{q}}\bar{q}$ and $|q\tilde{q}|=|q\|\tilde{q}|.$ The set $\mathcal{Q}=\mathbb{Q}\times \mathbb{R}^3=\{(q,t):q\in \mathbb{Q}, t\in \mathbb{R}^3\}$ becomes a non-commutative group when equipped with the group law $$(q,t)(\tilde{q},\tilde{t})=(q+\tilde{q},t+\tilde{t}-2~\text{Im}(\bar{\tilde{q}}q)).$$ It is easy to see that the Lebesgue measure $dq dt$ on $\mathbb{Q}\times \mathbb{R}^3$ is the Haar measure on $\mathcal{Q}.$ For $1\leq p \leq \infty,$ $L^p(\mathcal{Q})$ denotes the usual $L^p$ space of all complex-valued functions on $\mathbb{Q}\times \mathbb{R}^3.$ Let $a\in \text{Im }\mathbb{Q}\smallsetminus \{0\}.$ Then $J_a:q\mapsto q\cdot\frac{a}{|a|}$ defines a complex structure on $\mathbb{Q}.$ Let $\mathcal{F}_a$ be the Fock space of all holomorphic functions $F$ with quaternion values on $(\mathbb{Q},J_a)$ such that $$\| F \|_2^2=\int_{\mathbb{Q}}|F(q)|^2 e^{-2|a\|q|^2}dq <\infty.$$ An irreducible unitary representation $\pi_a$ of $\mathcal{Q}$ realized on $\mathcal{F}_a$ is given by $$\pi_a(q,t) F(\tilde{q})=e^{i\langle a,t\rangle-|a|\left(|q|^2+2\langle \tilde{q},q\rangle -2i\langle \tilde{q}.\frac{a}{|a|},q\rangle\right)}F(\tilde{q}+q),$$ where $F\in \mathcal{F}_a.$ Up to unitary equivalence, $\pi_a$’s are all the infinite dimensional irreducible unitary representations of $\mathcal{Q}.$ For $f\in L^1(\mathcal{Q})$ the group Fourier transform can be expressed as $$\hat{f}(a)=\int_{\mathcal{Q}}f(q,t)\pi_a(q,t)dqdt.$$ For $f\in L^2(\mathcal{Q}),$ the following Plancheral formula holds. $$\label{exp80} \| f\|_2^2=\frac{1}{2\pi^5}\int_{\text{Im } \mathbb{Q}\setminus \{0\}}\|\hat{f}(a)\|_{\text{HS}}^2|a|^2da.$$ Let $$f^a(q)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}f(q,t)\pi_a(q,t)dt,$$ the inverse Fourier transform of $f$ in the $t$ variable. If we denote $\pi_a(q)=\pi_a(q,0),$ then the Weyl transform of $g\in L^1(\mathbb{Q})$ can be define by $$\begin{aligned} W_a(g)=\int_{\mathbb{Q}}g(q)\pi_a(q)dq.\end{aligned}$$ Hence it follows that $\hat{f}(a)=W_a(f^a).$ Further, $W_a(g)$ is a bounded operator if $g\in L^1(\mathbb{Q})$ and a Hilbert-Schmidt operator when $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}).$ In addition, when $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}),$ the Plancheral formula for the Weyl transform $W_a$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp70} \| W_a(g)\|_{\text{HS}}^2=\frac{\pi^2}{4|a|^2}\|g\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, inversion formula for the Weyl transform is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp71} g(q)=\frac{4|a|^2}{\pi^2}\text{tr}\left(\pi_a^*(q)W_a(g)\right).\end{aligned}$$ In order to prove an orthogonality relation for $\pi_a,$ we need to recall the following Schur’s orthogonality relation for the unimodular groups, see [@G]. \[prop72\][@G] Let $G$ be a unimodular group and $\pi$ be an irreducible unitary representation of $G$ on a Hilbert space $ H.$ Then $\langle \pi (g)h,h\rangle \in L^2(G)$ for some non-zero $h\in H$ if and only if $$\begin{aligned} \int_G\langle\pi(g)h_1,k_1\rangle\overline{\langle\pi(g)h_2,k_2\rangle}dg =c\langle h_1,h_2\rangle\overline{\langle k_1,k_2\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ for all $h_l,k_l\in H,l=1,2,$ where $c$ is a constant depending on $\pi.$ \[lemma70\] Let $\varphi_l,\psi_l \in \mathcal{F}_a$ for $l=1,2.$ Then, $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp72} \int_{\mathbb{Q}}\langle \pi_a(q)\varphi_1,\psi_1\rangle\overline{\langle \pi_a(q)\varphi_2,\psi_2}\rangle dq =c_a\langle \varphi_1,\varphi_2 \rangle \overline{\langle \psi_1,\psi_2 \rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where $c_a$ is some constant. For $q=q_0+iq_1+jq_2+kq_3 \in \mathbb{Q},$ write $z_1=q_0+iq_1$ and $z_2=q_3+iq_4.$ Then $\varphi(q)=\frac{4|a|^2}{\pi}z_1z_2\in \mathcal{F}_a$ and $\|\varphi\|_2=1.$ Further, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{Q}}|\langle \pi_a(q)\varphi,\varphi \rangle|^2 dq&=\int_{\mathbb{Q}}\Big|\int_{\mathbb{Q}} \pi_a(q)\varphi(\tilde{q})\overline{\varphi(\tilde{q})}e^{-2|a||\tilde{q}|^2}d\tilde{q}\Big|^2 dq \\ &=\int_{\mathbb{Q}}\Big|\int_{\mathbb{Q}}e^{-|a|(|q|^2+2\langle \tilde{q},q\rangle-2i\langle \tilde{q} \frac{a}{|a|},q\rangle}\varphi(\tilde{q}+q)\overline{\varphi(\tilde{q})}e^{-2|a||\tilde{q}|^2}d\tilde{q}\Big|^2 dq.\end{aligned}$$ By Minkowski’s integral inequality, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \left(\int_{\mathbb{Q}}|\langle \pi_a(q)\varphi,\varphi\rangle|^2 dq\right)^\frac{1}{2} &\leq\int_{\mathbb{Q}}\left(\int_{\mathbb{Q}}|\varphi(\tilde{q}+q)|^2e^{-2|a||\tilde{q}+q|^2} |\varphi(\tilde{q})|^2e^{-2|a||\tilde{q}|^2}dq\right)^\frac{1}{2}d\tilde{q} \\ &=\|\varphi\|_2\int_{\mathbb{Q}}|\varphi(\tilde{q})|e^{-|a||\tilde{q}|^2}d\tilde{q} \\ &=\frac{4|a|^2}{\pi}\int_{\mathbb{C}^2}|z_1\|z_2|e^{-|a|(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)}dz_1 dz_2 <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Hence by Proposition \[prop72\], we get $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\mathbb{Q}}\langle \pi_a(q)\varphi_1,\psi_1\rangle\overline{\langle \pi_a(q)\varphi_2,\psi_2}\rangle dq =c_a\langle \varphi_1,\varphi_2 \rangle \overline{\langle \psi_1,\psi_2 \rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q})$ and $W_a(g)$ be a finite rank operator. Then there exists an orthonormal basis, say, $\{e_1,e_2,\ldots\}$ of $\mathcal{F}_a$ such that $\mathcal{R}(W_a(g))=\mathcal{B}_N,$ where $\mathcal{B}_N=\text{span}\{e_1,\ldots,e_N \}.$ Define an orthogonal projection $P_N$ of $\mathcal{F}_a$ onto $\mathcal{B}_N.$ Let $A$ be a measurable subset of $\mathbb{Q}$. Define a pair of orthogonal projections $E_A$ and $F_N$ of $L^2(\mathbb{Q})$ by $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp77} E_A g=\chi_A g \qquad \text{ and } \qquad W_a(F_N g)=P_N W_a(g),\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_A$ denotes the characteristic function of $A.$ Then $\mathcal{R}(E_A)=\{g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}): g= \chi_A g \}$ and $\mathcal{R}(F_N)=\{g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}): \mathcal{R}(W_a(g))\subseteq\mathcal{B}_N\}.$ Next, we prove that $E_AF_N$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator satisfying the condition $\|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2=c'm(A)N.$ Throughout this section, we shall assume that $A$ is a measurable subset of $\mathbb{Q}$ with finite measure. \[lemma71\] $E_AF_N$ is an integral operator on $L^2(\mathbb{Q}).$ For $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q})$, we have $W_a(F_N g)=P_N W_a(g)$. By inversion formula for the Weyl transform $$\begin{aligned} (F_Ng)(q)&=\tilde{c}_a\text{tr}(\pi_a(q)^{*}W_a(F_Ng))=\tilde{c}_a\text{tr}(\pi_a(-q)P_NW_a(g))\\ &=\tilde{c}_a\text{tr}(P_NW_a(g)\pi_a(-q))\\ &=\tilde{c}_a\int_{\mathbb{Q}} g(\tilde{q})\text{tr}\left(P_N \pi_a(\tilde{q})\pi_a(-q)\right)d\tilde{q}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, it follows that $$\begin{aligned} (E_AF_Ng)(q)&=\chi_A(q)(F_Ng)(q) =\tilde{c}_a\chi_A(q)\int_{\mathbb{Q}} g(\tilde{q})\text{tr} \left(P_N \pi_a(\tilde{q})\pi_a(-q)\right)d\tilde{q} \\ &=\tilde{c}_a\int_{\mathbb{Q}} g( w )K(q,\tilde{q})d\tilde{q},\end{aligned}$$ where $K(q,\tilde{q})= \tilde{c}_a~\chi_A(q)\text{tr}\left(P_N \pi_a(\tilde{q}) \pi_a(-q) \right)$ and $\pi^2\tilde{c}_a=4|a|^2$. Thus, we infer that $E_AF_N$ is an integral operator with kernel $K.$ \[lemma72\] $E_AF_N$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $\|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2=c'm(A)N$, for some constant $c',$ independent of the choice of $A$ and $N$. From Lemma \[lemma71\], it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp25} \|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2&=\tilde{c}_a^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}}\int_{\mathbb{Q}}|K(q,\tilde{q})|^2 d\tilde{q} dq \nonumber \\ &=\tilde{c}_a^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}}|\chi_A(q)|^2 \left(\int_{\mathbb{Q}} |\text{tr}\,\left(P_N \pi_a(\tilde{q})\pi_a(-q)\right)|^2 d\tilde{q}\right)dq \nonumber \\ &=\tilde{c}_a^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}}\chi_A(q) \left(\int_{\mathbb{Q}}\Big| \sum\limits_{l=1}^N \langle\pi_a(\tilde{q})\pi(-q)e_l,e_l\rangle \Big|^2 d\tilde{q}\right)dq \nonumber \\ &=\tilde{c}_a^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}}\chi_A(q) \left(\int_{\mathbb{Q}}\Big|\sum\limits_{l=1}^N e^{-2i\langle \tilde{q}a,q\rangle}\langle\pi_a(\tilde{q}-q)e_l,e_l\rangle \Big|^2 d\tilde{q}\right)dq.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\pi_a(\tilde{q})\pi_a(q)=e^{2i\langle \tilde{q}a,q\rangle}\pi_a(\tilde{q}+q)),$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2=\tilde{c}_a^2 \int_{\mathbb{Q}}\chi_A(q) \left(\int_{\mathbb{Q}}\Big|\sum\limits_{l=1}^N \langle\pi_a(\tilde{q})e_l,e_l\rangle \Big|^2 d\tilde{q}\right)dq.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, from orthogonality relation (\[exp72\]) it follows that $$\begin{aligned} \|E_AF_N\|_{HS}^2=\tilde{c}_a^2 m(A)c_a N=c'm(A)N<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Let $S$ be a closed subspace of $\mathcal{F}_a.$ Define $F_S$ by $W_a(F_Sg)=P_SW_a(g),$ where $P_S$ is the orthogonal projection of $\mathcal{F}_a$ onto $S$ and $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}).$ In particular, if $S=\mathcal{B}_N,$ then $F_S=F_N.$ \[prop74\] Let $A \subseteq \mathbb{Q}$ with finite measure, and $S$ be a closed subspace of $\mathcal{F}_a.$ Then, either $E_A\cap F_S=0$ or for each $\epsilon'>0$ there exists $\tilde{A}\supset A$ with $m(\tilde{A}\smallsetminus A)<\epsilon'$ such that $\dim\mathcal{R}(E_{\tilde{A}}\cap F_S)=\infty.$ If $E_A\cap F_S\neq 0,$ then there exists a non-zero function $g_0\in\mathcal{R}( E_A\cap F_S)$. Let $A_0=\{x\in A: g_0(x)\neq 0\}$ and $\tilde{A}_1=A.$ By Lemma \[lemma53\], for $\epsilon=\frac{\epsilon'}{2^l}$, $B_0=A_0$ and $B=\tilde{A}_l,$ there exists $\tilde{q}_l\in \mathbb{Q}$ such that $$\label{exp78} m(\tilde{A}_l)<m(\tilde{A}_l\cup \tilde{q}_lA_0)<m(\tilde{A}_l)+\frac{\epsilon'}{2^l}$$ where $l\in \mathbb{N}.$ Put $\tilde{A}_{l+1}=\tilde{A}_l\cup \tilde{q}_lA_0$ and $\tilde A=\bigcup\limits_{l=1}^\infty\tilde{A}_l.$ Then $\tilde A_l$ is a non-decreasing sequence, and hence from (\[exp78\]) it follows that $m(\tilde{A}\smallsetminus A)<\epsilon'.$ For $l\in \mathbb{N},$ define $g_l(q)=e^{2i\langle qa,\tilde{q}_l\rangle} g_0(q-\tilde{q}_l).$ We show that $g_l\in \mathcal{R}( E_{\tilde A}\cap F_S)$ for each $l$ and they are linearly independent. Let $\mathcal{B}_S$ be an orthonormal basis of $S.$ Then we can extend $\mathcal{B}_S$ to an orthonormal basis $\mathcal{B}$ of $\mathcal{F}_a.$ For $\varphi \in \mathcal{F}_a$ and $e_\beta\in \mathcal{B}\smallsetminus\mathcal{B}_S,$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \langle W_a(g_l)\varphi,e_\beta\rangle &=\int_{\mathbb{Q}} g_l(q) \langle \pi_a(q)\varphi,e_\beta\rangle dq\\ &=\int_{\mathbb{Q}} e^{2i\langle qa,\tilde{q}_l\rangle} g_0(q-\tilde{q}_l) \langle \pi_a(q)\varphi,e_\beta\rangle dq.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\langle (q+\tilde{q}_l)a,\tilde{q}_l\rangle =\langle q a,\tilde{q}_l\rangle,$ by the change of variables $$\begin{aligned} \langle W_a(g_l)\varphi,e_\beta\rangle &=\int_{\mathbb{Q}} e^{2i\langle qa,\tilde{q}_l\rangle} g_0(q) \langle \pi_a(q+\tilde{q}_l)\varphi,e_\beta\rangle dq.\end{aligned}$$ We know that $\pi_a(q)\pi_a(\tilde{q}_l)=e^{2i\langle qa,\tilde{q}_l)\rangle}\pi_a(q+\tilde{q}_l).$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp75} \langle W_a(g_l)\varphi,e_j\rangle &=\int_{\mathbb{Q}} g_0(q)\langle \pi_a(q)\pi_a(\tilde{q}_l)\varphi,e_\beta\rangle dq \nonumber \\ &=\int_{\mathbb{Q}} g_0(q) \langle \pi_a(q)\psi,e_\beta\rangle dq \nonumber \\ &=\langle W_a(g_0)\psi,e_\beta\rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\mathcal{R}(W_a(g_l))\subseteq S.$ Let $A_l=A_{l-1}\cup \tilde{q}_lA_0.$ Then $\tilde{A}_{l+1}=\tilde{A}_l\cup A_l.$ Thus, we have $m(A_l\smallsetminus A_{l-1})\geq m(\tilde{A}_{l+1}\smallsetminus \tilde{A}_l)>0.$ Let $s\in \mathbb{N}.$ Since, $A_s=A_0\cup \tilde{q}_1A_0\cup\cdots\cup \tilde{q}_s A_0$ and $g_l=0$ on $(\tilde{q}_lA_0)'$, we have $E_{A_s}g_l=g_l$ for $l=0,1,\ldots,s$. Furthermore, $E_{A_s \smallsetminus A_{s-1}}g_l=0$ for $l=0,\ldots,s-1$ and $E_{A_s \smallsetminus A_{s-1}}g_s\neq 0$. Therefore, it shows that $g_s$ is not a linear combination of $g_0,\ldots,g_{s-1}.$ Since $s$ is arbitrary, $\{g_l:l\in \mathbb{N}\}$ is a linearly independent set in $\mathcal{R}( E_{\tilde A}\cap F_S).$ \[prop70\] Let $A$ be a measurable subset of $\mathbb{Q}$ having finite measure. Then the projection $E_A\cap F_N=0$. In view of (\[exp74\]) and Lemma \[lemma72\], we obtain the relations $$\dim\mathcal{R}( E_{\tilde{A}}\cap F_N) \leq c'm(\tilde{A})N <\infty.$$ Therefore, as a corollary of Proposition \[prop74\], we get $E_A\cap F_N=0.$ The following theorem is our main result of this section, which is an analogue of Benedicks-Amrein-Berthier theorem on the quaternion Heisenberg group. \[th70\] Let $A\subseteq\mathbb Q$ be a set of finite measure. Suppose $f\in L^1(\mathcal{Q})$ and $\{(q,t)\in \mathcal{Q}:f(q,t)\neq 0\} \subseteq A\times \mathbb{R}^3.$ If $\hat{f}(a)$ is a finite rank operator for each $a \in \text{Im } \mathbb{Q}\setminus \{0\}$, then $f=0$. Proof of Theorem \[th70\] follows from the following result for the Weyl transform on $\mathbb Q.$ \[prop71\] Let $g\in L^1(\mathbb{Q})$ and $\{q\in \mathbb{Q}:g(q)\neq 0\} \subseteq A,$ where $m(A)$ is finite. If there exists $a \in \text{Im } \mathbb{Q}\setminus \{0\}$ such that $W_a(g)$ has finite rank, then $g=0$. Since $W_a(g)$ is a finite rank operator, by the Plancherel theorem for the Weyl transform on $\mathbb Q,$ it follows that $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q})$. Hence, it is enough to prove Proposition \[prop71\] for $g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}).$ The prove of Proposition \[prop71\] follows from Proposition \[prop70\]. If $0<m(A)<\infty,$ then $\dim\mathcal{R}(E_A)=\infty.$ In view of Proposition \[prop70\] and the fact that $E_A=(E_A\cap F_N) +(E_A\cap F_{N}^{\perp})=(E_A\cap F_{N}^{\perp}),$ it follows that $\dim\mathcal{R}(E_A\cap F_{N}^{\perp})=\infty.$ Since $m(A')=\infty,$ there exists a measurable set $B\subseteq A'$ satisfying $0<m(B)<\infty.$ Hence $\mathcal{R}(E_{A'}\cap F_{N}^{\perp})\supseteq \mathcal{R}(E_B\cap F_{N}^{\perp})$. This implies $\dim\mathcal{R}(E_{A'}\cap F_{N}^{\perp})=\infty$. Similarly it can be shown that $\dim\mathcal{R}(E_{A'}\cap F_N)=\infty$. The following result can be thought of as a dual problem of Proposition \[prop71\] and a similar result also holds for the Heisenberg motion group. Let $A_g=\{q\in \mathbb{Q}:g(q)\neq 0\}.$ Then $S=\{g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}):m(A_g)=\infty, \text{ and } \text{rank }W_a(g)=\infty\}$ is dense in $L^2(\mathbb{Q}).$ By the Hahn-Banach theorem, it is enough to show that $S^{\perp}=\{0\}.$ On the contrary, suppose there exists $h\in L^2(\mathbb{Q})$ such that $\langle g, h\rangle=0$ for all $g \in S.$ For $\tilde{q}\in \mathbb{Q}$ define $g_{\tilde{q}}(q)=g(q-\tilde{q})e^{-2i\langle \tilde{q}a,q\rangle}.$ In view of (\[exp75\]), $W_a(g_{\tilde{q}})$ is not a finite rank operator unless $W_a(g)$ is a finite rank operator. Thus $g \in S,$ implies $g_{\tilde{q}} \in S.$ Define $\tilde{h}(q)=\bar h(-q)$ and $(\tilde{h} \times_a g)(\tilde q)=\int g(\tilde{q}-q)\tilde{h}(q)e^{-2i\langle\tilde{q}a,q\rangle}dq.$ Then it follows that $$(\tilde{h} \times_a g)(-\tilde q)=\int g(q-\tilde{q})e^{-2i\langle \tilde{q}a,q\rangle}\tilde{h}(-q)dq =\int g_{\tilde{q}}(q)\bar h(q)dq=0$$ for all $g \in S.$ From the definition of Weyl transform $W_a,$ it is straightforward to see that $W_a(\tilde{h})W_a(g)=W_a(\tilde{h} \times_a g)=0.$ This implies that $\mathcal R W_a(g)\subseteq \text{ker}\,W_a(\tilde{h}),$ for each $g \in S.$ Hence we infer that $W_a(\tilde{h})=0.$ Thus, $h=0.$ **Strong annihilating pair:** Let $A\subseteq \mathbb{R}$ and $\Sigma\subseteq \hat{\mathbb{R}}$ be measurable sets. Then the pair $(A,\Sigma)$ is called [*weak annihilating pair*]{} if $\text{supp}\,f\subseteq A$ and $\text{supp}\,\hat{f}\subseteq \Sigma,$ implies $f=0.$ The pair $(A,\Sigma)$ is called [*strong annihilating pair*]{} if there exists a positive number $C=C(A,\Sigma)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{exp29} \|f\|_2^2\leq C \left( \int_{A'}|f|^2+\int_{\Sigma'}|\hat{f}|^2 \right)\end{aligned}$$ for every $f \in L^2(\mathbb{R}).$ It is obvious that every strong annihilating pair is a weak annihilating pair. In [@B], Benedicks had proved that $(A,\Sigma)$ is a weak annihilating pair when $A$ and $\Sigma$ both have finite measure. In [@AB], Amrein-Berthier had proved that $(A,\Sigma)$ is a strong annihilating under the identical assumption as in [@B]. Since Fourier transform on the quaternion Heisenberg group is an operator valued function, we could not expect a similar conclusion as (\[exp29\]), though we can define strong annihilating pair in an analogous way. Let $A$ be a measurable subset of $\mathbb{Q},$ and $S$ be a closed subspace of $\mathcal{F}_a$. We say that the pair $(A,S)$ is a [*strong annihilating pair*]{} for the Weyl transform $W_a$ if there exists a positive number $C=C(A,S)$ such that for every $g \in L^2(\mathbb{Q}),$ $$\begin{aligned} \|g\|_2^2\leq C \left( \int_{A'}|g|^2+\|P_S^{\perp} W_a(g) \|_{HS}^2 \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $P_S$ is the projection of $\mathcal{F}_a$ onto $S.$ We prove that if $A$ has finite measure and dimension of $S$ is finite, then $(A,S)$ is a strong annihilating pair. For this, we need the following basic result. [@HJ]\[lemma7\] Let $P$ and $Q$ be two orthogonal projections on a complex Hilbert space $H.$ Then $\|PQ\|<1$ if and only if there exists a positive number $C$ such that for each $x\in H$ $$\|x\|^2\leq C\left(\|P^{\perp}x\|^2+\|Q^{\perp}x\|^2\right).$$ Consider the projections $E_A$ and $F_N$ as defined by (\[exp77\]). By Lemma \[lemma72\] and Proposition \[prop70\], $E_AF_N$ is a compact operator and $E_A \cap F_N=0.$ Therefore, we must have $\|E_AF_N\| <1.$ Since $\mathcal{R}(F_N)^{\perp}=\{g\in L^2(\mathbb{Q}): \mathcal{R}(W_a(g))\subseteq\mathcal{B}_N^\perp \},$ it follows that $W_aF_N^\perp=P_N^{\perp}W_a.$ Thus, by Lemma \[lemma7\], $(A,S)$ is a strong annihilating pair, whenever $m(A)$ and $\dim S$ are finite. [**Acknowledgements:**]{} The first author gratefully acknowledges the support provided by IIT Guwahati, Government of India. [1000]{} W. O. Amrein and A. M. Berthier, [*On support properties of [$L^{p}$]{}-functions and their [F]{}ourier transforms*]{}, J. Functional Analysis 24 [1977]{}, no. 3, 258-267. M. Benedicks, [*On Fourier transforms of functions supported on sets of finite Lebesgue measure,*]{} J. Math. Anal. Appl. 106 (1985), no.1, 180-183. C. Benson, J. Jenkins and G. Ratcliff, [*Bounded K-spherical functions on Heisenberg groups,*]{} J. Funct. Anal. 105 (1992), no. 2, 409-443. D. C. Chang and I. Markina, [*Geometric analysis on quaternion [$\Bbb H$]{}-type groups,*]{} J. Geom. Anal. 16 (2006), no. 2, 265-294. A. Chattopadhyay, D. K. Giri and R. K. Srivastava, [*Uniqueness of the Fourier transform on certain Lie groups,*]{} [arXiv:1607.03832](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.03832). L. Chen and J. Zhao, [*Weyl transform and generalized spectrogram associated with quaternion [H]{}eisenberg group,*]{} Bull. Sci. Math., 136 (2012), no. 2, 127-143. G. B. Folland and A. Sitaram, [*The uncertainty principle: a mathematical survey,*]{} J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 3 (1997), 207-238. S. A. Gaal, [*Linear analysis and representation theory,*]{} Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1973. Somnath Ghosh and R. K. Srivastava, [*Heisenberg uniqueness pairs for the Fourier transform on the Heisenberg group,*]{} [arXiv:1810.06390](https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.06390). V. Havin and B. Jöricke, [*The uncertainty principle in harmonic analysis,*]{} Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. 28, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. A. J. Hogan, [*A qualitative uncertainty principle for unimodular groups of type [${\rm I}$]{},*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 340 (1993), no. 2, 587-594. E. K. Narayanan and P. K. Ratnakumar, [*Benedick’s theorem for the Heisenberg group,*]{} Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (2010), no. 6, 2135-2140. S. Sen, [*Segal-Bargmann transform and Paley-Wiener theorems on Heisenberg motion groups*]{}, Adv. Pure Appl. Math. 7 (2016), no. 1, 13-28. M. Sugiura, [*Unitary representations and harmonic analysis*]{}, North-Holland Mathematical Library, 44. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam; Kodansha, Ltd., Tokyo, 1990. M. K. Vemuri, [*Benedicks theorem for the Weyl transform*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 452 (2017), no. 1, 209-217.

ArXiv

--- address: '$^{\text{\sf 1}}$King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Computational Bioscience Research Center (CBRC), Computer, Electrical & Mathematical Sciences and Engineering (CEMSE) Division, Thuwal 23955, Saudi Arabia.' author: - | Fatima Zohra Smaili$^{\text{\sfb 1}}$, Xin Gao$^{\text{\sfb 1,}*}$ and Robert Hoehndorf$^{\text{\sfb 1,}*}$ bibliography: - 'document.bib' subtitle: Subject Section title: 'OPA2Vec: combining formal and informal content of biomedical ontologies to improve similarity-based prediction' --- Introduction ============ Biological knowledge is widely-spread across different types of resources. Biomedical ontologies have been highly successful in providing the means to integrate data across multiple disparate sources by providing an explicit and shared specification of a conceptualization of a domain [@Gruber1995]. Notably, ontologies provide a structured and formal representation of biological knowledge through logical axioms [@Hoehndorf2015role], and ontologies are therefore widely used to capture information that is extracted from literature by biocurators [@biontologies]. However, ontologies do not only include a formal, logic-based structure but also include many pieces of meta-data that are primarily intended for human use, such as labels, descriptions, or synonyms [@Smith2007]. Due to the pervasiveness of ontologies in the life sciences, many applications have been built that exploit various aspects of ontologies for data analysis and to construct predictive models. For example, a wide selection of semantic similarity measures have been developed to exploit information in ontologies [@resnik; @lin1998information; @jiang1997semantic; @wupalmer; @leacock1998; @li2003approach; @al2006cluster], and semantic similarity measures have successfully been applied to the prediction of protein-protein interactions [@Couto2009], gene-disease associations [@Koehler2009], or drug targets [@Hoehndorf2013drugs]. Recently, a set of methods have been developed that can characterize heterogeneous graphs through “embeddings”, i.e., methods to generate knowledge graph embedding methods [@transe; @Nickel2016; @ristoski2016rdf2vec]. These methods are used to produce feature vectors of knowledge embedded in heterogeneous graphs (i.e., knowledge graphs), and they have already been applied successfully in the biomedical domain [@alsharani17]. However, ontologies, in particular those in the biomedical domain, cannot easily be represented as graphs [@Rodriguez-Garcia2018] but rather constitute logical theories that are best represented as sets of axioms [@dlhandbook]. Recently we developed Onto2Vec, a method that generates feature vectors from the formal logical content of ontologies [@smaili2018onto2vec], and we could demonstrate that Onto2Vec can outperform existing semantic similarity measures. Here, we extend Onto2Vec to OPA2Vec (Ontologies Plus Annotations to Vectors) to jointly produce vector representations of entities in biomedical ontologies based on both the semantic content of ontologies (i.e., the logical axioms) and the meta-data contained in ontologies as annotation axioms. We combine multiple types of information contained in biomedical ontologies, including asserted and inferred logical axioms, datatype properties, and annotation axioms to generate a corpus that consists of both formal statements, natural language statements, and annotations that relate entities to literals. We then apply a Word2Vec model to generate vector representations for any entity named in the ontology. Using transfer learning, we apply a pre-trained Word2Vec model in OPA2Vec to significantly improve the performance in encoding natural language phrases and statements. We evaluate OPA2Vec using two different ontologies and applications: first, we use the Gene Ontology (GO) [@GO] to produce vector representations of yeast and human proteins and determine their functional similarity and predict interactions between them; second, we evaluate our method on the PhenomeNET ontology [@hoehndorf2011phenomenet; @rodriguez2017integrating] to infer vector representations of genes and diseases and use them to predict gene-disease associations. We demonstrate that OPA2Vec can produce task-specific and trainable representations of biological entities that significantly outperform both Onto2Vec and traditional semantic similarity measures in predicting protein-protein interactions and gene-disease associations. OPA2Vec is a generic method which can be applied to any ontology formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) [@Grau2008; @owl2]. Results ======= Encoding ontologies plus annotations as vectors ----------------------------------------------- OPA2Vec is an algorithm that uses asserted and inferred logical axioms in ontologies, combines them with annotation axioms (i.e., meta-data associated with entities or axioms in ontologies) and produces dense vector representations of all entities named in an ontology, or entities associated with classes in an ontology. Ontologies formalized in the Web Ontology Language (OWL) [@Grau2008] are based on a Description Logic [@dlhandbook]. In Description Logics, an ontology is described as the combination of a TBox and an ABox [@HorrocksKS06]. The TBox is a set of axioms that formally characterize classes (e.g., [behavior SubClassOf: ’biological process’]{}), while the ABox contains a set of axioms that characterize instances (e.g., [P0AAF6 instanceOf: hasFunction some behavior]{}). The TBox and ABox together are used by the Onto2Vec method [@smaili2018onto2vec] to generate dense vector representations; to achieve this goal, Onto2Vec treats asserted or inferred axioms as sentences which form a corpus, and vectors are generated using Word2Vec [@word2vec1; @word2vec2]. In addition to the TBox and ABox (i.e., to the formal, logical content), ontologies contain a large amount of meta-data in the form of annotation axioms [@Hoehndorf2015role; @Smith2007]. Ontology meta-data consist of the set of non-logical annotation axioms that describe different aspects of ontology classes, relations, or instances. For example, most ontologies associate entities with a label, a natural language description, several synonyms, etc. While such meta-data are distinct from the formal content of an ontology and therefore not exploited by methods such as Onto2Vec, they nevertheless provide valuable information about ontology classes, relations, and instances. OPA2Vec (Ontologies Plus Annotations to Vectors) extends Onto2Vec to combine both the formal content of ontologies and the meta-data expressed as annotation axioms to generate feature vectors for any named entity in an ontology; the vectors encode for both the formal and informal content that characterize and constrain the entities in an ontology. Our algorithm generates sentences from OWL annotation axioms to form a corpus. For example, from the assertion that an OWL class $C$ has a label $L$ (using the [rdfs:label]{} in the OWL annotation axiom) we generate the sentence [C rdfs:label L]{} (using the complete IRIs for $C$, $L$, and [rdfs:label]{}). If $C$ has an annotation axioms relating it to multiple words or sentences using the annotation property $r_a$, such as when providing a textual definition or description for a class (e.g., using the Dublin Core [description]{} property), we generate a single sentence in which $C$ is related using $r_a$ to the complete value of the annotation property (i.e., we ignore sentence or paragraph delimiters). Some annotation properties do not relate entities to strings, but, for example, to dates, numbers, or other literals. For example, an ontology may contain information about the creation date of a class or axiom; we also generate sentences from these annotation axioms and render the value of the annotation property as a string. In OPA2Vec, we combine the corpus generated from the meta-data (i.e., annotation axioms) and the inferred and asserted logical axioms (using the Onto2Vec algorithm). We then apply a Word2Vec skipgram model on the combined corpus to generate vector representations of all entities in the ontology (for technical details, see Section 4.3). Natural language words used in annotation properties have a pre-defined meaning which cannot easily be derived from their use within an ontology alone. Therefore, we use transfer learning in OPA2Vec to assign a semantics to natural language words based on their use in a large corpus of biomedical text. In particular, we pre-train a Word2Vec model on all PubMed abstracts so that natural language words are assigned a semantics (and vector representation) based on their use in biomedical literature (see Section 4.2). The vocabulary in biomedical literature overlaps with the values of annotation properties (i.e., the natural language words used to describe entities in ontologies) but is disjoint with the vocabulary generated by Onto2Vec (i.e., the IRIs that make up the classes, relations, and instances in an ontology). In OPA2Vec, we therefore update the pre-trained Word2Vec model to generate vectors for the entities in the ontology, and to update the representations of words that overlap between PubMed abstracts and the ontology annotations. Figure \[fig:workflow\] illustrates the OPA2Vec algorithm. The input of the algorithm is an ontology $O$ in the OWL format as well as a set $A$ of instances and their associations with classes in the ontology (formulated as the OWL axioms). The output of OPA2Vec is a vector representation for each entity in $O$ and $A$ that encodes for the logical axioms and meta-data in $O$ and $A$. {width=".9\textwidth"} OPA2Vec performance in predicting interactions between proteins --------------------------------------------------------------- Ontologies are widely used to analyze biological and biomedical datasets [@Hoehndorf2015role], and one of the main applications of ontologies is the computation of semantic similarity [@Couto2009]. As OPA2Vec combines logical axioms and annotation axioms into single vector representations, we expect that we can obtain more accurate feature vectors for biological entities than using the ontology structure alone, and that we can use this to improve the computation of semantic similarity. To evaluate our hypothesis and demonstrate the potential of using OPA2Vec, we used the GO ontology as a case study (see Section 4.1). We generated a knowledge base using GO, and added either human proteins or yeast proteins as instances. We related each protein to its functions by asserting that a protein $P$ with function $F$ is an instance of the class [has-function some F]{}. We applied OPA2Vec on these two knowledge bases (one including human proteins and the other yeast proteins) and generated vector representations for each protein and ontology class. We then used these vector representations to predict interactions between proteins as characterized in the STRING database [@string] by calculating the cosine similarity between each pair of protein vectors and using the obtained value as a prediction score for whether two proteins interact or not. To further improve our prediction performance, we used a neural network model to learn a similarity measure between two feature vectors that is predictive of protein-protein interactions [@smaili2018onto2vec]. Figure \[fig:ppiprediction\] shows the ROC curves and AUC values obtained for OPA2Vec, and the comparison results against Onto2Vec and Resnik’s semantic similarity measure [@resnik] with the Best Match Average strategy [@Couto2009] for human and yeast. The workflow we followed to predict protein-protein interactions using OPA2Vec is illustrated in Figure \[fig:workflowppi\]. We found that OPA2Vec significantly improves the performance in predicting interactions between proteins in comparison to both Resnik’s semantic similarity measure and Onto2Vec. [.5]{} {width="\linewidth"} [.5]{} {width="\linewidth"} ![Workflow for protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction using OPA2Vec.[]{data-label="fig:workflowppi"}](updatedppi2.png){width=".47\textwidth"} To determine the contribution of each annotation property to the performance of OPA2Vec, we restricted the inclusion of annotation properties to each of the following main annotation properties: label ([rdfs:label]{}), description ([obo:IAO\_0000115]{}), synonym ([oboInOwl:hasExactSynonym]{}, [oboInOwl:hasRelatedSynonym]{}, [oboInOwl:hasBroadSynonym]{}, [oboInOwl:hasNarrowSynonym]{}), created by ([oboInOwl:created\_by]{}), creation date ([ oboInOwl:creation\_date]{}), and OBO-namespace ([ oboInOwl:hasOBONamespace]{}). Figure \[fig:properties\] shows the relative contribution of each of the annotation properties for prediction of protein-protein interactions. We found that the inclusion of the natural language descriptions ([ obo:IAO\_0000115]{}) and the class labels ([rdfs:label]{}) results in the highest improvement of performance, while some annotation properties such as creation date or the namespace do not improve prediction. Interestingly, the [created\_by]{} annotation property adds some minor improvement to the performance, likely due to the fact that the same person would add similar or related classes to the GO, and therefore proteins with functions created by the same person have higher probability to interact. [.5]{} {width="\linewidth"} [.5]{} {width="\linewidth"} Our analysis shows that annotation properties which describe biological entities in natural language contribute the most to the performance improvements of OPA2Vec over Onto2Vec. In particular the label and description, synonyms and creator ([ oboInOwl:created\_by]{}) properties result in better, more predictive feature vector representations. Therefore, we limited our analysis to the labels, natural language descriptions, synonyms, and creator name from the ontology meta-data in further analysis. We previously found that supervised training can significantly improve the predictive performance when comparing these vector representations as it has the potential to “learn” custom, task-specific similarity measures [@smaili2018onto2vec]. Therefore, we followed a similar strategy here and trained a deep neural network (see Section 4.5) to predict whether two proteins interact given two protein vector representations as inputs. We found that this supervised approach further improves the performance of OPA2Vec (Figure \[fig:ppiprediction\]). Evaluating performance in predicting gene-disease associations -------------------------------------------------------------- As a second use case to evaluate OPA2Vec and demonstrate its utility, we applied our approach on the PhenomeNET ontology [@rodriguez2017integrating] (see Section 4.1). PhenomeNET is a system for prioritizing candidate disease genes based on the phenotype similarity [@hoehndorf2011phenomenet] between a disease and a database of genotype–phenotype associations. Phenotypes refer here to concrete developmental, morphological, physiological, or behavioral abnormalities observed in an organism, such as signs and symptoms which make up a disease [@Gkoutos2005; @pato-paper]. The main advantage of PhenomeNET is that it includes the PhenomeNET ontology which integrates several species-specific phenotype ontologies; it can therefore be used to compare, for example, phenotypes observed in mouse models and phenotypes associated with human disease [@Hoehndorf2013orphanet]. We used the PhenomeNET ontology and added mouse genes and human diseases to the knowledge base as instances; we then associated each instance with a set of phenotypes. We used the phenotypes associated with unconditional, single gene knockouts (i.e., complete loss of function mutations) available from the MGI database [@Blake2017] and associated them with their phenotypes, and we used the disease-to-phenotype file from the HPO database [@hpo] to associate diseases from the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Men (OMIM) [@Amberger2011] database to their phenotypes. In total, our knowledge base consists of 18,920 genes and 7,154 OMIM diseases. We applied our OPA2Vec algorithm to the combined knowledge base to generate vector representations of genes and diseases. We included only labels, descriptions, synonyms and creators ([created\_by]{}) as annotation properties as we found them to contribute most to the performance of OPA2Vec. The corpus generated by OPA2Vec therefore consists of the set of asserted and inferred axioms from the PhenomeNET ontology, the set of annotation axioms involving labels, descriptions, synonyms and creators, and the gene and disease phenotype annotations. We then computed the pairwise cosine similarity between gene vectors and disease vectors, and we trained a neural network in a supervised manner to predict gene-disease associations. We evaluated our results using two datasets of gene-disease associations provided by the MGI database, one containing human disease genes and another containing mouse models of human diseases. Figure \[fig:genedisease\] shows the ROC curves and AUC values for gene-disease prediction performance of each approach on the human disease genes and mouse models. We compared the obtained results to Resnik similarity and Onto2Vec, and found that OPA2Vec outperforms both Resnik similarity and Onto2Vec in both evaluation sets. Conclusion ========== We developed the OPA2Vec method to produce vector representations for biological entities in ontologies based on the formal logical content in ontologies combined with the meta-data and natural language descriptions of entities in ontologies. We applied OPA2Vec to two ontologies, the GO and PhenomeNET, and we demonstrated that OPA2Vec can significantly improve predictive performance in applications that rely on the computation of semantic similarity. We also evaluated the individual contributions of each ontology annotation property to the performance of OPA2Vec-generated vectors. Our results illustrate that the annotation properties that describe details about an ontology concept in natural language, in particular the labels and descriptions, contribute most to the feature vectors. We could show that transfer learning, i.e., assigning “meaning” to words by pre-training a Word2Vec model on a large corpus of biomedical literature abstracts, could further significantly improve OPA2Vec performance in our two applications (prediction of protein-protein interactions and prediction of gene-disease associations). OPA2Vec can comprehensively encode for information in ontologies. Our method is also based on accepted standards for encoding ontologies, in particular the Web Ontology Language (OWL), and has the potential to include or exclude any kind of annotation property in the generation of its features. OPA2Vec also exploits major developments in the biomedical ontologies community: the use of ontologies as community standards, and inclusion of both human- and machine-readable information in ontologies as standard requirements for publishing ontologies [@Smith2007; @Matentzoglu2018]. We therefore believe that OPA2Vec has the potential to become a highly useful, standard analysis tool in the biomedical domain, supporting any application in which ontologies are being used. [.5]{} {width="\linewidth"} [.5]{} {width="\linewidth"} Methods ======= Ontology and annotation resources --------------------------------- We downloaded the Gene Ontology (GO) [@GO] in OWL format from <http://www.geneontology.org/ontology/> on September 13, 2017. We downloaded the GO protein annotations from the UniProt-GOA website (<http://www.ebi.ac.uk/GOA>) on September 26, 2017. We removed all annotations with evidence code [IEA]{} as well as [ND]{}. For validation, we used the STRING database [@string] to obtain protein-protein interaction (PPI) data for human ([*Homo sapiens*]{}) and yeast ([*Saccharomyces cerevisiae*]{}), downloaded on September 16, 2017. The yeast PPI network contains 2,007,135 interactions with 6,392 unique proteins, while the human PPI network contains 11,353,057 interactions for 19,577 unique proteins. We downloaded the PhenomeNET ontology [@hoehndorf2011phenomenet; @rodriguez2017integrating] in owl format from the AberOWL repository <http://aber-owl.net> [@hoehndorf2015aber] on February 21, 2018. We downloaded the mouse phenotype annotations from the Mouse Genome Informatics (MGI) database <http://www.informatics.jax.org/> [@smith2015expanding] on February 21, 2018. We obtained a total of 302,013 unique mouse phenotype annotations. We obtained the disease to human phenotype annotations on February 21, 2018 from the Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) database <http://human-phenotype-ontology.github.io/> [@robinson2008human]. We downloaded only the OMIM disease to human phenotype annotations which resulted in a total of 78,208 unique disease-phenotype associations. For gene-disease association prediction validation, we used the [MGI\_DO.rpt]{} file from the MGI database. This file contains 9,506 mouse gene-OMIM disease associations and 13,854 human gene-OMIM disease associations. To map mouse genes to human genes we used the [HMD\_HumanPhenotype.rpt]{} file from the MGI database. To process our ontologies (GO and PhenomeNET), we used the OWL API 4.2.6.[@horridge2011owl] and the Elk OWL reasoner [@kazakov2012elk]. PubMed ------ We retrieved the entire collection of article abstracts in the MEDLINE format from the PubMed database <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/> on February 6, 2018. The total number of abstracts collected is 28,189,045. For each abstract, we removed the meta-data (publication date, journal, authors, PMID, etc.), and only kept the title of the article and the text of the abstract. Word2Vec -------- We used the ontologies, the entity annotations as well as the PubMed abstracts as the text corpora. To process this text data we used Word2Vec [@word2vec1; @word2vec2]. Word2Vec is a machine learning model based on neural networks that can be used to generate vector representations of words in a text. Word2Vec is optimized in such a way that the vector representations of words with a similar context tend to be similar. Word2Vec is available in two different models: the continuous bag of word (CBOW) model and the skip-gram model. In this work, we opted for the skip-gram model which has the advantage over the CBOW model of creating better quality vector representations of words which are infrequent in the corpus. This advantage is quite useful in our case since the biological entities we want to get representations for do not necessarily occur frequently in our text corpora. In this work, we pre-trained the Word2Vec model on the set of PubMed abstracts and save the obtained model which we eventually retrained on the ontology studied (the GO ontology and the PhenomeNET ontology). We used gridsearch to optimize the set of parameters of the skip-gram model used in this work. We used the same parameters to train Word2Vec on the PubMed data set and the ontologies data set, except for the $min\_count$ which has value 25 for the PubMed model, but changed to 1 before training on the ontology corpus. The parameters we chose are shown in Table [\[Tab:word2vec\]]{}. [@lp[5cm]{}ll@]{}Parameter & Definition & Default value\ & & 1\ $size$ & Dimension of the obtained vectors & 200\ $min$\_$count$ &Words with frequency lower than this value will be ignored & 1\ $ window$&Maximum distance between the current and the predicted word & 5\ $iter$&Number of iterations&5\ $negative$ & Whether negative sampling will be used and how many “noise words” would be drawn& 5\ Similarity ---------- ### Cosine Similarity To calculate similarity between the vectors produced by Word2Vec, we used the cosine similarity which measures the cosine angle between the two vectors. Cosine similarity $cos_{sim}$ between two vectors $A$ and $B$ is calculated as $$cos_{sim}(A,B)=\frac{A\cdot B}{ ||A|| ||B||},\label{eq:02}$$ where $A \cdot B$ is the dot product of $A$ and $B$. ### Semantic similarity Resnik semantic similarity measure [@resnik] is one of the most widely used semantic similarity measures for ontologies. This measure is based on the notion of information content which quantifies the specificity of a given concept (term) in the ontology. The information content of a concept $c$ is commonly defined as the negative log likelihood, $- log\,p(c)$, where $p(c)$ is the probability of encountering an instance of concept $c$. Defining information content in this way makes intuitive sense since as probability increases, the more abstract a concept becomes and therefore the lower its information content. Given this definition of information content, Resnik similarity is formally defined as: $$sim(c_1,c_2)=-log\,p(c_{MICA}),\label{eq:03}$$ where $c_{MICA}$ is the most informative common ancestor of $c_1$ and $c_2$ in the ontology hierarchy, defined as the common ancestor with the highest information content value. Resnik similarity measure does not only have the advantage of being conceptually simple, but it also overcomes the limitation of assuming that all relations represent uniform distances, since in real ontologies, the value of one edge may vary. Biological entities can have several concept annotations within an ontology. For instance, as a protein can be involved in different biological processes and can carry several molecular functions, it can be annotated by more than one GO terms. Therefore, to calculate semantic similarity between a pair of proteins, or a pair of any biological entities, it is necessary to properly aggregate the similarity between the concepts that they are respectively annotated with. One possible way to achieve this would be to calculate the Best Match Average (BMA) which estimates the average similarity between the best matching terms of two concepts [@bma]. For two biological entities $e_1$ and $e_2$, the BMA is given by: $$\resizebox{.9\hsize}{!}{$BMA(e_1,e_2)=\frac{1}{2}\bigg(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{c_1\in S_1}\max_{c_2\in S_2}sim(c_1,c_2)+\frac{1}{m}\sum_{c_2\in S_2}\max_{c_1\in S_1}sim(c_1,c_2)\bigg)$},\label{eq:04}$$ where $S_1$ is the set of ontology concepts that $e_1$ is annotated with, $S_2$ is the set of concepts that $e_2$ is annotated with, and $sim(c_1,c_2)$ is the similarity value between concept $c_1$ and concept $c_2$, which could have been calculated using the Resnik similarity or any other semantic similarity measure. Supervised Learning ------------------- To improve our PPI prediction and gene-disease association prediction performance, we used a neural network algorithm to train our prediction model. For our PPI prediction, we used 1,015 proteins from the yeast data set for training and 677 randomly selected proteins were used for testing while 2,263 proteins from the human data set were used for training and 1,509 for testing. The positive pairs were all those reported in the STRING database, while the negative pairs were randomly sub-sampled among all the pairs not occurring in STRING, in such a way the cardinality of the positive set and the one of the negative set are equal for the testing and the training datasets. For the gene-disease association prediction, 6,710 gene-disease associations were used for training and 2,876 were used for testing for the mouse gene-disease association prediction. While for the human gene-disease association prediction, 9,698 associations were used for training and 4,196 for testing. The positive gene-disease association pairs were obtained from the [MGI\_DO.rpt]{} file; all other associations were considered to be negative.We chose our neural network to be a feed-forward network with four layers: the first layer contains 400 input units; the second and third layers are hidden layers which contain 800 and 200 neurons, respectively; and the fourth layer contains one output neuron. We optimized parameters using a limited manual search based on best practice guidelines [@hunter2012selection]. We optimized the ANN using binary cross entropy as the loss function. Evaluation using ROC curve and AUC ---------------------------------- To evaluate our PPI and gene-disease prediction, we used the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve which is a widely used evaluation method to assess the performance of prediction and classification models. It plots the true-positive rate (TPR or sensitivity) defined as $TPR=\frac{TP}{TP+FN}$ against the false-positive rate (FPR or $1-$specificity) defined as $FPR=\frac{FP}{FP+TN}$, where $TP$ is the number of true positives, $FP$ is the number of false positives and $TN$is the number of true negatives. Ideally, a perfect classification model would have a ROC curve that connects the points $(0,0)$, $(0,1)$ and $(1,1)$ [@roc]. Generally, the closer the ROC curve bends towards this “perfect curve” the better the model is. In the context of this work, the ROC curve is used to evaluate PPI prediction of our method as well as competing methods. In this context, the $TP$ value is the number of protein pairs occurring in STRING regardless of their STRING confidence score which have been predicted as interacting. The $FP$ value is the number of protein pairs which have been predicted as interacting but do not appear in the STRING network and finally the $TN$ is the number of protein pairs predicted as non-interacting which do not occur in the STRING database. In most cases, ROC curves of different methods would most probably overlap which makes the visual test of the ROC curves insufficient to make a formal comparison between different methods [@roc]. Thus there is a need for a quantitative measure that summarizes the meaning of a ROC curve and allows more formal comparison between different methods. The most popular such measures is the area under the ROC curve (AUC) which is the integration of the ROC curve over the entire FPR axis [@roc]. In this work, the AUC has also been used along with the ROC curve to evaluate the PPI prediction performance. Funding {#funding .unnumbered} ======= The research reported in this publication was supported by the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) Office of Sponsored Research (OSR) under Award No. FCC/1/1976-04, FCC/1/1976-06, URF/1/2602-01, URF/1/3007-01, URF/1/3412-01, URF/1/3450-01 and URF/1/3454-01.

ArXiv

--- abstract: '[*It is known that the biological activity of the brain involves radiation of electric waves. These waves result from ionic currents and charges traveling among the brain’s neurons. But it is obvious that these ions and charges are carried by their relevant masses which should give rise, according to the gravitational theory, to extremely weak gravitational waves. We use in the following the stochastic quantization (SQ) theory to calculate the probability to find a large ensemble of brains radiating similar gravitational waves. We also use this SQ theory to derive the equilibrium state related to the known Lamb shift.* ]{}' --- **Gravitational brainwaves, quantum fluctuations** **and stochastic quantization** **D. Bar** [****]{}: brainwaves, gravitational waves, stochastic quantization, Lamb shift [****]{}: 04.30.-w, 05.10.Gg, 02.50.Fz, 42.50.Lc Introduction \[sec1\] ===================== As known, the human brain radiates, during its biological activity, several kinds of electric waves (EW) which are generally classified as the $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\delta$ and $\theta$ waves [@freeman; @tran] (see also the references in [@freeman]). These EW, which differ in their frequencies ($Hz$) and amplitudes ($\mu V$) and are detected by electrodes attached to the scalp, are tracked to the human states [@freeman] such as relaxation (related to the $\alpha$ waves), alertness (related to the $\beta$ waves) and sleep which gives rise to the $\delta$ and $\theta$ waves. The source of these EW are the neurons in the cerebral cortex which are transactional cells which receive and transmit among them inputs and outputs in the form of ionic electric currents over short and long distances within the brain (see Chapter 1 in [@freeman]). These ionic electric currents are, of course, electric charges in motion which may be calculated through the known Gauss law [@halliday]. That is, assuming the brain is surrounded by some hypothetical surface $S$ one may measure, using the mentioned electrodes, the electric field which crosses that surface so that he can calculate, using Gauss law [@halliday] $ \oint {\bf E_c} \cdot d{\bf s}=C_cq=\frac{q}{\epsilon_0} $, the charge $q$ inside the brain which is related to the measured EW. The ${\bf E_c}$ in the former Gauss’s law is the electric field vector and $\epsilon_0$ is the permittivity constant. But as known, any ion and any charge $q$ has a mass $m$ which actually carries it so that one may use the corresponding Gauss’s law for gravitation (see P. 618 in [@halliday]) $\oint {\bf E_g} \cdot d{\bf s}=C_gm=- 4\pi G\cdot m$ to relate the mass $m$ to the gravitational field vector ${\bf E_g}$ which is identified at the neighbourhood of the earth surface with the gravitational acceleration ${\bf g}$, i. e., ${\bf E_g}={\bf g}$. The constant $G$ is the universal gravitational constant and the gravitational field vector at the earth surface $E_g$ is a specific case of the generalized gravitational waves (GW) which have tensorial properties [@mtw; @hartle; @thorne]. These GW are very much weak compared to the corresponding EW as may be seen by comparing (in the MKS system) the constants which multiply the mass $m$ and charge $q$ in the former two Gauss’s laws, e.g, $\biggl|\frac{C_g}{C_c}\biggr|= \frac{4\pi G}{\frac{1}{\epsilon_0}}=4\pi \cdot 6.672\cdot 10^{-11}\frac{Nm^2}{kg^2}\cdot 8.854\cdot 10^{-12}\frac{C^2}{Nm^2}= 7.4234\cdot 10^{-25}\frac{C^2}{kg^2}$. One may, however, consider the real situation in which the mentioned GW’s originate not from one human brain but from a large ensemble of them. Thus, if these waves have the same wavelength and phase they may constructively interfere [@bar1] with each other to produce a resultant significant GW. It has been shown [@bar1], comparing gravitational waves with the electromagnetic ones, that the former may also display constructive or destructive interference as well as holographic properties. We emphasize here before anything else that this work is not about consciousness, mind or thinking at all (the way discussed, for example, by Roger Penrose in his books [@penrose] or in [@arx]) but use only the assumption that the mass, associated with the charge in the brain, should be involved with gravitational field as all masses do. But, in contrast to the electromagnetic waves, no GW of any kind and form were directly detected up to now, except through indirect methods [@note], even with the large terrestrial interferometric Ligo [@ligo], Virgo [@virgo], Geo [@geo] and Tama [@tama] detectors. Morover, in contrast to other physical waves (for example, the electromagnetic waves), GW’s do not propagate as three-dimensional (3D) oscillations in the background of the stationary four-dimensional (4D) spacetime but are themselves perturbations of this spacetime itself [@mtw; @hartle; @thorne]. That is, the geometry of spacetime curves and oscillates in consequence of the presence of the passing GW so that, in case it is strong enough, it may even impose its own geometry upon the traversed spacetime [@beig]. Thus, the GW is an inherent part of the involved 4D spacetime in the sense that its geometry is reflected in the related metric form $ds^2$. This is seen, for example, in the metric form of the cylindrical spacetime [@einstein; @kuchar] or in the linearized version of general relativity where one uses the flat Minkowsky metric form to which a small perturbation is added which denotes the appropriate weak passing GW [@mtw]. No one asks in such cases if these 4D perturbations, which propagate as GW’s, occur in the background of some stationary higher dimensional neighbourhood. One may, however, argue that as other physical waves, such as the electromagnetic ones, are considered as 3D oscillations in the background of the stationary 4D spacetime so the GW’s may also be discussed as 4D oscillations in the background of a stationary 5D neighbourhood. This point of view was taken in the known Kaluza’s 5D theory and in the projective field formulations of general relativity (unified field theories, see Chapter XVII in [@bergmann]) where it was shown that the related expressions in the 5D spacetime were decomposed not only to the known Einstein field equations but also to the not less known Maxwell equations. In this work we discuss GW from this point of view and use the stochastic quantization (SQ) of Paris-Wu-Namiki [@parisi; @namiki] which is known to yield by a unique limiting process the equilibrium state of many classical and quantum phenomena [@namiki]. An important and central element of the SQ is the assumption of an extra dimension termed in [@namiki] fictitious time in which some stochastic process, governed by either the Langevin [@coffey] or the Fokker-Plank [@risken] equations, is performed. Thus, one may begin from either one of the two mentioned equations, which govern the assumed stochastic process in the extra dimension, and ends, by a limiting process in which all the different values of the relevant extra variable (denoted $s$) are equated to each other and taken to infinity [@namiki], in the equilibrium state. The main purpose of the SQ theory [@namiki] is to obtain the expectation value of some random quantity or the correlation function of its variables. In this work we consider, as an example of stochastic process which may be discussed in the framework of the Parisi-Wu-Namiki SQ, the mentioned activity of the human brain. That is, as it is possible to calculate the correlation between a large ensemble of brains in the sense of finding them radiating similar EW’s so one may, theoretically, discuss the probability to find them radiating similar GW’s. We show that although, as mentioned, the GW radiated by one brain is negligible compared to the related EW the correlation between the GW’s radiated from a large number of them may not be small. But in order to be able to properly calculate this correlation we should discuss some specific kind, from a possible large number of kinds, of GW’s. Thus, we particularize to the cylindrical one and calculate the probability (correlation) to find an ensemble of $n$ human brains radiating cylindrical GW’s. We do this by calculating this correlation in the extra dimension and show that once it is equated to unity one finds that in the stationary state (where the extra variable is eliminated) [*all the ensemble of brains radiate similar cylindrical GW’s*]{}. As mentioned, no one has directly detected, up to now, any kind of GW so all our discussion is strictly theoretical in the hope that some day in the future these GW may at last be directly detected. As mentioned, the SQ theory is suitable for discussing stochastic and unpredictable phenomena which should be analyzed by correlation terminology and probability terms. Thus, we found it convenient to discuss the electron-photon interaction which originates from quantum fluctuations and results in the known Lamb shift [@lamb] by the SQ methods. We first calculate the states of the electron and photon and the interaction between them in the extra dimension and then show that in the limit of eliminating the extra variable one obtains the known expressions which characterize the Lamb shift [@lamb; @haken]. In Appendix A we represent the formalism and main expressions of the Parisi-Wu-Namiki SQ theory. We, especially, introduce the expressions for the correlation among an ensemble of variables along given intervals of the time $t$ and the extra variable $s$. In our discussion here of the cylindrical GW we use the fact emphasized in [@kuchar] that [*the ADM canonical formalism for the cylindrical GW is completely equivalent to the parametrized canonical formalism for the cylindrically symmetric massless scalar field on a Minkowskian spacetime background*]{}. Moreover, as also emphasized in [@kuchar], one may use the half-parametrized formalism of the mentioned canonical formalism without losing any important content. Thus, in Section II we introduce a short review of this half parametrized cylindrical massless scalar field in the background of the Minkowsky spacetime where use is made of the results in [@kuchar]. In Section III we represent and discuss the cylindrical GW in the framework of the SQ formalism and introduce the probability that a large ensemble of brains are found to radiate cylindrical GW’s. This probability is calculated in a detailed manner in Appendix $B$. In Section IV we realize that the somewhat complex expression of the calculated probability in the extra dimension is greatly simplified at the mentioned stationary limit so that one may clearly see that for a unity value of it all the $n$-brain ensemble radiate the same cylindrical GW’s. In Section V we discuss the electron-photon interaction, which results in the known Lamb shift [@lamb; @haken], in the framework of the SQ formalism and the Fokker-Plank equation [@risken]. In Section VI we show that at the limit of the stationary state, in which the extra variable is eliminated, one may obtain the known expressions related to the mentioned Lamb shift as obtained in the framework of quantum field theory [@lamb; @haken]. In Section VII we summarize the discussion. The massless cylindrical wave in the Minkowskian background \[sec3\] ==================================================================== As discussed in Appendix A the stochastic process in the extra dimension $s$ is described by the $n$ variables $\psi(s,t)=\biggl(\psi_0(s,t),\psi_1(s,t),\ldots \psi_{(n-2)}(s,t), \psi_{(n-1)}(s,t)\biggr)$ where the finite intervals $(s_{(0)},s)$, $(t_{(0)},t)$ of $s$ and $t$ during which the former process “evolutes” are assumed each to be subdivided into $N$ subintervals $(t_{(0)},t_1), (t_1,t_2), \ldots (t_{(N-1)},t)$ and $(s_{(0)},s_1), (s_1,s_2), \ldots (s_{(N-1)},s)$. In the application of the SQ formalism for the ensemble of brains we identify the mentioned ensemble of $n$ variables $\psi_i(s,t),\ \ 0 \leq i \leq (n-1)$, which describe the stochastic process in the extra dimension $s$, with the ensemble of brains. This ensemble of variables (brains) is related, as is customary in the SQ theory, to the corresponding ensemble of random forces $\eta(s,t)=\biggl(\eta_0(s,t),\eta_1(s,t),\ldots \eta_{(n-2)}(s,t), \eta_{(n-1)}(s,t)\biggr)$. As mentioned, our aim is to calculate the correlation between the $n$-member ensemble of brains with respect to the cylindrical GW. That is, according to the results of Appendix B, we calculate the conditional probability to find this ensemble of brains radiating at $t$ and $s$ the cylindrical GW’s $\psi(s,t)$ if they were found at $t_{(N-1)}$ and $s_{(N-1)}$ radiating the cylindrical GW’s $\psi(s_{(N)},t_{(N)})$ and at $t_{(N-3)}$ and $s_{(N-3)}$ they were found radiating the cylindrical GW’s $\psi(s_{(N-2)},t_{(N-2)})$ $\ldots \ldots$ and at $t_{(0)}$ and $s_{(0)}$ they were radiating the cylindrical GW’s $\psi(s_{(1)},t_{(1)})$ (see the discussion after Eqs (\[$B_{10}$\]), (\[$B_{13}$\]) and (\[$B_{14}$\]) in Appendix $B$). As mentioned, the cylindrical GW, in its ADM canonical formalism [@adm], is completetly equivalent [@kuchar] to the parametrized canonical formalism for the cylindrically symmetric massless scalar field in a Minkowskian background. Thus, for introducing the relevant expressions related to the cylindrical GW [@kuchar] we write the action functional $S$ for the massless cylindrical wave in the Minkowskian background [@kuchar; @adm] $$S=2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dT\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR{\cal L}, \label{e1}$$ where ${\cal L}$ is is the Lagragian density [@kuchar] $${\cal L} = \frac{1}{2}R\biggl((\psi_{,T})^2-(\psi_{,R})^2\biggr) \label{e2}$$ The $T$ denotes the Minkowskian time and $R$ is the radial distance from the symmetry axis in flat space [@kuchar]. The expressions $\psi_{,T}$, and $\psi_{,R}$ denote the respective derivatives of $\psi$ with respect to $T$ and $R$. In the parametrized canonical formalism in a Minkowskian background one have to introduce [@kuchar] curvilinear coordinates $t$ and $r$ in flat space $$\begin{aligned} && t=t(T,R), \ \ \ \ r=r(T,R) \label{e3} \\ && T=T(t,r), \ \ \ \ R=R(t,r) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ As shown in [@kuchar] one may discuss the cylindrical scalar waves in a half-parametrized canonical formalism without losing any physical content except for the spatial covariance of the scalar wave formalism [@kuchar]. In this half-parametrized canonical formalism one use the following coordinates $$r=R, \ \ \ \ \ t=t(T,R) \label{e4}$$ It was shown in [@kuchar], using Eqs (\[e1\])-(\[e2\]) and (\[e4\]), that the action $S$ assumes the simplified form $$S=2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR{\cal L}= 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR\biggl(\Pi_TT_{,t}+ \pi_{\psi}\psi_{,t}-N{\cal H}\biggl), \label{e5}$$ where $T_{,t}$ and $\psi_{,t}$ denote derivatives of $T$ and $\psi$ with respect to $t$. The $N$ is a Lagrange multiplier and ${\cal H}$ is [@kuchar] $${\cal H}=\Pi_T+ \underline{\cal H}, \label{e6}$$ where $\underline{\cal H}$ and $\Pi_T$ are related as [@kuchar] $$\begin{aligned} & \underline{\cal H}=-\Pi_T=\frac{1}{2}\bigl(1-T^2_{,R}(R,t)\bigr)^{-1} \biggl(-iR^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\delta}{\delta \psi(R,t)} - R^{\frac{1}{2}}T_{,R}(R,t)\psi_{,R}(R,t)\biggr)^2 + \label{e7} \\ & + \frac{1}{2}R\psi^2_{,R}(R,t) = \frac{1}{2(1-T^2_{,R}(R,t))}\biggl(R^{-1}\pi^2_{\psi}(R,t) -2T_{,R}(R,t)\pi_{\psi}(R,t)\psi_{,R}(R,t) + \nonumber \\ & + R\psi^2_{,R}(R,t)\biggr) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The last result were obtained by using the following definition of the momentum operator $\pi_{\psi}(R,t)$ $$\pi_{\psi}(R,t)=-i\frac{\delta}{\delta(\psi(R,t))} \label{e8}$$ From Eqs (\[e6\])-(\[e7\]) one realizes that ${\cal H}$ satisfies the constraint [@kuchar] $$\label{e9} {\cal H}=0$$ Note that we do not discuss yet the SQ theory with the extra dimension which will be discussed in the following section. Eqs (\[e5\])-(\[e9\]) ensure that in the framework of the half parametrized canonical formalism the following variational principle is satisfied [@kuchar] $$\delta S= \delta\biggl\{2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dR\biggl(\Pi_TT_{,t}(R,t)+ \pi_{\psi}(R,t)\psi_{,t}(R,t)-N{\cal H}\biggl)\biggr\}=0, \label{e10}$$ where all variables $T$, $\Pi_T$, $\psi(R,t)$, $\pi_{\psi}(R,t)$, and $N$ may be varied freely [@kuchar]. Note that the function $\Pi_T$ may be represented as the operator [@kuchar] $\Pi_{T}=-i\frac{\delta}{\delta(T(R,t))}$. Also, it should be remarked that the commutation relation between $\pi_{\psi}(R,t)$ and $\psi_{,R}(R,t)$ is zero at the same point, i.g., $[\psi_{,R}(R,t),\pi_{\psi}(R',t)] =i\frac{\delta(\psi_{,R}(R,t))}{\delta \psi(R',t)}= i\frac{d}{dR}(\frac{\delta(\psi(R,t))}{\delta \psi(R',t)})= i\frac{d\delta(R-R')}{dR}=0$ since the $\delta$ function is antisymmetric so that one have $\frac{d\delta(0)}{dR}=0$. The wave function $\psi(R,T)$ (not in the half-parametrized formalism), which is obtained as a solution of the Einstein field equations for the cylindrical line element, is generally represented as an integral over all modes $k$ [@macrina] $$\label{e11} \psi(R,T)=\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk J_0(kR)\bigl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\bigr)$$ where $j_0(kR)$ is the bessel function of order zero [@abramowitz]. The quantities $A(k), \ A^*(k)$ denote the amplitude and its complex conjugate for some specific mode $k$. Note that here one assumes, as done in the literature, $c=\hbar=1$ so that $w={\tilde k}=p$ where $w$ is the frequency, ${\tilde k}$ the wave number and $p$ the momentum of some mode. The momentum $\pi_{\psi}(T,R)$, canonically conjugate to $\psi(R,T)$, may be obtained [@kuchar; @macrina] by solving the Hamilton equation $$\label{e12} \frac{\partial \psi(R,T)}{\partial t}=\{\psi(R,T),H\},$$ where $\psi(R,T)$ is from Eq (\[e11\]) and the curly brackets at the right denote the Poisson brackets. The Hamilton function $H$ is [@kuchar; @macrina] $$\label{e13} H=\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dr\biggl(\tilde{N}\tilde{H}+\tilde{N^1}\tilde{H}_1\biggr)$$ where $\tilde{H}$ and $\tilde{H}_1$ are respectively the rescaled superHamiltonian and supermomentum which where given in [@kuchar] (see Eqs (93)-(97) and (106)-(108) in [@kuchar]) as $$\begin{aligned} && \tilde{H}=R_{,r}\Pi_T+T_{,r}\Pi_R+ \frac{1}{2}R^{-1}\pi_{\psi}^2(R,T)+\frac{1}{2}R\psi_{,r}^2(R,T) \label{e14} \\ && \tilde{H}_1=T_{,r}\Pi_T+R_{,r}\Pi_R+\psi_{,r}(R,T)\pi_{\psi}(R,T) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The quantities $\psi_{,r}(R,T)$, $T_{,r}$, $R_{,r}$ denote differentiation of $\psi(R,T)$, $T$, $R$ with respect to $r$ (where in the half-parametrized formalism $R_{,r}=1$ as realized from Eq (\[e4\])) and $\Pi_T, \ \Pi_R$ are the respective momenta canonically conjugate to $T$ and $R$. The $\tilde{N}$ and $\tilde{N}^1$ from Eq (\[e13\]) respectively denote the rescaled lapse and shift function $N$, $N^1$ (see Eqs (96) in [@kuchar]). Thus, the $\pi_{\psi}(T,R)$ in the half-parametrized formalism were shown [@kuchar] to be $$\begin{aligned} & \pi_{\psi}(T,R)=R\biggl(\frac{(1-T^2_{,R})}{T_{,t}}\psi_{,t}(R,T)+ T_{,R}\psi_{,R}(R,T)\biggr)= iR(1-T^2_{,R})\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk k J_0(kR)\cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)} -A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr) -RT_{,R}\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk kJ_1(kR)\bigl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+ \label{e15} \\ & + A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\bigr)+ iR\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk k J_0(kR)(T_{,R})^2\biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}-A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $j_1(kR)$ is the first order Bessel function [@abramowitz] obtained by differentiating $j_0(kR)$ with respect to $R$, e.g., $j_0(kR)_{,R}=-kj_1(kR)$. As shown in [@macrina] one may express, using the expression $\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dr'r'\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dkkJ_n(kr)J_n(kr')f(r')=f(r)$, the observables $A(k)$ and $A^*(k)$ in terms of $\psi(R,T)$ and $\pi_{\psi}(R,T)$ as $$\begin{aligned} & A(k)= \frac{1}{2}\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR e^{-ikT}\biggl\{Rk\biggl[\psi(R,T)\biggl(J_0(kR) - iT_{,R}J_1(kR)\biggr)\biggr] - iJ_0(kR)\pi_{\psi}(R,T)\biggr\} \label{e16} \\ & A^*(k)= \frac{1}{2}\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR e^{ikT}\biggl\{Rk\biggl[\psi(R,T)\biggl(J_0(kR)+ iT_{,R}J_1(kR)\biggr)\biggr] + iJ_0(kR)\pi_{\psi}(R,T)\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The cylindrical GW in the SQ formalism ====================================== We, now, discuss the cylindrical GW from the SQ point of view and begin by writing the Langevin equation (\[$A_{1}$\]) of Appendix $A$ for the subintervals $(t_{(k-1)},t_k)$ and $(s_{(k-1)},s_k)$ in the following form [@namiki] $$\frac{\psi_i^k(s)-\psi_i^{k-1}(s)}{\bigl(s_k-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)}- K_i(\psi^{k-1}(s))= \eta_i^k(s), \label{e17}$$ where $\frac{d\psi_i}{ds_k}\approx \frac{\psi_i^k-\psi_i^{(k-1)}}{s_k-s_{(k-1)}}$ and the $\eta_i(s)$ are conditioned as [@namiki] $$\label{e18} <\!\eta_i(s)\!>=0,\ \ \ <\!\eta_i(s)\eta_j(\grave s)\!>=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & {\rm for~} s \ne \grave s \\ 2\alpha\delta_{ij} & {\rm for~} s=\grave s \end{array} \right.$$ Note that although the $s$ dependence is emphasized in the last two equations one should remember that there exist also spatial and time dependence (see the following discussion and Eq (\[e19\])). The $\alpha$ in Eq (\[e18\]) is as discussed after Eq (\[$A_{3}$\]) of Appendix $A$. The appropriate $K_i$ for the massless cylindrical scalar wave in the Minkowskian background may be obtained by using Eq (\[$A_{2}$\]) in Appendix A and Eq (\[e5\]) from which one realizes that the Lagrangian ${\cal L}$ depends upon two independent variables $t$, $R$ and five dependent varables $\psi(R,t)$, $\pi_{\psi}(R,t)$, $T(R,t)$, $\Pi_T$, $N$. Note that in the following we represent $\psi$ and $\pi_{\psi}$ by the expressions from Eqs (\[e11\]) and (\[e15\]) as mentioned after Eq (\[e23\]). Thus, although the functions $\psi$ and $\pi_{\psi}$ should be denoted, because of that, as $\psi(R,T)$ and $\pi_{\psi}(R,T)$ we denote them as $\psi(R,t)$ and $\pi_{\psi}(R,t)$ and take, of course, into account the dependence of $T$ upon $r$ and $t$ as realized, for example, in Eqs (\[e27\]). The mentioned dependence of ${\cal L}$ upon the dependent variables include in our case, as seen from Eqs (\[e6\])-(\[e7\]) and (\[e15\]), dependence of ${\cal L}$ also upon some derivatives of them, i.e., $\psi_{,t}$, $\psi_{,R}$, $T_{,t}$, $T_{,R}$. Thus, the involved variation of $\delta S$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} & \delta S= 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR\delta {\cal L} = 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dT\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR\biggl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi}\delta \psi+\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi_{,R}}\delta \psi_{,R}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi_{,t}}\delta \psi_{,t}+ \nonumber \\ & +\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial T}\delta T+\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial T_{,R}}\delta T_{,R}+ \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial T_{,t}}\delta T_{,t}+ \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \pi_{\psi}}\delta \pi_{\psi} +\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \Pi_T}\delta \Pi_T+\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial N}\delta N\biggr) \label{e19} \end{aligned}$$ As seen from Eq (\[e17\]) we are interested in calculating the function $K_i$ which is given by Eqs (\[e23\]) and (\[$A_{2}$\]) in Appendix $A$ as $K_i(\psi^{k-1}(s))= -(\frac{\delta S_i[\psi]}{\delta \psi})_{\psi=\psi(s,t,x)}$ where the function $\psi$ as function of $s$ is introduced only after varying the action $S_i$ as functional of $\psi$. Also, in order to deal with compact and simplified expressions, as done, for example, in Eqs (\[e19\])-(\[e24\]), we do not always write the various functions such as $\psi$, $\pi_{\psi}$, $T$ etc in their full dependence upon $R$ and $T$. We, now, should realize that the integrand in the last equation (\[e19\]) is the total differential $\delta {\cal L}$, whereas we are interested in $K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))$ which is seen from Eqs (\[e23\]) and (\[$A_{2}$\]) in Appendix A to be equal to the negative variation of the action $S_i$ with respect to $\psi$. Thus, according to the definition of $S$ from Eq (\[e1\]) $K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))$ should involve the $R$ and $t$ integration of the negative variation of the Lagrangian ${\cal L}$ with respect to $\psi$. That is, we should consider only the first three terms of Eq (\[e19\]) which are related to $\psi$ and its derivatives. Thus, for calculating the variations of these derivatives we note that $\delta \psi_{,t}$, $\delta \psi_{,R}$ are the respective differences between the original and varied $\psi_{,t}$, $\psi_{,R}$ and, therefore, they may be written as (see P. 493 in [@schiff]) $$\label{e20} \delta \psi_{,t}= \frac{\partial (\delta \psi)}{\partial t}, \ \ \ \delta \psi_{,R}=\frac{\partial (\delta \psi)}{\partial R}$$ Using the former discussion and the last equations (\[e20\]) one may write the appropriate expression for $\delta S$ as $$\label{e21} \delta S= \frac{\delta S}{\delta \psi}\delta \psi=2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR \biggl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi}\delta \psi+\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}\frac{\partial (\delta \psi)}{\partial R}+\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})} \frac{\partial (\delta \psi)}{\partial t} \biggr)$$ The second term at the right hand side of the last equation may be integrated by parts with respect to $R$ where the resulting surface terms are assumed to vanish because $\psi$ tends to zero at infinite distances [@kuchar]. The third term at the right hand side of Eq (\[e21\]) may also be integrated by parts with respect to $t$ where the boundary terms vanish because of the following assumed conditions of the variational principle [@weinstock] $\delta \psi(R,-\infty)=\delta \psi(R,+\infty)=0$. Thus, Eq (\[e21\]) becomes $$\label{e22} \delta S= 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{(0)}^{\infty}\biggl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi}-\frac{\partial}{\partial R} \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}\bigr)-\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}\bigr) \biggr)\delta \psi dt dR$$ We note that analogous discussion regarding the quantization of wave fields may be found at pages 492-493 in [@schiff]. Thus, using the former discussion and Eq (\[e22\]) one may write the following expression for $K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))$ $$\begin{aligned} & K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))= -(\frac{\delta S_i[\psi]}{\delta \psi})_{\psi=\psi(s,t,x)}= -2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dR\frac{\delta{\cal L}}{\delta \psi}= \nonumber \\ & = -2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{(0)}^{\infty}\biggl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi}-\frac{\partial}{\partial R} \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}\bigr)-\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}\bigr) \biggr) dt dR \label{e23} \end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain final calculable results we use, as mentioned, for $\psi$ and $\pi_{\psi}$ the respective expressions of Eqs (\[e11\]) and (\[e15\]). Also, noting that $\pi_{\psi}$ from Eq (\[e15\]) depends upon the derivatives $\psi_{,R}$, $\psi_{,t}$ one may use Eqs (\[e5\])-(\[e7\]) and (\[e9\]) to calculate the three expressions in the integrand of the last equation (\[e23\]) as follows $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial \psi}=0 \nonumber \\ & \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}= T_{,t}\frac{\partial \Pi_T}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}+ \psi_{,t}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}=-\frac{T_{,t}}{2(1-T^2_{,R})} \biggl(2R^{-1}\pi_{\psi}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}-2T_{,R}\pi_{\psi}- \nonumber \\ & - 2T_{,R}\psi_{,R}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})} + 2R\psi_{,R}\biggr)+ \psi_{,t}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}=-\frac{T_{,t}}{(1-T^2_{,R})}\bigl(R\psi_{,R}-R\psi_{,R}(T_{,R})^2\bigr)+\nonumber \\ & + \psi_{,t}RT_{,R} = R\bigl( \psi_{,t}T_{,R}-T_{,t}\psi_{,R}\bigr) \label{e24} \\ & \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})} = T_{,t}\frac{\partial \Pi_T}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}+\pi_{\psi}+ \psi_{,t}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}=-\frac{ T_{,t}}{2(1-T^2_{,R})}\biggl(2R^{-1}\pi_{\psi}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}} {\partial (\psi_{,t})}-\nonumber \\ & - 2T_{,R}\psi_{,R}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}} {\partial (\psi_{,t})}\biggr)+ \pi_{\psi}+\psi_{,t}\frac{\partial \pi_{\psi}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}= -\biggl(R\bigl(\frac{(1-T^2_{,R})}{T_{,t}}\psi_{,t}+T_{,R}\psi_{,R}\bigl)- \nonumber \\ & - RT_{,R}\psi_{,R}\biggr)+ 2\frac{R(1-T^2_{,R})}{T_{,t}}\psi_{,t} +RT_{,R}\psi_{,R} =\frac{R(1-T^2_{,R})}{T_{,t}}\psi_{,t} +RT_{,R}\psi_{,R} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ As seen from Eq (\[e23\]) the expressions $\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}$ and $ \frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}$ should be respectively differentiated with respect to $R$ and $t$. Thus, taking into account that these derivatives serve as integrands of integrals over $R$ and $t$ and using Eqs (\[e24\]) one may write Eq (\[e23\]) as $$\begin{aligned} & K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))= 2\pi\biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \biggl(\int_{(0)}^{\infty}\frac{\partial}{\partial R} \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}\bigr)dR\biggr)dt+\int_{0}^{\infty} \biggl(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}\bigr) dt \biggr) dR \biggr\}= \nonumber \\ & = 2\pi\biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,R})}\bigr)\biggl|^{R=\infty}_{R=0}+\int_{0}^{\infty}dR \bigl(\frac{\partial {\cal L}}{\partial (\psi_{,t})}\bigr)\biggl|^{t=\infty}_{t=-\infty}\biggr\}= 2\pi\biggl\{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt \biggl( R\bigl( \psi_{,t}T_{,R}- \nonumber \\ & - T_{,t}\psi_{,R}\bigr)\biggr)\biggl|^{R=\infty}_{R=0}+ \int_{R=0}^{R=\infty}dR\biggl(\frac{R(1-T^2_{,R})}{T_{,t}}\psi_{,t} +RT_{,R}\psi_{,R} \biggr)\biggr|^{t=\infty}_{t=-\infty}\biggr\} \label{e25} \end{aligned}$$ In the following we use the boundary values related to the function $T$ (see Section III in [@kuchar]) $$\lim_{t \to \pm \infty}T = t, \ \ \ \lim_{r \to \infty}T = t \label{e26}$$ Also, because of representing $\psi$ through the expression (\[e11\]), one may use the relation [@abramowitz] $j_0(kR)_{,R}=-kj_1(kR)$ in order to write the derivatives of $\psi$ with respect to $t$ and $r$ as $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\partial \psi(R,t)}{\partial R}=-\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk k J_1(kR)\bigl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\bigr)+ \nonumber \\ & +i\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk k T_{,R} J_0(kR)\bigl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\bigr) \label{e27} \\ & \frac{\partial \psi(R,t)}{\partial t} = iT_{,t}\int_{(0)}^{\infty} dk k J_0(kR)\bigl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}-A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\bigr) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Note that the leading terms of the Bessel’s functions of integer orders in the limits of very small and very large arguments are [@abramowitz; @schiff] $$\lim_{R \to 0}J_n(R)=\frac{R^n}{(2n+1)!!}, \ \ \ \ \lim_{R \to \infty}J_n(R)=\frac{1}{R}\cos\bigl(R-\frac{(n+1)\pi}{2}\bigr), \label{e28}$$ where $(2n+1)!!=1\cdot 3\cdot 5 \cdots (2n+1)$. From the last limiting relations one obtains for $J_0(kR)$ and $J_1(kR)$ $$\begin{aligned} & \lim_{kR \to 0}J_0(kR)=1, \ \ \ \ \ \ \lim_{kR \to \infty}J_0(kR)= \frac{1}{kR}\cos\bigl(kR-\frac{\pi}{2}\bigr)\label{e29} \\ & \lim_{kR \to 0}J_1(kR)=\frac{kR}{1\cdot3} , \ \ \ \ \ \ \lim_{kR \to \infty}J_1(kR)= \frac{1}{kR}\cos\bigl(kR-\pi\bigr)\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Taking into account Eqs (\[e27\]) and the derivative $j_0(kR)_{,R}=-kj_1(kR)$ one may realize that the right hand side of Eq (\[e25\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} & K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))= 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt\biggl(RT_{,R}\psi_{,t}- RT_{,t}\psi_{,R}\biggr) \biggl|^{R=\infty}_{R=0} + 2\pi\int_{R=0}^{R=\infty}dR\biggl(\frac{R(1-T^2_{,R})}{T_{,t}}\psi_{,t}+ \nonumber \\ & +RT_{,R}\psi_{,R} \biggr)\biggr|^{t=\infty}_{t=-\infty} =2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt\biggl[\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dkkRT_{,t} J_1(kR)\biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+ \nonumber \\ & + A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr) \biggr]\biggr|^{R=\infty}_{R=0} + 2\pi\int_{0}^{\infty} dR\biggl[i\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dkkR J_0(kR)\biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}- \label{e30} \\ & - A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr)- RT_{,R} \int_{0}^{\infty} dkk J_1(kR)\biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr)\biggr] \biggr|^{t=\infty}_{t=-\infty} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Using, now, (1) the limiting relations from Eqs (\[e26\]) and (\[e28\])-(\[e29\]), (2) the basic complex relation $i^2=-1$, (3) the trigonometric identity $2i\sin(\phi)=(e^{i\phi}-e^{-i\phi})$ and (4) the general property of Bessel’s functions of integer orders [@abramowitz] $\frac{d(x^nJ_n(x))}{dx}=x^nJ_{n-1}(x)$, which reduces, for $n=1$, to $\frac{d(xJ_1(x))}{dx}=xJ_{0}(x)$ it is possible to show that the first two terms at the right hand side of Eq (\[e30\]) cancel each other $$\begin{aligned} & 2\pi\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dt\biggl[\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dkkRT_{,t} J_1(kR)\biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}+ A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr) \biggr]\biggr|^{R=\infty}_{R=0}+ \nonumber \\ & + 2\pi\int_{0}^{\infty} dR\biggl[i\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dkkR J_0(kR)\biggl(A(k)e^{(ikT)}- A^*(k)e^{-(ikT)}\biggr)\biggr]\biggl|^{t=\infty}_{t=-\infty}= \label{e31} \\ & = 4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}dk \frac{\cos\bigl(kR-\pi\bigr)}{k}\sin(kt)\bigl(A(k) +A^*(k)\bigr)- 4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}dk\sin(kt) \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \frac{\bigl(A(k)+A^*(k)\bigr)}{k}\int_{(0)}^{\infty}d(kR) \frac{d\bigl((kR)J_1(kR)\bigr)}{d(kR)} = 4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}dk \frac{\sin(kt)}{k} cos\bigl(kR-\pi\bigr) \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot (A(k)+A^*(k)) - 4\pi\int_{0}^{\infty}dk\frac{\sin(kt)}{k} \bigl(A(k) + A^*(k)\bigr) \cos\bigl(kR-\pi\bigr) =0, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where we have passed in the last result from the integral variable $R$ to $kR$ and use the relation from Eqs (\[e29\]) $J_1(kR)\biggl|_{kR=0}= \lim_{kR \to 0}J_1(kR)= \lim_{kR \to 0}\frac{kR}{1\cdot3} \approx 0$. Thus, one remains with only the last term at the right hand side of Eq (\[e30\]) which, using Eqs (\[e11\]), (\[e26\]), (\[e29\]) and the integrals [@abramowitz] $\int_{(0)}^{\infty}xJ_1(x)dx=-xJ_0\biggl|^{\infty}_0+\int_{(0)}^{\infty}J_0(x)dx$ and $ \int_{(0)}^{\infty}J_0(x)dx=1$, may be reduced to $$\begin{aligned} & K_i(\psi^{k-1}(t_k,s_k))=- 2\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\int_{(0)}^{\infty}d(kR) kR\frac{J_1(kR)}{k}T_{,R} \biggl(A(k)e^{ikT}+A^*(k)e^{-ikT}\biggr)\biggl|^{t=\infty}_{t=-\infty}= \nonumber \\ & = -2\pi \int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk \biggl(A(k)e^{ikt}+A^*(k)e^{-ikt}- A(k)e^{-ikt}-A^*(k)e^{ikt}\biggr)T_{,R} \biggl( \int_{(0)}^{\infty}d(kR)J_0(kR) - \nonumber \\ & -kRJ_0(kR)\biggl|^{kR=\infty}_{kR=0}\biggr) = -4i\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\sin(kt)\bigl(A(k)-A^*(k)\bigr)T_{,R} +\label{e32} \\ & +2\pi \int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk \biggl(A(k)e^{ikt}+A^*(k)e^{-ikt}- A(k)e^{-ikt}-A^*(k)e^{ikt}\biggr)T_{,R}kRJ_0(kR)\biggl|^{kR=\infty}_{kR=0} =\nonumber \\ &= -4i\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\sin(kt)\bigl(A(k)-A^*(k)\bigr)T_{,R}+ 2\pi\lim_{kR \to \infty} kR\psi(t,R)T_{,R}- \nonumber \\ & - \int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\cos\bigl(kR-\frac{\pi}{2}\bigr) \biggl( A(k)e^{-ikt}+A^*(k)e^{ikt}\biggr)T_{,R} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We note, as emphasized in [@kuchar], that a hypersurface of constant time $t$ is not assumed to have conical singularity on the axis of symmetry $R=0$. This requires the condition [@kuchar] $T_{,R}=0, \ for \ R=0$. But spacetime is assumed to be locally Euclidean at spatial infinity [@kuchar] which means that the hypersurface of constant time $t$ have no conical singularity also at infinity so that $\lim_{R \to \infty}T_{,R} \approx 0$. Thus, one may suppose that the relation $\lim_{kR \to \infty}kRT_{,R}$ at Eq (\[e32\]) tends to finite value so that the prefix of $\lim_{kR \to \infty}$ may be omitted. It may be realized in this respect from the definition of $T$ and its $r$ derivative, i.e., $T(r)=T(\infty)+\int_{\infty}^r(-\pi_{\gamma})dr$, $T_{,r}=\pi_{\gamma}$ (see Eqs (98) and (100) in [@kuchar]) that the $r$ dependence of $T$ is especially through the $r$ at the upper end of the integral interval. Thus, the $T_{,R}$ may be taken outside the integral over $kR$. Also, one may note that the boundary value of $kRJ_0(kR)$ at $kR=0$ is ignored since, as seen from Eqs (\[e29\]), it obviously vanishes. Substituting from Eq (\[e32\]) into the Langevin equation (\[e17\]) one obtains $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}(s_k,R,t_k)-\psi_{(i)}^{(k-1)}\bigl(s_{(k-1)},R,t_{(k-1)}\bigr)} {\bigl(s_k-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)} +4i\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\sin(kt)\bigl(A(k)-A^*(k)\bigr)T_{,R}- \label{e33} \\ & - 2\pi \biggl[(\lim_{kR \to \infty} kRT_{,R})\psi(t,R)-\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\cos\bigl(kR-\frac{\pi}{2}\bigr) \biggl( A(k)e^{-ikt}-A^*(k)e^{ikt}\biggr) T_{,R} \biggr]= \eta_i^k \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the probability from Eq (\[$A_{10}$\]) of Appendix A for the subintervals $(t_{(k-1)},t_k)$, $(s_{(k-1)},s_k)$ assumes the following form for the cylindrical gravitational wave [@namiki] $$\begin{aligned} & P\bigl(\psi_{(n-1)}^{(k)},t_k,s_k|\psi_{(0)}^{(k-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \biggl(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha)}}\biggr)^{n} \exp\biggl\{-\sum_i\biggl[\frac{1}{2(2\alpha)} \biggl\{\frac{\bigl(\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}-\psi_{(i)}^{(k-1)}\bigr)}{\bigl(s_k-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)}+ \nonumber \\ & + 4i\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}\sin(kt)\bigl(A(k)-A^*(k)\bigr)T_{,R} - 2\pi \biggl[(\lim_{kR \to \infty} kRT_{,R})\psi(t,R)- \label{e34} \\ & - \int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\cos\bigl(kR-\frac{\pi}{2}\bigr) \biggl( A(k)e^{-ikt}-A^*(k)e^{ikt}\biggr)T_{R}\biggr] \biggr\}^2\biggr] \biggr\}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ which is the probability that the $\eta_i^k$ from the right hand side of Eq (\[e33\]) takes the value at its left hand side [@namiki] and the index $i$ runs over the $n$ members of the ensemble. Here, we relate the variable $s$ to the possible geometries of the gravitational wave in the sense that different values of $s$ refer to different geometries of the radiated GW’s. This is the meaning of saying that the right hand side of Eq (\[e33\]), which represents the unpredictability of the stochastic forces, should reflects the left hand side of it which represents the variable character of the waves radiated by the brain. A Markov process [@kannan] in which $\eta(s)$ does not correlate with its history is always assumed for these correlations. Eq (\[e34\]) is, actually, a conditional probability which is detaily discussed in the following section and, especially, in Appendix $B$. The probability that the large ensemble of brains radiate cylindrical gravitational waves ========================================================================================= The correlation for the $n$-ensemble of variables $\psi_i, \ (n-1) \geq i \geq 0$ over the entire $N$ subintervals into which each of the $(s_{(0)}, s)$ and $(t_{(0)}, t)$ intervals are subdivided may be taken from either Eq (\[$A_{11}$\]) or the equivalent Eq (\[$A_{12}$\]) of Appendix $A$ which is [@namiki] $$\begin{aligned} & P\bigl(\psi_{(n-1)},t,s|\psi_{0},t_{(0)},s_{0}\bigr)=\int \cdots \int \cdots \int \cdots \nonumber \\ & \cdots P\bigl(\psi^{(N)}_{(n-1)},t_N,s_N|\psi^{(N-1)}_{(0)}, t_{(N-1)},s_{(N-1)}\bigr) \cdots P\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(n-1)},t_k,s_k|\psi^{(k-1)}_{0},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr) \cdots \nonumber \\ & \cdots P\bigl(\psi^{(1)}_{(n-1)},t_1,s_1|\psi^{(0)}_{0},t_{(0)},s_{0}\bigr)d\psi^{(N)}\cdots d\psi^{(k)} \cdots d\psi^{(0)}, \label{e35} \end{aligned}$$ where each $P$ at the right hand side of the last equation is essentially given by Eq (\[e34\]). In order to be able to solve the integrals in the last equation we should substitute from Eq (\[e34\]) for the $P$’s. But we should remark that in Appendix $B$ and in this section the relevant probability is calculated by performing the relevant summations first over the $n$ variables denoted by the suffix $i$ and then over the $N$ subintervals denoted by the superscript $k$. That is, as emphasized after Eq (\[$B_{1}$\]) in Appendix $B$, the sum over $i$ in the exponent of that equation, in contrast to Eq (\[$A_{11}$\]) in Appendix $A$, precedes that over $k$ and, therefore, the squared expression involves the variables $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)}$ etc (instead of $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(i)}^{(k-1)}$ of (\[$A_{11}$\]) and Eq (\[e34\])). Now, before proceeding we define the following expressions $$\begin{aligned} & B_1(R,t)=2\pi kRT_{,R} \nonumber \\ & B_2(R,t)=2\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\cos\bigl(kR-\frac{\pi}{2}\bigr) \biggl( A(k)e^{-ikt}-A^*(k)e^{ikt}\biggr)T_{,R} \label{e36} \\ & B_3(R,t)=i4\pi\int_{(0)}^{\infty}dk\sin(kt)\bigl(A(k)-A^*(k)\bigr)T_{,R}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where, as remarked after Eq (\[e32\]), the prefix of $\lim_{kR \to \infty}$ were omitted from the definition of $B_1(R,t)$. Thus, Eq (\[e33\]) may be written as $$\frac{\partial \psi(s_k,R,t)}{\partial s} = B_1(R,t)\psi(R,t) - B_2(R,t)-iB_3(R,t)+\eta_i^k, \label{e37}$$ where the $\eta^{(k)}_i$ satisfies the Gaussian constraints from Eq (\[e18\]). Solving Eq (\[e37\]) for $\psi^{(k)}_i(s_k,R,t)$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned} & \psi_i^k(s_k,R,t)=\psi_{(0)} \exp\bigl(2\pi s_kB_{1}(R,t)\bigr) + 2\pi\int_0^{s_k}ds'_{k}\biggl\{\exp\biggl(B_1(R,t)(s_k-s'_k)\biggr) \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \biggl( \eta^k_i - B_2(R,t)- iB_3(R,t)\biggr)\biggr\}, \label{e38} \end{aligned}$$ for initial condition $\psi(0)=\psi_{(0)}$ at $s_k=0$. Note that differentiating Eq (\[e38\]) with respect to $s_k$, using the rules for evaluating integrals dependent on a parameter [@pipes], one obtains Eq (\[e37\]). In Appendix $B$ we have derived in a detailed manner the appropriate expressions for the correlations of the ensemble of $n$ variables over the given subintervals. We note, as emphasized at the beginning of Section II, that these variables are related with the involved ensemble of brains. Thus, the correlation of these $n$ brains over the $N$ subinterval $(s_{(1)}-s_{(0)}) \ldots (s_{(N)}-s_{(N-1)})$ is given by Eq (\[$B_{20}$\]) in Appendix $B$ as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i,j,l,.....}\bigl(\psi^{(N)}_{(n)},s_{(N)},t_{(N)}|\psi^{(1)}_{(0)}, s_{(0)},t_{(0)}\bigr)= \biggl(\frac{N} {4\pi \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \label{e39} \\ & \cdot \exp\biggl\{- \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggl(\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}- (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_{(0)}^{(N)} +a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are given in Eqs (\[$B_{5}$\]) in Appendix $B$ as $a_1=(1+2\pi B_1\Delta s)^2$, $a_2=2\pi \Delta s(B_2+iB_3)$ and $\Delta s$ is a representative $s$ subinterval from the $N$ available which are all assumed to have the same length. The correlation of Eq (\[e39\]) means, as remarked in Appendix $B$, the conditional probability to find at $s=s_{(N)}$ and $t=t_{(N)}$ the variables $\psi_{(n-1)}$, $\psi_{(n-2)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(1)}$ at the respective states of $\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}$, $\psi_{(n-1)}^{(N)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(2)}^{(N)}$ if at $s=s_{(N-1)}$ and $t=t_{(N-1)}$ they were found at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(N)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(N)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(0)}^{(N)}$ and at $s=s_{(N-3)}$ and $t=t_{(N-3)}$ they were found at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(N-2)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(N-2)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(0)}^{(N-2)}$ $\ldots \ldots$ and at $s=s_{(0)}$ and $t=t_{(0)}$ they were at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(1)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(1)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(0)}^{(1)}$. That is, the conditional probability here includes a condition for each of the $N$ subintervals $(s_{(0)}, s_{(1)}), (s_{(2)}, s_{(3)}), \ \ldots (s_{(N-1)}, s_{(N)})$ so that the superscripts of the variables $\psi$ at the beginnings of all these subintervals are the same as at the ends of them as remarked after Eqs (\[$B_{10}$\]), (\[$B_{13}$\]), (\[$B_{14}$\]) and (\[$B_{15}$\]) in Appendix $B$. From the last equation (\[e39\]) one may realize that for assigning to $ P_{i,j,l,.....}\bigl(\psi^{(N)}_{(n)},s_{(N)},t_{(N)}|\psi^{(1)}_{(0)}, \\ s_{(0)},t_{(0)}\bigr)$ a probability meaning which have values only in the range $(0, 1)$ the following inequality should be satisfied $$\begin{aligned} & \biggl(\frac{4\pi \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}{N}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}} \geq \exp\biggl\{ \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggl( (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_{(0)}^{(N)} - \label{e40} \\ & - \psi_{(n)}^{(N)} -a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Taking the $\ln$ of the two sides of the last inequality and solving for $\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned} & \psi_{(n)}^{(N)} \geq (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_{(0)}^{(N)}-a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r- \label{e41} \\ & - \biggl[\biggl(\frac{2 \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}{N}\biggr) \ln\biggl(\frac{4\pi \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}{N}\biggr) \biggr]^{\frac{1}{2}}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where for a unity probability one should consider the equality sign of the last inequality. That is, if the variables $\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}$ and $\psi_{(0)}^{(N)}$ are related to each other in the extra dimension according to the equality sign of (\[e41\]) then the probability to find at the equilibrium state (where the variable $s$ is eliminated) the whole ensemble of variables all related to the same gravitational geometry is unity. And since, as remarked, these variables are identified with the discussed ensemble of brains this means that they are all radiating cylindrical GW’s. This may be shown when one equates all the different values of $s$ to each other and taking the infinity limit as should be done in the stationary configuration. In such case one have $\Delta s=0$ and therefore it may be realized from Eqs (\[$B_{5}$\]) in Appendix $B$ that the following relations are valid $$\begin{aligned} & a_{1_{\Delta s=0}}=\sqrt{a_{1_{\Delta s=0}}}= (\sqrt{a_{1_{\Delta s=0}}})^{(n+1)}=1, \ \ \ \ \sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_{1_{\Delta s=0}}})^r=(n+2) \label{e42} \\ & \sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_{1_{\Delta s=0}}^k=n, \ \ \ \ a_{2_{\Delta s=0}}=0 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ That is, using the last relations and noting that the $\ln$ function satisfies the limiting relation [@pipes] $\lim_{x \to 0} x^2\ln(x^2)=0$ one obtains from Eq (\[e41\]) the expected stationary state $$\label{e43} \psi_{(n)_{st}}^{(N)} = \psi_{(0)_{st}}^{(N)}$$ Noting the way by which the conditional probability from Eq (\[$B_{20}$\]) in Appendix $B$ was derived and the fact that $N$ and $n$ denote general numbers it may be realized that the last result from Eq (\[e43\]) ensures that at $t=t_{(N)}$ in the equilibrium situation all the variables $\psi_{i_{st}}^{(N)}, \ \ 0 \leq i \leq n $ are equal to each other. This means that the probability to find the related ensemble of brains all radiating at $t_{(N)}$ cylindrical GW $\psi_{(i)_{st}}^{(N)}$ is unity. Note from the discussion in Appendix $B$ that the stationary state from Eq (\[e43\]) have been obtained by inserting the cylindrical GW Langevin expression from Eq (\[e33\])-(\[e34\]) into the action $S_k$ for each subinterval $ (s_{(k-1)},s_k), \ \ 1 \le k \le N$ of each member of the ensemble of variables as realized from Eqs (\[$B_{1}$\])-(\[$B_{3}$\]) in Appendix $B$. This kind of substitution is clearly seen in Eq (\[e34\]) which includes the Langevin relation from (\[e33\]) in each variable $\psi_i, \ 0 \leq i \leq n$ and for each subinterval $(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}), \ 1 \leq k \leq N$. As one may realize from Eqs (\[e41\])-(\[e43\]) the substituted expressions differ by $s$ and only at the limit that these expressions have the same $s$ that one finds the same cylindrical GW pattern shared by all the ensemble members. Thus, when these differences in $s$ are eliminated by equating, in the stationary state, all the $s$ values to each other one may obtain the situation in which all the members of the ensemble of brains radiate cylindrical GW and, therefore, the correlation is maximum. The electron-photon interaction and stochastic quantization =========================================================== The main lesson one learns from the discussion in the former sections about the gravitational brainwaves is that introducing the cylindrical GW expression into the actions $S$ of the path integrals related to the mentioned ensemble of variables (brains) results with the outcome that the probability to find them radiating this kind of waves is large. In this section we demonstrate this again regarding the quantum fluctuations which cause the shifting of the energy bands in the known Lamb shift experiment [@lamb]. Here the ensemble of stochastic processes do not represent, as in the previous sections, any biological brain activity but the action of a two-state electron which emits a photon and then reabsorbs it where the total energy during this process is not conserved. This process, which is tracked to quantum fluctuations [@lamb], is regarded here in the framework of the SQ theory as obtained in the equilibrium limit of some stochastic process in an extra dimension $s$. That is, discussing this phenomenon as a stochastic process occuring in an extra dimension we show that taking the steady state limit of equating all the involved $s$ values to each other and taking to infinity one obtains the results of the Lamb shift experiment [@lamb]. As is customary in the SQ theory and exemplified in the former sections we assume that there exist in an extra dimension a large ensemble of stochastic processes each of them may give rise in the stationary state to the Lamb shift phenomenon. Also, it is assumed that each of these stochastic processes is performed during finite $s$ and $t$ intervals $(s_{(0)}, s)$, $(t_{(0)}, t)$ and that each of these intervals is subdivided into an $N$ subintervals $(s_{(0)},s_1)$, $(s_1,s_2)$, …$(s_{N-1},s_N)$ and $(t_{(0)},t_1)$, $(t_1,t_2)$, …, $(t_{N-1},t_N)$. In the following we formulate the appropriate expression for the described electron-photon interaction over some representative subintervals $(t_{(k-1)},t_k)$ and $(s_{(k-1)},s_k)$ and calculate the probability to find the ensemble of stochastic processes giving rise to the same remarked electron-photon interaction. In contrast to the discussion in the former sections where we use the stochastic Langevin formulation of the SQ theory we, now, find it better to discuss the equivalent Fokker-Plank version of it [@namiki; @risken]. That is, we use the following Fokker Plank equation [@namiki; @risken] $$\frac{\partial P(\psi^{(k)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)})} {\partial s}= F^{(k)}P(\psi^{(k)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}), \label{e44}$$ where $P(\psi^{(k)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)})$ denotes the conditional probability to find the relevant ensemble of stochastic processes giving rise at $t_k$ and $s_k$ to the state $\psi^{(k)}$ if at the former $t_{(k-1)}$ and $s_{(k-1)}$ they give rise to the state $\psi^{(k-1)}$. In the context of this section the states $\psi^{(k)}$ and $\psi^{(k-1)}$ are in effect two total situations each of them includes all the particular photon-electron interaction states related to the ensemble of stochastic variables at the two different $t$ and $s$ values of $t_{(k)}$, $s_{(k)}$ and $t_{(k-1)}$ $s_{(k-1)}$. In this way the $P$’s here have similar meaning to the $P$’s of the former sections which are related to cylindrical GW’s. The $F^{(k)}$ in Eq (\[e44\]) is [@namiki] $$\label{e45} F^{(k)}= \frac{1}{2\alpha}H(\psi^{(k)},\pi^{(k)}),$$ where $H$, $\pi^{(k)}$ and $\psi^{(k)}$ are, respectively, the “stochastic” Hamiltonian, momentum and state for the subintervals $(s_{(k-1)}, s_k)$, $(t_{(k-1)}, t_k)$. The $\alpha$, as mentioned after Eq (\[e3\]), is either $\alpha=\frac{k_{\beta}T}{f}$ for classical phenomena or $\alpha =\hbar$ for quantum ones. The momentum $\pi^{(k)}$ is, as in quantum mechanics, a differential operator defined by [@namiki] $\pi^{(k)}= -2\alpha \frac{\partial }{\partial \psi^{(k)}}$ and satisfied the commutation relations [@namiki] $[\pi^{(m)},\psi^{(n)}]= 2\alpha \delta^{mn}$. The operator $F$ from Eq (\[e45\]) is also a differential operator which may be written generally for the ensemble of $n$ stochastic processes as [@namiki] $$F=\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\biggl(\alpha\frac{\partial^2}{\partial((\psi_{(i)})^2)}- \frac{\partial K_{(i)}(\psi)}{\partial (\psi_{(i)})}\biggr) \label{e46}$$ Noting that $K_{(i)}(\psi)$ has the same meaning as in the Langevin formalism of the SQ theory (see Eq (\[e17\]) and Eq (\[$A_{1}$\]) in Appendix $A$) one may write the last equation (\[e46\]) in a manner which emphasizes the underlying stochastic process $\eta$ $$\label{e47} F= \frac{\partial }{\partial (\psi_{(i)})}\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\biggl( \alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial(\psi_{(i)})}- K_{(i)}(\psi)\biggr) = \frac{\partial }{\partial (\psi_{(i)})}\biggl\{\sum_{i=1}^{i=n}\biggl( \alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial(\psi_{(i)})}- \biggl( \frac{\partial \psi_{(i)}}{\partial s}-\eta_{(i)}\biggr)\biggr)\biggr\}$$ As emphasized in [@namiki] one may develop, using the former relations, a stochastic operator formalism which corresponds to the quantum one so that it is possible to formulate a “Schroedinger”, “Heisenberg” and “interaction” pictures. Thus, assuming an ensemble of $n$ stochastic processes, using the “interaction” picture and considering the whole intervals $(t_{(0)},t)$, and $(s_{(0)}.s)$ one may calculate the conditional probability to find at $s$ and $t$ these processes giving rise to the state $\psi$ if at the initial $s_{(0)}$ and $t_{(0)}$ they give rise to the state $\psi^{(0)}$. This conditional probability is given by [@namiki] $$\begin{aligned} && P^I(\psi,t,s|\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})= P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})+ \label{e48} \\ && + \int_{(0)}^{\psi} F^{(N)}P^I(\psi^{(N-1)},t_{(N-1)},s_{(N-1)}|\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)}) d\psi^{(N)}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the superscript $I$ reminds us that we use the “interaction” picture and $P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})$ is the probability that the ensemble of stochastic processes give rise at the initial $t_{(0)}$ and $s_{(0)}$ to the initial state $\psi^{(0)}$. The states $\psi$ depends upon $s$ and $t$ and, therefore, the integration over $\psi$ is, actually, a double one over $s$ and $t$. Thus, substituting in a perturbative manner [@feynman] for $P^I(\psi^{(N-1)},t_{(N-1)},s_{(N-1)}|\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})$ one may write Eq (\[e48\]) as $$\begin{aligned} & P^I(\psi,t,s|\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})= P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})+ \sum_{k=1}^{k=N}\int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi}F^{(N)}d\psi^{(N)} \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(N)}}F^{(N-1)}d\psi^{(N-1)} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(N-1)}}F^{(N-2)}d\psi^{(N-2)} \ldots \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(k)}}F^{(k-1)}d\psi^{(k-1)} \ldots \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(3)}}F^{(2)}d\psi^{(2)} \cdot \label{e49} \\ & \cdot \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(2)}}F^{(1)} d\psi^{(1)} P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)}) =P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})+ \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi}d\psi^{(1)}F^{(1)}P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})+ \nonumber \\ & + \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi}d\psi^{(2)} \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(2)}}d\psi^{(1)} F^{(1)} F^{(2)} P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})+ \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi}d\psi^{(N)} \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(N)}}d\psi^{(N-1)} \ldots \nonumber \\ & \ldots \int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(3)}}d\psi^{(2)}\int_{\psi^{(0)}}^{\psi^{(2)}} d\psi^{(1)} F^{(1)}F^{(2)} \ldots F^{(N-1)}F^{(N)}P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)}) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Note that in the last equation we have obtained in each term the same factor of $P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})$. Now, since the Lamb shift results from quantum fluctuations and since the states in quantum mechanics as well as in SQ [@namiki] have a probabilistic interpretation we may assume that the probabilities $P^I$ denote states. We should, however, emphasize (again) that these $P$’s from Eq (\[e49\]), as those of the previous sections (see, for example, Eqs (\[e34\])-(\[e35\])), refer to the states of the whole ensemble of stochastic variables in the sense of the conditional probability to find them at a later $s$ and $t$ in some situation $\psi$ if, for example, at the initial $s_{(0)}$ and $t_{(0)}$ they were at the situation $\psi^{(0)}$. We later at Eqs (\[e50\])-(\[e59\]) denote the respective particular states of the interacting electron and photon by $\phi$ and $u$. Thus, following the last discussion one may use the quantum rules and terms as in [@haken], except for the introduction of the extra variable $s$, for representing the electron and photon before and after the interaction between them as well as the general state of the whole ensemble of stochastic variables. The variable $s$ is introduced into the relevant quantities so that in the limit of equating all the different $s$ values to each other and taking to infinity, as required in the SQ theory [@parisi; @namiki], the known expressions [@haken] which represent the electron and photon and the correlation between them are obtained. Thus, one may assign to the initial $s_{(0)}$ and $t_{(0)}$ the value of zero and refer to $P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)}=0,s_{(0)}=0)$ as the initial state of the ensemble system. As remarked, the electron is assumed to have two different states so that at $t_1$ and $s_1$ it was at the higher state 2 from which it descends to the lower state 1 through emitting a photon. Then at $t_2$ and $s_2$ it reabsorbs the photon and returns to state 2 as schematically shown at the left hand side of Figure 1. In the following we denote the higher and lower energies of the electron by $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_1$ respectively and that of the photon by $w_{\lambda}$ where, due to the nonconserved energy character of the interaction, $\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1 \neq w_{\lambda}$. We wish to represent the $s$ dependence of the electron and photon in the extra dimension in a similar manner as their $t$ dependence. The conventional $t$ dependence (see, for example, Chapter 7 in [@haken]) of an incoming electron with energy $\epsilon_2$ at time $t_1$ (before any interaction of it) is $e^{-i\epsilon_2t_1}$ and that of an outgoing electron with energy $\epsilon_1$ at time $t_2$ (after any interaction of it) is $e^{i\epsilon_1t_2}$. The $t$ dependence of the emitted photon at $t_1$ is [@haken] $e^{iw_{\lambda}t_1}$ and that of the reabsorbed photon at $t_2$ by $e^{-iw_{\lambda}t_2}$. Thus, according to the former discussion the $(s,t)$ dependence of the incoming electron $\phi(s,t)$ and the emitted photon $u(s,t)$ at $t_1$ and $s_1$ may be represented by $$\begin{aligned} && \phi(s_1,t_1)_{before \ emission}= e^{-i\epsilon_2t_1}+e^{-i\epsilon_2s_1(1-i\delta)} \label{e50} \\ && u(s_1,t_1)_{after \ emission}=e^{iw_{\lambda}t_1}+e^{iw_{\lambda}s_1(1+i\delta)}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ is an infinitesimal satisfying $\delta \cdot \infty=\infty$, and $\delta \cdot c=0$, ($c$ is a constant) [@mattuck]. This is done so that for finite values of $s$ the dependence upon $s$, for both the electron and photon, is similar, as remarked, to the dependence upon $t$ and when $s \to \infty$, which is the equilibrium situation in the SQ theory, the terms in $s$ vanish as required. That is $$\begin{aligned} && \phi(s_1<\infty,t_1)_{before \ emission}= e^{-i\epsilon_2t_1}+e^{-i\epsilon_2s_1} \nonumber \\ && \lim_{s \to \infty}\phi(s,t_1)_{before \ emission}= e^{-i\epsilon_2 t_1} \label{e51} \\ && u(s_1<\infty,t_1)_{after \ emission}=e^{iw_{\lambda}t_1}+e^{iw_{\lambda}s_1}, \ \ \ \ \ \lim_{s \to \infty}u(s,t_1)_{after \ emission}=e^{iw_{\lambda}t_1} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The expression for the outgoing electron at $t_1$ and $s_1$ with the lower energy $\epsilon_1$ (after emitting the photon) and its reduction for finite and infinite $s$ are $$\begin{aligned} && \phi(s_1,t_1)_{after \ emision}=e^{i\epsilon_1t_1}+ e^{i\epsilon_1s_1(1+i\delta)}, \label{e52} \\ && \phi(s_1<\infty,t_1)_{after \ emission}= e^{i\epsilon_1t_1}+e^{i\epsilon_1s_1}, \ \ \ \lim_{s \to \infty}\phi(s,t_1)_{after \ emission}= e^{i\epsilon_1 t_1}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the $\delta$ has the same meaning as before. Just before the reabsorption stage at $t_2$ and $s_2$ the electron and photon are represented by $$\begin{aligned} && \phi(s_2,t_2)_{before \ reabsorption}= e^{-i\epsilon_1t_2}+e^{-i\epsilon_1s_2(1-i\delta)} \label{e53} \\ && u(s_2,t_2)_{before \ reabsorption}=e^{-iw_{\lambda}t_2}+e^{-iw_{\lambda}s_2(1-i\delta)} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Needless to remark that, according to our discussion, the former expressions reduce, for finite and infinite $s$, to $$\begin{aligned} && \phi(s_2<\infty,t_2)_{before \ reabsorption}= e^{-i\epsilon_1t_2}+e^{-i\epsilon_1s_2} \nonumber \\ && \lim_{s \to \infty}\phi(s,t_2)_{before \ reabsorption}= e^{-i\epsilon_1 t_2} \label{e54} \\ && u(s_2<\infty,t_2)_{before \ reabsorption}=e^{-iw_{\lambda}t_2}+e^{-iw_{\lambda}s_2}, \ \ \ \ \ \lim_{s \to \infty}u(s,t_2)_{before \ reabsorption}=e^{-iw_{\lambda}t_2} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Just after the reabsorption at $s_2$ and $t_2$ the expression for the electron and its reduction for finite and infinite $s$ are $$\begin{aligned} && \phi(s_2,t_2)_{after \ reabsorption}= e^{i\epsilon_2t_2}+e^{i\epsilon_2s_2(1+i\delta)} \label{e55} \\ && \phi(s_2<\infty,t_2)_{after \ reabsorption}= e^{i\epsilon_2t_2}+e^{i\epsilon_2s_2} \nonumber \\ && \lim_{s \to \infty}\phi(s,t_2)_{after \ reabsorption}= e^{i\epsilon_2 t_2} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Beside the former expressions for the separate electron and photon we should take into acount also the interaction between them, that is, the emission and reabsorption of the photon by the electron. This interaction for the emission part in the extra dimension $s$, denoted $g^{em}_{\lambda_s}$, may be written as $$g^{em}_{\lambda_s}=\label{e56} -\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int \phi_1(s,t) u(s,t) p \phi_2(s,t)dV,$$ where $\phi_2(s,t)$, $\phi_1(s,t)$, denote the two energy states of the electron as given by Eqs (\[e50\])-(\[e55\]) and $u(s,t)$ is the expression for the photon given by Eqs (\[e50\])-(\[e51\]) and (\[e53\])-(\[e54\]). The $w_{\lambda}$ and $\epsilon_0$ are respectively the energy of the emitted photon and the dielectric constant in vacuum. The integration is over the volume which includes also the $s$ dimension and the $p$ is the momentum operator which is represented by $p=\frac{\hbar}{i}\Delta$. The former expression for the emission interaction is suggested so that in the limit of $s \to \infty$ it reduces to the known emission interaction which does not involve the $s$ variable (see Eq (7.112) in [@haken]). That is, $$\begin{aligned} & \lim_{s \to \infty}g^{em}_{\lambda_s}=\lim_{s \to \infty}\biggl\{-\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int \phi_1(s,t) u(s,t) p \phi_2(s,t)dV\biggr\}= \nonumber \\ & = -\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int \lim_{s \to \infty}(\phi_1(s,t)) \lim_{s \to \infty}(u(s,t)) p \lim_{s \to \infty}(\phi_2(s,t))dV= \label{e57} \\ & = -\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int \phi_1(t) u(t) p \phi_2(t)dV=g^{em}_{\lambda} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the last result is obtained by noting from Eqs (\[e50\])-(\[e55\]) and that in the limit $s \to \infty$ the expressions for the electron and photon reduce to their known forms [@haken]. The interaction for the reabsorption part may be obtained by noting that the expressions for the electron and photon participating in the reabsorption interaction are obtained by taking the hermitian adjoints of the expressions for the electron and photon participating in the emission process. Thus, using the rule [@schiff; @merzbacher] that the hermitian adjoint of the product of some expressions is the product of their adjoints in the reverse order, one may obtain the interaction for the reabsorption part, denoted $g^{re}_{\lambda_s}$, from that of the emission part $g^{em}_{\lambda_s}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned} & g^{re}_{\lambda_s}= \biggl({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\biggr)}\dagger=\biggl({-\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int \phi_1(s,t) u(s,t) p \phi_2(s,t)dV}\biggr)\dagger = \label{e58} \\ & = -\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}} \int ({\phi_2(s,t)})\dagger ({p})\dagger ({u(s,t)})\dagger ({\phi_1(s,t)})\dagger dV \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The reabsorption interaction reduces at the limit of $s \to \infty$, just like the emission process in Eq (\[e57\]), to the known reabsorption interaction [@haken] which does not involve the extra $s$ variable. That is, $$\begin{aligned} & \lim_{s \to \infty}g^{re}_{\lambda_s}=\lim_{s \to \infty}\biggl\{-\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}} \int ({\phi_2(s,t)})\dagger ({p})\dagger ({u(s,t)})\dagger ({\phi_1(s,t)})\dagger dV \biggr\}= \nonumber \\ & = -\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int \lim_{s \to \infty} ({\phi_2(s,t)})\dagger p \lim_{s \to \infty}({u(s,t)})\dagger \lim_{s \to \infty}({\phi_1(s,t)})\dagger dV= \label{e59} \\ & = -\sqrt{ \frac{e^2}{2m^2\hbar w_{\lambda}\epsilon_0}}\int ({\phi_2(t)})\dagger p ({u(t)})\dagger ({\phi_1(t)})\dagger dV=g^{re}_{\lambda} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Note that the whole processes of emission and reabsorption may, respectively, be read directly from Eqs (\[e57\]) and (\[e59\]) if one realizes that the operator $p$ in each of these equations denotes the interaction undergone by the expressions (denoting electron or (and) photon) at its right hand side which result with the expressions (also denoting electron or (and) photon) at its left hand side. Thus, in Eq (\[e57\]), which describes the emission process, the $\phi_2(s,t)$ at the right of $p$ denotes the initial electron with the higher energy state 2 and the $\phi_1(s,t)u(s,t)$ at the left of $p$ are the electron with the lower energy state 1 and the emitted photon. Likewise, in Eq (\[e59\]), which describes the reabsorption process, the $({u(s,t)})\dagger ({\phi_1(s,t)})\dagger$ at the right of $p$ denotes the initial lower energy electron and the photon, before the reabsorption, and the $({\phi_2(s,t)})\dagger$ at the left of $p$ is the electron with the higher energy state 2 after the reabsorption. The Lamb shift as a stationary state of stochastic processes in the extra dimension =================================================================================== Now, we must realize that the final state at $t$ and $s$ after the reabsorption of the photon, where we remain with one electron with the higher energy state 2, is the same as the initial state at $t_{(0)}$ and $s_{(0)}$ before the emission of the photon from the higher energy electron. Thus, we may write for the relevant $P^I$ at the end of the whole process of emission and reabsorption [@haken] $$\label{e60} P^I(\psi,t,s|\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})= P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})+G(s,t) P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)}),$$ where the coefficient $G(s,t)$ denotes the mentioned evolution during the $(t_{(0)},t)$ and $(s_{(0)},s)$ intervals from the initial state $P^I(\psi^{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{(0)})$ back to the same state. We first note that as the $(s,t)$ dependence of the states of the electron and photon were represented as sums of two terms, one involves only the $t$ term and the second only the $s$ term, so the $(s,t)$ dependence of the entire mentioned interaction of (emission$+$reabsorption) $G(s,t)$ may also be written as a sum of two separate terms, denoted $G(t)$ and $G(s)$ each of them involves only one variable. This is done, as will just be realized, so that at the equilibrium limit the $s$ term vanishes and remains only the $t$ term as is the case regarding the mentioned $(s,t)$ representation of the states of the electron and photon (see Eqs (\[e50\])-(\[e55\])). Thus, for the $t$ dependence of the emission process one should take into account that: (1) the emission process is executed during the interval $0 < t_1 < t_2$ , (2) the electron before and after emission at $t_{(1)}$ is, respectively, represented by $e^{-i\epsilon_2t_1}$ and $e^{i\epsilon_1t_1}$, (3) the emitted photon at $t_{(1)}$ is given by $e^{iw_{\lambda}t_1}$ and (4) the emission itself is described by the interaction $g^{em}_{\lambda}$. And for the $t$ dependence of the reabsorption process one should take into account that: (1) the reabsorption process is executed during the interval $0 < t_2 < t$ , (2) the electron before and after reabsorption at $t_{(2)}$ is, respectively, represented by $e^{-i\epsilon_1t_2}$ and $e^{i\epsilon_2t_2}$, (3) the reabsorbed photon at $t_{(2)}$ is given by $e^{-iw_{\lambda}t_2}$ and (4) the reabsorption itself is described by the interaction $g^{re}_{\lambda}= ({g^{em}_{\lambda}})\dagger$. Thus, one may write the $t$ dependence of the (emission$+$reabsorption) process $G(t)$ as $$\begin{aligned} && G(t)= g^{em}_{\lambda}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda}})\dagger \cdot \int_{0}^{t_2}\exp\biggl(i\bigl(\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}- \epsilon_2\bigr)t_1\biggr)dt_1 \cdot \label{e61} \\ && \cdot \int_{0}^t\exp\biggl(i\bigl(\epsilon_2-w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_1\bigr)t_2\biggr)dt_2 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Simiarly, for the $s$ dependence of the emission process one should take into account that: (1) the emission process is executed during the interval $0 < s_1 < s_2$ , (2) the electron before and after emission is, respectively, represented by $e^{-i\epsilon_2s_1(1-i\delta)}$ and $e^{i\epsilon_1s_1(1+i\delta)}$, (3) the emitted photon is given by $e^{iw_{\lambda}s_1(1+i\delta)}$ and (4) the emission itself is described by the interaction $g^{em}_{\lambda_s}$. And for the $s$ dependence of the reabsorption process one should take into account that: (1) the reabsorption process is executed during the interval $0 < s_2 < s$, (2) the electron before and after reabsorption is, respectively, represented by $e^{-i\epsilon_1s_2(1-i\delta)}$ and $e^{i\epsilon_2s_2(1+i\delta)}$, (3) the reabsorbed photon is given by $e^{-iw_{\lambda}s_2(1-i\delta)}$ and (4) the reabsorption itself is described by the interaction $g^{re}_{\lambda_s}= ({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}})\dagger$. Thus, one may write the $s$ dependence of the (emission$+$reabsorption) process $G(s)$ as $$\begin{aligned} && G(s)= g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}})\dagger \cdot \int_{0}^{s_2}\exp\biggl[i\biggl(\epsilon_1+i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+ w_{\lambda}\bigr)+w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_2\biggr)s_1\biggr]ds_1 \cdot \nonumber \\ && \cdot \int_{0}^s\exp\biggl[i\biggl(\epsilon_2+i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+ \epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)- w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_1\biggr)s_2\biggr]ds_2, \label{e62} \end{aligned}$$ where we have set, as remarked, $s_{(0)}=t_{(0)}=0$ for both $G(t)$ and $G(s)$. The coefficient $G(t,s)$ from Eq (\[e60\]) is given, as remarked, by the sum $G(t)+G(s)$ so that in the equilibrium state obtained in the limit in which all the values of $s$ are equated to each other and taken to infinity the term $G(s)$ vanishes and remains only the term $G(t)$ as should be [@haken]. The term $G(s)$ vanishes in the stationary state because we have already equated the initial $s_{(0)}$ to zero so for equating all the $s$’s to each other one have to set also the other values of $s$ equal to zero which obviously causes $G(s)$ from Eq (\[e62\]) to vanish. Note that thus far we have discussed a single mode $\lambda$ for the emitted and reabsorbed photon which makes sense in a cavity whose closed walls are of the same order as the wavelength of the photon. But for an infinite space or a cavity with open sides one should consider a continuum of modes $\sum_{\lambda}$. Thus, considering this continuum of modes and performing the integration over $t_1$ and $s_1$ from Eqs (\[e61\])-(\[e62\]) one obtains $$\begin{aligned} & G(t,s)=G(t)+Gs)= \sum_{\lambda}g^{em}_{\lambda}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda}})\dagger \cdot \int_{0}^tdt_2 \frac{\biggl\{\exp\biggl[i(\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}- \epsilon_2)t_2\biggr]-1\biggr\}}{i(\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_2)} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \exp\biggl[i(\epsilon_2-w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_1)t_2\biggr]+ \sum_{\lambda_s}g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}})\dagger \cdot \label{e63} \\ & \cdot \int_{0}^sds_2\frac{\biggl\{\exp\biggl[i\biggl(\epsilon_1- \epsilon_2+w_{\lambda}+i\delta(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda})\biggr) s_2\biggr]-1\biggr\}} {i\biggl(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+w_{\lambda}+ i\delta(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda})\biggr)} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \exp\biggl[i\biggl(\epsilon_2- \epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}+ i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)\biggr)s_2\biggr] \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Now, performing the integration over $s_2$ and $t_2$ we obtain from Eq (\[e63\]) $$\begin{aligned} & G(s,t)=G(t)+G(s)= \sum_{\lambda} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda}})\dagger}{i\bigl(\epsilon_1+ w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_2\bigr)}\biggl\{t- \frac{\exp\biggl(i\bigl(\epsilon_2- \epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}\bigr)t\biggr)-1}{i \bigl(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}\bigr)}\biggr\} + \nonumber \\ & + \sum_{\lambda_s} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}})\dagger} {i\biggl(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+w_{\lambda}+ i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)\biggr)} \biggl\{-\frac{\exp\biggl(-2\delta \bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)s\biggr) -1} {2\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)}- \label{e64} \\ & -\frac{\exp\biggl[i\biggl(\epsilon_2- \epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}+i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr) \biggr)s\biggr]-1} {i\biggl(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}+ i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)\biggr)}\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ One may realize that, because of the $\delta$ (see its definition after Eq (\[e50\])), the quotient $-\frac{\exp\biggl(-2\delta \bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)s\biggr) -1} {2\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)}$ in the second sum, which is of the kind $\frac{0}{0}$, may be evaluated, using L’hospital theorem [@pipes], to obtain for it the result of $s$ so that Eq (\[e64\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned} & G(s,t)=G(t)+Gs)= \sum_{\lambda} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda}\cdot({g^{em}_{\lambda}})\dagger}{i\bigl(\epsilon_1+ w_{\lambda}-\epsilon_2\bigr)}\biggl\{t- \frac{\exp\biggl(i\bigl(\epsilon_2- \epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}\bigr)t\biggr)-1}{i \bigl(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}\bigr)}\biggr\} + \nonumber \\ & + \sum_{\lambda_s} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}})\dagger} {i\biggl(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+w_{\lambda}+ i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)\biggr)} \biggl\{s- \label{e65} \\ & -\frac{\exp\biggl[i\biggl(\epsilon_2- \epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}+i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr) \biggr)s\biggr]-1} {i\biggl(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}+ i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)\biggr)}\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The last expression for $G(t,s)$ contains terms which are proportional to $t$ and $s$, others which are oscillatory in these variables, and also constant terms. Thus, for large $t$ and $s$ the oscillatory as well as the constant terms may be neglected compared to $t$ and $s$ as in the analogous quantum discussion of the same process [@haken] (without the extra variable). That is, one may obtain for $G(s,t)$ $$\begin{aligned} & G(s,t)=G(t)+G(s)= \sum_{\lambda} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda}})\dagger \cdot t}{i\bigl(\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}- \epsilon_2\bigr)} + \label{e66} \\ & + \sum_{\lambda_s} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot ({g^{em}_{\lambda_s}})\dagger \cdot s} {i\biggl(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2+w_{\lambda}+ i\delta\bigl(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda}\bigr)\biggr)} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Substituting from the last equation in Eq (\[e60\]) one obtains $$\begin{aligned} && P^I(\psi,t,s|\psi^{(0)},0,0)=P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0)(1+G(t,s))= \label{e67} \\ && = P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0) \biggl(1+it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}+is\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s}\biggr), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}$ and $\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s}$ are $$\label{e68} \Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}=\sum_{\lambda_s} \frac{g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot g^{em}_{\lambda_s}}{\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}}, \ \ \ \Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s}=\sum_{\lambda_s}\frac {g^{em}_{\lambda_s}\cdot g^{em}_{\lambda_s}}{\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1-w_{\lambda}- i\delta(\epsilon_2+\epsilon_1+w_{\lambda})}$$ The result in Eq (\[e67\]) is only for the first-order term in Eq (\[e49\]) which involves one emission and one reabsorption done over the intervals $s_{(0)},s)$, $t_{(0)},t)$. If these emission and reabsorption are repeated for each one of the many subintervals into which the former finite $s$ and $t$ intervals were subdivided so that all the higher order terms of this process ($N \to \infty$) are taken into account one obtains, analogously to the quantum analog [@haken] (in which the variable $s$ is absent), the result $$\begin{aligned} && P^I(\psi,t,s|\psi^{(0)},0,0)= P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0)(1+G(t,s))=P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0)\biggl\{1+ \biggl(it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}+ \nonumber \\ &&+ \frac{1}{2!} (it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda})^2+ \ldots + \frac{1}{k!} (it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda})^k+\ldots\biggr)+ \biggl(is\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s}+ \frac{1}{2!} (it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s})^2+ \ldots \label{e69} \\ && \ldots + \frac{1}{k!} (it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s})^k+\ldots\biggr)\biggr\} =P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0)\biggl(e^{it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}} +e^{is\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s}} -1\biggr) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The left hand side of Figure 1 shows a Feynman diagram [@haken; @mattuck; @feynman] of the emission and reabsorption process performed once over the relevant $t$ interval whereas the right hand side of it shows a Feynman diagram of the fourth order term of this process over the same $t$ interval. Now, as required by the SQ theory, the stationary situations are obtained in the limit of eliminating the extra variable $s$ which is done by equating all the $s$ values to each other and taking to infinity. Thus, since, as remarked, we have equated the initial $s_{(0)}$ to zero we must equate all the other $s$ values to zero. That is, the stationary state is $$\begin{aligned} && \lim_{s\to 0}P^I(\psi,t,s|\psi^{(0)},0,0)= \lim_{s\to 0}P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0) \biggl(e^{it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}}+e^{is\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda_s}}-1\biggr)= \label{e70} \\ && = P^I(\psi^{(0)},0,0)e^{it\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The last result is the one obtained in quantum field theory [@haken] for the same interaction (without any extra variable). The quantity $\Delta \epsilon_{\lambda}$, given by the first of Eqs (\[e68\]), has the same form also in the quantum version [@haken], where it is termed the energy shift. This shift have been experimentally demonstrated in the quantum field theory for the case of a real many-state particle in the famous lamb shift of the Hydrogen atom [@lamb; @haken]. Note that, as for the gravitational brainwaves case, introducing the expression of the detailed electron-photon interaction for all the subintervals of $s$ and $t$ of all the stochastic processes yields a correlation among them which truly represents, in the stationary situation, the corelation of the real interaction. That is, when all the values of $s$ are equated to each other and eliminated the equilibrium stage is obtained. One may, also, note that the elimination of the $s$ variable is fulfilled by only equating all its values to each other without having to take the infinity limit (see the discussion before Eq (\[$A_{14}$\]) in Appendix $A$). **Concluding Remarks \[sec4\]** {#concluding-remarks-sec4 .unnumbered} =============================== For the first half of this work we have used the fact that the ionic currents and charges in cerebral system radiates electric waves as may be realized by attaching electrodes to the scalp. That is, one may physically and logically assume that just as these ionic currents and charges in the brain give rise to electric waves so the masses related to these ions and charges should give rise, according to the Einstein’s field equations, to weak GW’s. From this we have proceeded to calculate the correlation among an $n$ brain ensemble in the sense of finding them at some time radiating a similar gravitational waves if they were found at an earlier time radiating other GW’s. We have used as a specific example of gravitational wave the cylindrical one which have been investigated in a thorough and intensive way (see, for example [@kuchar]). The applied mathematical model, used for calculating the mentioned correlation, was the Parisi-Wu-Namiki SQ theory [@namiki] which assumes a stochastic process performed in an extra dimension so that at the limit of eliminating the relevant extra variable one obtains the physical stationary state. The hypothetical stochastic process, which is governed by either the Langevin or the Fokker-Plank equation, allows a large ensemble of $n$ different variables $\psi$ which describes this process [@parisi; @namiki] and represent the mentioned gravitational brainwaves radiated by the $n$ brain ensemble. Thus, we have calculated the correlation in the extra dimension among the $n$ brain ensemble and show that at the limits of (1) eliminating the relevant extra variable and (2) maximum correlation one obtains the expected result of finding all of them radiating the same cylindrical GW. A similar and parallel discussion of the electron-photon interaction, which results in the known Lamb shift, was carried in the second half of this work. This physical example is known to have originated from vacuum fluctuations and is in effect one of the first phenomena which were found to be related to these fluctuations. Thus, it seems natural to discuss it in terms of the SQ theory in which, as mentioned, some stochastic random forces at an extra dimension generate at the equilibrium stage the known physical stationary state. As mentioned, the mechanism which allows the reduction of the random stochastic process in the extra dimension to the known physical stationary state is the introduction of this same state in all the $N$ subintervals of all the $n$ variables. This means that once all the different $s$ values are eliminated for all the subintervals of all the variables one remains with the same introduced physical stationary state for all of them. The same mechanism may be shown to take effect not only for the assumed weak cylindrical GW’s radiated by the brain and the quantum fluctuations of the Lamb shift discussed here but also for any other physical phenomena which may be discussed by variational methods. APPENDIX A\ Representation of the Parisi-Wu-Namiki stochastic quantization ============================================================== The Parisi-Wu-Namiki SQ theory [@parisi; @namiki] for any stochastic process [@kannan] may use either the Langevin equation [@coffey] or the Fokker-Plank one [@risken] as its basic starting point. For the following introductory representation of the SQ theory and in Sections II-IV we find it convenient to use the Langevin equation whereas in Sections V-VI we discuss the electron-photon interaction which results in the known Lamb shift [@lamb] from the point of view of the Fokker-Plank equation. The stochastic process, which is assumed in the SQ theory to occur in some extra dimension $s$, is generally considered to be of the Wienner-Markoff type [@kannan] and to be described by the $n$ variables $\psi(s,t)=\biggl(\psi_1(s,t),\psi_2(s,t),\ldots \psi_{(n-1)}(s,t), \psi_n(s,t)\biggr)$. This stochastic process is also characterized by the $n$ random forces $\eta(s,t)=\biggl(\eta_1(s,t),\eta_2(s,t),\ldots \eta_{(n-1)}(s,t), \\ \eta_n(s,t)\biggr)$ which are Gaussian white noise [@kannan]. Thus, denoting the process related to the $i$ variable by $\psi_i$, where $ 1 \le i \le n$, one may analyze it by taking its rate of change with respect to $s$ according to the generalized Langevin equation [@coffey] $$\tag{$A_{1}$} \label{$A_{1}$} \frac{\partial \psi_i(s,t,r)}{\partial s}=K_i(\psi (s,t,r))+\eta_i (s,t,r), \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i=1, 2, \ldots n,$$ where $n$ denotes the remarked $n$-member ensemble of variables and $\eta_i$ denotes stochatic process related to the variable $\psi_i$. The variables $\psi_i$ depends upon $s$ and upon the spatial variable $r$ and the time $t$. The $K_i$ are given in the SQ theory by [@parisi; @namiki] $$\tag{$A_{2}$} \label{$A_{2}$} K_i(\psi(s,t,r))=-(\frac{\delta S_i[\psi]}{\delta \psi})_{\psi=\psi(s,t,r)},$$ where $S_i$ are the actions $S_i=\int \int drdtL_i(\psi,\dot \psi)$ and $L_i$ are the Lagrangians. For properly discussing the “evolution” of the related process $\psi_i$ one, generally, subdivides the $t$ and $s$ intervals $(t_{(0)},t)$, $(s_{(0)},s)$ into $N$ subintervals $(t_{(0)},t_1)$, $(t_1,t_2)$, …$(t_{N-1},t)$ and $(s_{(0)},s_1)$, $(s_1,s_2)$, …$(s_{N-1},s)$. We assume that the Langevin Eq (\[$A_{1}$\]) is satisfied for each member of the ensemble of variables at each subinterval with the following Gaussian constraints [@namiki] $$\tag{$A_{3}$} \label{$A_{3}$} <\!\eta^{(k)}_i(t_k,s_k)\!>=0, \ \ \ <\!\eta^{(k)}_i(t_k,s_k)\eta^{(k)}_j(\grave t_k,\grave s_k)\!>= 2\alpha \delta_{ij}\delta (t_k-\grave t_k)\delta (s_k-\grave s_k),$$ where the angular brackets denote an ensemble average with the Gaussian distribution, the $k$ superscript denotes the $k$ subinterval from the $N$ available and the $i$, $j$ refer to the mentioned $n$ variables where $n \geq i , j \geq 1$. Note that both intervals $(t_{(0)},t)$, $(s_{(0)},s)$ of each one of the $n$ variables are subdivided, as mentioned, into $N$ subintervals. The $\alpha$ from Eq (\[$A_{3}$\]) have different meanings which depend upon the involved process and the context in which Eqs (\[$A_{1}$\]) and (\[$A_{3}$\]) are used. Thus, in the classical regime $\alpha$ is [@namiki] $\alpha=\frac{k_{\beta}T}{f}$, where $k_{\beta}$, $T$, and $f$ are respectively the Boltzman constant, the temperature in Kelvin units and the relevant friction coefficient. In the quantum regime $\alpha$ is identified [@namiki] with the Plank constant $\hbar$. We note that using Eqs (\[$A_{1}$\])-(\[$A_{3}$\]) enables one [@namiki] to discuss a large number of different classical and quantum phenomena. It has been shown [@namiki] that the right hand side of Eq (\[$A_{3}$\]) may be derived from the following Gaussian distribution law [@namiki] $$\tag{$A_{4}$} \label{$A_{4}$} P_{i}(y)dy_i= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(<\!\eta^{(k)}_i\!>)^2}} \exp(-\frac{(y^{(k)}_i)^2}{2(<\!\eta^{(k)}_i\!>)^2})dy_i,$$ which is the probability density for the variable $\psi_i$ and for the subintervals $(s_{(k-1)},s_k)$, $(t_{(k-1)},t_k)$ to have a value of $\eta^{(k)}_i$ in $(y^{(k)}_i,y^{(k)}_i+dy_i)$ [@namiki], where $$\tag{$A_{5}$} \label{$A_{5}$} y^{(k)}_i=\frac{\partial \psi^{(k)}_i(s,t,x)}{\partial s}-K_i(\psi^{(k)}_i(s,t,x))$$ For the $n$ variables one may write Eq (\[$A_{4}$\]) for the subintervals $(s_{(k-1)},s_k)$, $(t_{(k-1)},t_k)$ as $$\tag{$A_{6}$} \label{$A_{6}$} P_{ij...}(y)dy= \exp(-\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{(y^{(k)}_i)^2}{2(<\!\eta^{(k)}_i\!>)^2}) \prod_{i=1}^n\frac{dy_i}{\sqrt{2\pi(<\!\eta^{(k)}_i\!>)^2}},$$ which is the probability density for the $n$ variables $\psi_i \ \ 1 \leq i \leq n$ to have a value of $\eta^{(k)}_i$ in $(y^{(k)}_i,y^{(k)}_i+dy_i)$ where $dy=\prod_i dy_i$. The angular brackets are product over any two variables as given in Eq (\[$A_{3}$\]). We note in this context that the general correlation $<\!\eta_i\eta_j\ldots \eta_m\eta_n\!>$ is expressed in terms of $<\!\eta_i\eta_j\!>$ by [@namiki] $$\begin{aligned} & \tag{$A_{7}$} \label{$A_{7}$} <\!\eta_i\eta_j\ldots \eta_m\eta_n\!>= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 0 & {\rm for \ odd \ number \ of \eta's} \\ \sum<\!\eta_i\eta_j\!><\!\eta_m\eta_n\!>\ldots & {\rm for \ even \ number \ of \ \eta's } \end{array} \right. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the sum is taken over every possible pair of $\eta's$. For the whole intervals $(s_{(0)},s)$, $(t_{(0)},t)$, which as mentioned were each subdivided into $N$ subintervals, one may generalize Eq (\[$A_{6}$\]) as $$\tag{$A_{8}$} \label{$A_{8}$} P_{ij...}(y)dy= \exp(-\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^N\frac{(y^{(k)}_i)^2}{2(<\!\eta^{(k)}_i\!>)^2}) \prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=1}^N\frac{dy^{(k)}_i}{\sqrt{2\pi(<\!\eta_i^{(k)}\!>)^2}},$$ where now the $dy$ at the left is $dy=\prod_i\prod_k dy^{(k)}_i$. Note that Eqs (\[$A_{4}$\]), (\[$A_{6}$\]) and (\[$A_{8}$\]) denote probability densities as realized from the $dy$ at the left hand sides of these equations. In order to find the probabilities themselves one have to integrate the right hand sides of these equations over the appropriate variables. Thus, using Eqs (\[$A_{1}$\]), (\[$A_{3}$\]) and (\[$A_{5}$\]) one may write Eq (\[$A_{4}$\]) in a more informative way as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i}\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_i,t_k,s_k|\psi^{(k-1)}_i, t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \tag{$A_{9}$} \label{$A_{9}$} \\ & =\int d\psi_i^{(k)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha )}} \exp\biggl\{-\frac{\biggl(\frac{\psi^{(k)}_i-\psi^{(k-1)}_i}{(s_k-s_{(k-1)})} -K_i(\psi_i^{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha)}\biggr\}dy, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where we have approximated $\frac{\partial \psi^{(k)}_i(s,t,x)}{\partial s} \approx \frac{\psi_i^{(k)}-\psi_i^{(k-1)}}{(s_k-s_{(k-1)})} $. The $P_i\bigl(\psi_i^{(k)},t_k,s_k|\psi_i^{(k-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)$ of Eq (\[$A_{9}$\]) is the conditional probability to find the variable $\psi_i$ at $t_k$ and $s_k$ with the configuration $\psi^{(k)}_i$ if at $t_{(k-1)}$ and $s_{(k-1)}$ it has the configuration $\psi^{(k-1)}_i$. Since it involves the same variable it may be termed autocorrelation of $\psi_{(i)}$ over the subintervals $(s_{(k-1)},s_{(k)})$, $(t_{(k-1)},t_{(k)})$. In a similar manner one may write Eq (\[$A_{9}$\]) for the whole ensemble of $n$ variables in the subintervals $(s_{(k-1)},s_k)$ and $(t_{(k-1)},t_k)$ as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{ij...}\bigl(\psi_{(n)}^{(k)},t_k,s_k|\psi_{(0)}^{(k-1)}, t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \int \cdots \int \exp\biggl\{-\sum_i\frac{\biggl(\frac{\psi_i^{(k)}-\psi_i^{(k-1)}}{(s_k-s_{(k-1)})} -K_i(\psi_i^{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha)}\biggr\} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \prod_{(i=1)}^{(i=n)}\frac{d\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}}{\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha )}} \tag{$A_{10}$} \label{$A_{10}$} \end{aligned}$$ And the conditional probability over the whole intervals $(s_{(0)},s)$ and $(t_{(0)},t)$ may similarly be obtained by adding other factors and sums over the remaining $(N-1)$ subintervals. If one assume $N$ to be very large, and therefore the length of each subinterval to be very small, one may use Feynman path integral [@feynman] as follows $$\begin{aligned} & P_{ij...}\bigl(\psi,t,s|\psi_{(0)}, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)= \lim_{N \to \infty}C \int \ldots \int \exp\biggl\{-\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^N \frac{\biggl(\frac{\psi_i^{(k)}- \psi_i^{(k-1)}}{(s_k-s_{(k-1)})} -K_i(\psi_i^{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha)}\biggr\} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \prod_{i=1}^n\prod_{k=1}^N\biggl(\frac{d\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}} {\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha )}}\biggr), \tag{$A_{11}$} \label{$A_{11}$} \end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a normalization constant. The former formula may equivalently be written as [@namiki] $$\begin{aligned} & P\bigl(\psi,t,s|\psi_{(0)},t_{(0)},s_{0}\bigr)=C\int \cdots \int \cdots \int P\bigl(\psi_{(n)}^{N},t_N,s_N|\psi_{(0)}^{(N-1)},t_{(N-1)},s_{(N-1)}\bigr) \cdots \tag{$A_{12}$} \label{$A_{12}$} \\ & \cdots P\bigl(\psi_{(n)}^k,t_k,s_k|\psi_{(0)}^{k-1},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr) \cdots P\bigl(\psi_{(n)}^1,t_1,s_1|\psi_{(0)}^{0},t_{(0)},s_{0}\bigr)d\psi^{N}\cdots d\psi^k \cdots d\psi^1, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where each $P$ at the right is essentially of the form of Eq (\[$A_{10}$\]) and the integrals are over the $N$ subintervals. The last equation, which is the conditional probability to find the ensemble of $n$ variables at $t$ and $s$ with the configuration $\psi$ if at $t_{(0)}$ and $s_{(0)}$ they have the configuration $\psi_{(0)}$, is also equivalent [@namiki] to the Green’s functions $\Delta_{ij\ldots}(t_{(0)},s_{(0)},t_1,s_1, \ldots)$ which determine the correlation among the members of the ensemble [@namiki]. This function, as defined in [@namiki], is $$\begin{aligned} & \Delta_{ij\ldots}(t_{(0)},s_{(0)},t_1,s_1,\ldots)= <\!\psi_i(t_{(0)},s_{(0)})\psi_j(t_1,s_1) \ldots\!>= \tag{$A_{13}$} \label{$A_{13}$} \\ & = C\int D\psi(t,s)\psi_i(t_{(0)},s_{(0)})\psi_j(t_1,s_1) \ldots \exp(-\frac{S_i(\psi(t,s))}{\alpha}), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $S_i$ are the actions $S_i=\int ds L_i(\psi,\dot \psi)$, $C$ is a normalization constant, and $D\psi(t,s)=\prod_{i=1}^{i=n}d\psi_i(t,s)$. As seen from the last equation the $\Delta_{ij\ldots}(t_{(0)},s_{(0)},t_1,s_1 \ldots)$ were expressed as path integrals [@feynman] where the quantum feynman measure $e^{\frac{iS(\psi)}{\hbar}}$ is replaced in Eq (\[$A_{13}$\]) and in the following Eq (\[$A_{14}$\]) by $e^{-\frac{S(q)}{\alpha}}$ as required for the classical path integrals [@namiki; @roepstorff]. It can be seen that when the $s$’s are different for the members of the ensemble so that each have its specific $S_i(\psi(s_i,t))$, $K_i(\psi(s_i,t))$, and $\eta_i(s_i,t)$ the correlation in (\[$A_{13}$\]) is obviously zero. Thus, in order to have a nonzero value for the probability to find a large part of the ensemble of variables having the same or similar forms we have to consider the stationary configuration where, as remarked, all the $s$ values are equated to each other and taken to infinity. For that matter we take account of the fact that the dependence upon $s$ and $t$ is through $\psi$ so this ensures [@namiki] that this dependence is expressed through the $s$ and $t$ differences. For example, referring to the members $i$ and $j$ the correlation between them is $\Delta_{ij}(t_i-t_j,s_i-s_j)$, so that for eliminating the $s$ variable from the correlation function one equates all these different $s$’s to each other. We, thus, obtain the following stationary equilibrium correlation [@namiki] $$\begin{aligned} & \Delta_{ij\ldots}(t_{(0)},s_{(0)},\ldots)_{st}= <\!\psi_i(t_{(0)},s_{(0)})\psi_j(t_1,s_1) \ldots\!>_{st}=C\int D\psi(t)\psi_i(t_{(0)})\psi_j(t_1) \ldots \tag{$A_{14}$} \label{$A_{14}$} \\ & \ldots \exp(-\frac{S(\psi)}{\alpha}), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where the suffix of $st$ denotes the stationary configuration. In other words, the equilibrium correlation in our case is obtained when all the different $s$ values are equated to each other and taken to infinity in which case one remains with the known stationary result. Thus, if all the members of the ensemble of variables have similar actions $S$ (in which the $s$ values are equated to each other) one finds with a large probability these members, in the later equilibrium stage, with the same result. That is, introducing the same similar actions into the corresponding path integrals one finds this mentioned large probability. This has been expicitly shown in Section IV for the cylindrical gravitational wave and in Sections V-VI for the Lamb shift case. APPENDIX B\ Derivation of the correlation expression from Eq (\[e39\]) ========================================================== We, now, derive the expression for the correlation from Eq (\[e39\]). For that we may use Eq (\[$A_{12}$\]) of Appendix $A$ in which we substistute for the $P$’s from Eqs (\[$A_{9}$\])-(\[$A_{10}$\]). As noted in Appendix $A$ the correlation is calculated not only among the ensemble of $n$ variables but also for each of the $N$ subintervals into which the finite $t$ and $s$ intervals are divided. Thus, assuming, as noted in Appendix $A$, that $N$ is very large we may use the Feynman path integral of Eq (\[$A_{11}$\]) and write this correlation as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{ij...}\bigl(\psi,t,s|\psi_{(0)}, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)= C\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\ldots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\ldots \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp\biggl\{-\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{4\alpha(s_{k}-s_{(k-1)})^2}\biggl(\psi_i^{(k)}- \nonumber \\ & - \psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)})(s_{k}-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2\biggr\} \prod_{k=1}^{k=N}\prod_{i=1}^{i=(n-1)} \frac{d\psi^k_i} {\sqrt{2\pi\bigl(2\alpha \bigr)}} \tag{$B_{1}$} \label{$B_{1}$} \end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a normalization constant to be determined later from $\int P_{ij...}\bigl(\psi,t,s|\psi^0, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)d\psi=1$. Note that in the exponent of Eq (\[$B_{1}$\]), in contrast to that of Eq (\[$A_{11}$\]) in Appendix $A$, the sum over $i$ precedes that over $k$ and, therefore, the squared expression involves the variables $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)}$ etc (instead of $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(i)}^{(k-1)}$ of (\[$A_{11}$\])). Note also that the number of integrals are $N \times (n-1)$ over the $N$ subintervals and $(n-1)$ variables which is related to the fact that the suffix $i$ in the exponent is summed from $i=1$ to $i=n$ whereas the $i$ in the differentials outside the exponent is summed up to $i=n-1$ (compare with equation (4.4 in [@namiki]). The reason for this is that each $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$, except for $i=0$ and $i=n$, with superscript $k$ and suffix $i$ appears in two consecutive squared expressions of the sum over $i$ so for calculating the correlation for the observer $i$ over the subinterval $(s_k-s_{(k-1)})$ one has to solve the following integral which is related to $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$. $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i}\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_i,t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \nonumber \\ & = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp\biggl\{- \biggl[\frac{\biggl(\psi_i^{(k)}- \psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)})(s_k-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_k-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2} + \tag{$B_{2}$} \label{$B_{2}$} \\ & + \frac{\biggl(\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)}- \psi_i^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_i^{(k)})(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2} \biggr]\biggr\} \frac{d\psi^{(k)}_i}{\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha)}} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The solution of this integral involves the substitution for $K_i(\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)})$ and $K_i(\psi_i^{(k)})$ from Eqs (\[e32\]) and (\[e36\]) so that one may write the two squared expressions of Eq (\[$B_{2}$\]) as $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\biggl(\psi_i^{(k)}- \psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)})(s_k-s_{(k-1)})^2\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)}= \frac{1}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2}\biggl[\psi_i^{(k)}- \nonumber \\ & - \psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)}-2\pi \biggl(B_1(R,t)\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}- B_2(R,t)- iB_3(R,t)\biggr)(s_k-s_{(k-1)})\biggr]^2 \tag{$B_{3}$} \label{$B_{3}$} \\ & \frac{\biggl(\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)}- \psi_i^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_i^{(k)})(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2}= \frac{1}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2}\biggl[\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)}- \nonumber \\ & - \psi_i^{(k)}-2\pi\biggl(B_1(R,t)\psi^{(k)}_i- B_2(R,t)- iB_3(R,t)\biggr)(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)})\biggr]^2 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In order to deal with manageable expressions we first assume that in the limit of large $N$ and $n$ the subintervals over $t$ and $s$ are equal so that one may write for any integral $k$ $$\begin{aligned} & \Delta s_k=(s_k-s_{(k-1)})=\Delta s_{(k+1)}=(s_{(k+1)}-s_{(k)}) =\Delta s \tag{$B_{4}$} \label{$B_{4}$} \\ & \Delta t_k=(t_k-t_{(k-1)})=\Delta t_{(k+1)}=(t_{(k+1)}- t_{(k)})= \Delta t \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We, now, define the following expressions $$\tag{$B_{5}$} \label{$B_{5}$} a_1=(1+2\pi B_1\Delta s)^2, \ \ \ \ a_2=2\pi \Delta s(B_2+iB_3)$$ Using Eqs (\[$B_{3}$\])-(\[$B_{5}$\]) one may write the two squared terms of Eq (\[$B_{2}$\]) as $$\begin{aligned} & \frac{\biggl(\psi_i^{(k)}- \psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)})(s_k-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2} + \frac{\biggl(\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)}- \psi_i^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_i^{(k)})(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2}{2(2\alpha) \bigl(s_{(k)}-s_{(k-1)}\bigr)^2}= \nonumber \\ & = \frac{1}{4\alpha(\Delta s)^2}\biggl\{\biggl(\psi^{(k)}_i-\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}+a_2\biggr)^2+ \biggl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}-\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_i+a_2\biggr)^2\biggr\}= \tag{$B_{6}$} \label{$B_{6}$} \\ & =\frac{1}{4\alpha(\Delta s)^2}\biggl\{(\psi^k_i)^2+a_1(\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)})^2-2\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_i \psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)} +2a_2\psi^{(k)}_i-2a_2\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}+ \nonumber \\ & + (\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)})^2+ a_1(\psi^{(k)}_i)^2- 2\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}\psi^{(k)}_i+ 2a_2\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}-2a_2\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_i+2a_2^2\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The last result is now substituted for the two squared terms of Eq (\[$B_{2}$\]) and the integral over $\psi^k_i$ may be solved by using the following integral [@abramowitz] $$\tag{$B_{7}$} \label{$B_{7}$} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx \exp\bigl(-\bigl(ax^2+bx+c\bigr)\bigr)=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}} \exp\bigl(\frac{(b^2-4ac)}{4a}\bigr)$$ Thus, using Eq (\[$B_{6}$\]), one may find the appropriate coefficients $a_{\psi^k_i}$, $b_{\psi^k_i}$ and $c_{\psi^k_i}$, related to $\psi^k_i$, to be substituted in the integral (\[$B_{2}$\]) as follows $$\begin{aligned} & a_{\psi^k_i}=\frac{(1+a_1)}{4\alpha(\Delta s)^2}, \ \ \ \ \ b_{\psi^k_i}=\frac{\biggl(2a_2\bigl(1-\sqrt{a_1}\bigr)-2\sqrt{a_1} \bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}+ \psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}\bigr)\biggr)} {4\alpha(\Delta s)^2} \tag{$B_{8}$} \label{$B_{8}$} \\ & c_{\psi^k_i}=\frac{\biggl[(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)})^2+a_1(\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)})^2+ 2a_2\biggl(a_2+\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}-\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}\biggr)\biggr]} {4\alpha(\Delta s)^2} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Using the last expressions for the coefficients $a_{\psi^k_i}$, $b_{\psi^k_i}$ and $c_{\psi^k_i}$ one may realize, after some calculations, that they satisfy the following relation $$\frac{b^2_{\psi^k_i}-4a_{\psi^k_i}c_{\psi^k_i}}{4a_{\psi^k_i}}= -\frac{1}{4(1+a_1)\alpha(\Delta s)^2}\biggl(\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}- a_1\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}\bigr)+ a_2\bigl(1+\sqrt{a_1}\bigr)\biggr)^2 \tag{$B_{9}$} \label{$B_{9}$}$$ Thus, using the former discussion and, especially, the integral (\[$B_{7}$\]) one is able to solve the integral from Eq (\[$B_{2}$\]) and write it as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i}\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \nonumber \\ & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{d\psi^{(k)}_i}{\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha)}} \exp\biggl[- \biggl(a_{\psi^{(k)}_i}(\psi^{(k)}_i)^2+b_{\psi^{(k)}_i}\psi^{(k)}_i +c_{\psi^{(k)}_i}\biggr)\biggl]= \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\alpha a_{\psi^k_i}}} \cdot \tag{$B_{10}$} \label{$B_{10}$} \\ & \cdot \exp \biggl(\frac{b^2_{\psi^k_i}-4a_{\psi^k_i}c_{\psi^k_i}}{4a_{\psi^k_i}}\biggr) = \frac{\Delta s}{\sqrt{(1+a_1)}}\exp\biggl\{-\biggl[\frac{1}{4(1+a_1) \alpha(\Delta s)^2}\biggl(\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}- \nonumber \\ & - a_1\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}\bigr)+ a_2\bigl(1+\sqrt{a_1}\bigr)\biggr)^2\biggr]\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The last result is the correlation for the variable $\psi_{(i)}$ over the subinterval $(s_k-s_{(k-1)})$ and it means the conditional probability to find this variable at $s=s_{(k)}$ and $t=t_{(k)}$ at the state $\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)}$ if at $s=s_{(k-1)}$ and $t=t_{(k-1)}$ it was at the state $\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)}$. Note that the superscript of the variable $\psi_{(i-1)}$ at the beginning of the subintervals $s_{(k-1)}$ and $t_{(k-1)}$ is the same as that at the end of it, i.e., $k$. If one wish to find the correlation of the two variables $\psi_{(i)}$ and $\psi_{(i+1)}$ for the same subinterval $\Delta s$ then he has to add to the last result another squared term from the general relation (\[$B_{1}$\]) and perform the required integration over $\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i,(i+1)}\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+2)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)},t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \nonumber \\ & = \frac{\Delta s}{\sqrt{(1+a_1)}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\exp\biggl\{-\biggl[ \frac{1}{4(1+a_1)\alpha(\Delta s)^2}\biggl\{\biggl(\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}- a_1\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}\bigr)+ a_2\bigl(1+\sqrt{a_1}\bigr)\biggr)^2+ \nonumber \\ & + \biggl(\psi_{(i+2)}^{(k)}- \psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)})\Delta s\biggr)^2(1+a_1)\biggr\} \biggr]\biggr\} \frac{d\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}{\sqrt{2\pi(2\alpha)}} \tag{$B_{11}$} \label{$B_{11}$} \end{aligned}$$ In this case the corresponding $a_{\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}$, $b_{\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}$ and $c_{\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}$ are $$\begin{aligned} & a_{\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}=\frac{\bigl(1+a_1+a^2_1)\bigr)}{2(2\alpha)(\Delta s)^2}, \nonumber \\ & b_{\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}=\frac{\biggl(2a_2\bigl(1+\sqrt{a_1}\bigr)- 2a_1\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}-(1+a_1)\biggl(2\sqrt{a_1} \psi^{(k)}_{(i+2)}+2a_2\sqrt{a_1}\biggr)} {2(2\alpha)(\Delta s)^2} \tag{$B_{12}$} \label{$B_{12}$} \\ & c_{\psi^{(k)}_{(i+1)}}=\frac{\biggl(a_1^2(\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)})^2+ a_2^2(1+\sqrt{a_1})^2- 2a_1a_2(1+\sqrt{a_1})\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}+(1+a_1)\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+2)} +a_2\bigr)^2 \biggr)} {2(2\alpha)(\Delta s)^2} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Thus, using the last equations and the integral from Eq (\[$B_{7}$\]) one may write the correlation from Eq (\[$B_{11}$\]) as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i}\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+2)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}, t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \tag{$B_{13}$} \label{$B_{13}$} \\ & =\frac{(\Delta s)^2}{\sqrt{(1+a_1)\bigl(1+a_1+a_1^2\bigr)}} \exp\biggl\{-\biggl[ \frac{\biggl(\psi^{(k)}_{(i+2)}-a_1\sqrt{a_1}\psi^{(k)}_{(i-1)}+ a_2\bigl(1+\sqrt{a_1}+(\sqrt{a_1})^2\bigr)\biggr)^2} {4\alpha(\Delta s)^2\bigl(1+a_1+a_1^2\bigr)}\biggr]\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Using the results of Eq (\[$B_{10}$\]) for the observer $i$ one may realize that the correlation from Eq (\[$B_{13}$\]) means the conditional probability to find at $s=s_{(k)}$ and $t=t_{(k)}$ the two variables $\psi_{(i)}$ and $\psi_{(i+1)}$ at the respective states of $\psi_{(i+1)}^{(k)}$ and $\psi_{(i+2)}^{(k)}$ if at $s=s_{(k-1)}$ and $t=t_{(k-1)}$ they were at the states $\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$. As remarked after Eq (\[$B_{10}$\]) the superscripts of the variables $\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(i)}^{(k)}$ at the beginning of the subintervals $s_{(k-1)}$ and $t_{(k-1)}$ are the same as that at the end of it, i.e., $k$. One may, now, realize that the correlation of the $n$ observers $i,j,l...$ over the subinterval $(s_{(k-1)}, s_{(k)})$ may be obtained from the results of Eqs (\[$B_{10}$\]), (\[$B_{13}$\]) and from Eq (\[$B_{1}$\]) as $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i,j,l...}\bigl(\psi^{(k)}_{(n)},t_{(k)},s_{(k)}|\psi^k_0, t_{(k-1)},s_{(k-1)}\bigr)= \frac{(\Delta s)^{(n-1)}}{\sqrt{\prod_{j=1}^{j=(n-1)}(\sum_{m=0}^{m=j}a_1^m)}} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot \exp\biggl\{- \frac{1}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{p=0}^{p=(n-1)}a_1^p}\biggl(\psi_n^{(k)}- (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(k)} +a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\}, \tag{$B_{14}$} \label{$B_{14}$} \end{aligned}$$ The last correlation means the conditional probability to find at $s=s_{(k)}$ and $t=t_{(k)}$ the variables $\psi_{(n-1)}$, $\psi_{(n-2)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(1)}$ at the respective states of $\psi_{(n)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(n-1)}^{(k)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(2)}$ if at $s=s_{(k-1)}$ and $t=t_{(k-1)}$ they were at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(k)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(k)}, \ \ldots \psi^{(k)}_{(0)}$. Note again, as remarked after Eqs (\[$B_{10}$\]) and (\[$B_{13}$\]), that the superscripts of each of the $(n-1)$ variables at the beginning of the subintervals $s_{(k-1)}$ and $t_{(k-1)}$ are the same as that at the end of it, i.e., $k$. In a similar manner one may calculate, through the double sum $\sum_{k=1}^N\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{4\alpha(s_{k}-s_{(k-1)})^2}\biggl(\psi_i^{(k)}- \psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)} -K_i(\psi_{(i-1)}^{(k)})(s_{k}-s_{(k-1)})\biggr)^2 $ in the exponent of Eq (\[$B_{1}$\]), the correlation for each of the other $(N-1)$ subintervals. Taking into account that all these subintervals are, as realized from Eq (\[$B_{4}$\]), identical it is obvious that the result of calculating the correlation for each of them is, except for change of the superscripts $k$ of $\psi$, the same as that of Eq (\[$B_{14}$\]). Thus, the correlation of the ensemble of the $n$ observers over all the $N$ subintervals $(s_{(0)}, s_1), \ldots (s_{(N-1)},s_{(N)})$ is obtained by multiplying together $N$ expressions of the kind of Eq (\[$B_{14}$\]). That is, $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i,j,l,....}\bigl(\psi^{(N)}_{(n)},t_{(N)},s_{(N)}|\psi^{(1)}_0, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)= \frac{C(\Delta s)^{N(n-1)}}{\biggl(\prod_{j=1}^{j=(n-1)}(\sum_{m=0}^{m=j}a_1^m) \biggr)^{\frac{N}{2}}} \cdot \tag{$B_{15}$} \label{$B_{15}$} \\ & \cdot \exp\biggl\{- \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggl(\psi_n^{(N)}- (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(N)} +a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the normalizing constant which is, as mentioned after Eq (\[$B_{1}$\]), calculated from the normalizing condition [@namiki] $\int P_{ij....}\bigl(\psi_{(n-1)},t_{(N)},s_{(N)}|\psi_0, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)d\psi=1$. Using the results of Eqs (\[$B_{10}$\]), (\[$B_{13}$\])-(\[$B_{14}$\]) one may realize that the correlation from Eq (\[$B_{15}$\]) means the conditional probability to find at $s=s_{(N)}$ and $t=t_{(N)}$ the variables $\psi_{(n-1)}$, $\psi_{(n-2)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(1)}$ at the respective states of $\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}$, $\psi_{(n-1)}^{(N)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(2)}^{(N)}$ if at $s=s_{(N-1)}$ and $t=t_{(N-1)}$ they were found at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(N)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(N)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(0)}^{(N)}$ and at $s=s_{(N-3)}$ and $t=t_{(N-3)}$ they were found at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(N-2)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(N-2)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(0)}^{(N-2)}$ $\ldots \ldots$ and at $s=s_{(0)}$ and $t=t_{(0)}$ they were at $\psi_{(n-2)}^{(1)}$, $\psi_{(n-3)}^{(1)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(0)}^{(1)}$. That is, the conditional probability here involves $N$ conditions at the beginnings of the $N$ subintervals so that, as remarked for the specific cases of Eqs (\[$B_{10}$\]), (\[$B_{13}$\]) and (\[$B_{14}$\]), the superscript of each of the $(n-1)$ ensemble of variables $\psi_{(n-1)}$, $\psi_{(n-2)}, \ \ldots \psi_{(1)}$ at the beginning of each of the $N$ subintervals $(s_{(N-1)},s_{(N)}), (s_{(N-3)},s_{(N-2)}), \ \ldots (s_{(0)},s_{(1)})$ is as same as that at end of it. Thus, substituting from Eq (\[$B_{15}$\]) into this normalizing equation one obtains $$\begin{aligned} & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}P_{ij....}\bigl(\psi_{(n)},t_{(N)},s_{(N)}|\psi_0, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)d\psi^{(N)}_{(n)}= \frac{C(\Delta s)^{N(n-1)}}{\biggl(\prod_{j=1}^{j=(n-1)}(\sum_{m=0}^{m=j}a_1^m) \biggr)^{\frac{N}{2}}} \cdot \tag{$B_{16}$} \label{$B_{16}$} \\ & \dot \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \exp\biggl\{- \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggl(\psi_n^{(N)}- (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(N)} +a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\} \cdot \nonumber \\ & \cdot d\psi^N_n =1 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Note that the value of $\psi_{(0)}^{(N)}$ is generally given so the variable is $\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}$ as denoted in the last expression. Now, expanding the squared expression in the last equation and using the integral from Eq (\[$B_{7}$\]) one may note that the coefficients $a_{\psi_n^k}$, $b_{\psi_n^k}$, $c_{\psi_n^k}$ are $$\begin{aligned} & a_{\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}}= \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k} \nonumber \\ & b_{\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}}=\frac{N\biggl(2a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r-2(\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(k)}\biggr)}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k} \tag{$B_{17}$} \label{$B_{17}$} \\ & c_{\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}}= \frac{N\biggl(\bigl((\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(k)}\bigr)^2+ \bigl(a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\bigr)^2-2a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1} (\sqrt{a_1})^r ( \sqrt{a_1})^{(n+1)} \psi_0^{(N)}\biggr)} {4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Thus, substituting from the last equations into Eq (\[$B_{7}$\]) and noting that $(b_{\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}})^2- 4a_{\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}} c_{\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}}=0$ one may calculate the integral from Eq (\[$B_{16}$\]) over $\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}$ as $$\begin{aligned} & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\psi_{(n)}^{(N)} \exp\biggl\{- \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k} \biggl(\psi_{(n)}^{(N)}- (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(N)} + \nonumber \\ & + a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\} = \biggl(\frac{4\pi \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}{N}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}} \tag{$B_{18}$} \label{$B_{18}$} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting the last result into Eq (\[$B_{16}$\]) and solving for $C$ one obtains $$\tag{$B_{19}$} \label{$B_{19}$} C=\frac{N^{\frac{1}{2}}\biggl(\prod_{j=1}^{j=(n-1)}(\sum_{m=0}^{m=j}a_1^m) \biggr)^{\frac{N}{2}}} {(\Delta s)^{N(n-1)}\biggl(4\pi \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$ Substituting this value of $C$ in Eq (\[$B_{15}$\]) one obtains the complete expression for the correlation of the $n$ observers over the $N$ subintervals as written in Eq (\[e39\]) $$\begin{aligned} & P_{i,j,l,.....}\bigl(\psi_{(n)},t_N,s_N|\psi_0, t_{(0)},s_{(0)}\bigr)= \biggl(\frac{N} {4\pi \alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \tag{$B_{20}$} \label{$B_{20}$} \\ & \cdot \exp\biggl\{- \frac{N}{4\alpha (\Delta s)^2\sum_{k=0}^{k=(n-1)}a_1^k}\biggl(\psi_n^{(N)}- (\sqrt{a_1})^{n+1} \psi_0^{(N)} +a_2\sum_{r=0}^{r=n+1}(\sqrt{a_1})^r\biggr)^2\biggr\} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ 1 in W. J. Freeman, [“Mass action in the nervous system”]{}, Academic Press, New York (1975) Y. Tran, A. Craig and P. McIsaac, [“Extraversion-introversion and 8-13 Hz waves in frontal cortical regions”]{}, Personality and individual differences, [**30**]{}, 205-215 (2001) , D. Halliday and R. Resnick, [“Physics”]{}, third Edition, Wiley, New York (1978) C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, [“Gravitation”]{}, Freeman, San Francisco (1973) J. B. Hartle, [“Gravity: An introduction to Einstein’s general relativity”]{}, Addison-Wesley, San Fracisco (2003) K. S. Thorne, [“Multipole expansions of gravitational radiation”]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys [**52**]{}, 299 (1980); K. S. Thorne, [“Gravitational wave research: Current status and future prospect”]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys [**52**]{}, 285 (1980) D. Bar, [“gravitational wave holography”]{}, Int. J. Theor. Phys, [**46**]{}, 503-517 (2007) ;D. Bar, [“Gravitational holography and trapped surfaces”]{}, Int. J. Theor. Phys, [**46**]{}, 664-687 (2007) R. Penrose, [“The emperor’s new mind”]{}, Oxford University Press (1989); R. Penrose, [“Shadows of the mind”]{}, Oxford University Press (1994) W. S. Von Arx, [“On the biophysics of consciousness and thought and characteristics of the human mind and intelect”]{}, Medical Hypotheses, [**56**]{}, 302-313 (2001) Gravitaional waves were indirectly proved by Taylor and Hulse (which receive the Nobel price in 1993 for this discovery) through astronomical observations which measure the spiraling rate of two neighbouring neutron stars. B. Abbott [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev D, [**69**]{}, 122004 (2004) F. Acernese [*et al*]{}, [“Status of VIRGO”]{}, Class, Quantum Grav, [**19**]{}, 1421 (2002) K. Danzmann, [“GEO-600 a 600-m laser interferometric gravitational wave antenna”]{}, In [“First Edoardo Amaldi conference on gravitational wave experiments”]{}, E. Coccia, G. Pizella and F. Ronga, eds, World Scientific, Singapore (1995). M. Ando and the TAMA collaboration, [“Current status of TAMA”]{}, Class. Quantum Grav, [**19**]{}, 1409 (2002) R. Beig and N. O Murchadha, [“Trapped surfaces due to concentration of gravitational radiation”]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**66**]{}, 2421 (1991); A. M. Abrahams and C. R. Evans, [“Trapping a geon: black hole formation by an imploding gravitational wave”]{}, Phys. Rev D, [**46**]{}, R4117-R4121 (1992); M. alcubierre, G. Allen, B. Brugmann, G. Lanfermann, E. Seidel, W. Suen and M. Tobias, [“Gravitational collapse of gravitational waves in 3D numerical relativity”]{}, Phys. Rev D, [**61**]{}, 041501 (2000) A. Einstein and N. Rosen, [“On gravitational waves”]{}, J. Franklin Inst, [**223**]{}, 43 (1937) K. kuchar, [“Canonical quantization of cylindrical gravitational waves”]{}, Phys. Rev D , [**4**]{}, 955 (1971) P. G. Bergmann, [“Introduction to the theory of relativity”]{}, Dover, New-York (1976) G. P and Y. Wu, Sci. Sin, [**24**]{}, 483 (1981); G. Parisi, Nuc. Phys, [**B180**]{}, \[FS2\], 378-384 (1981); E. Nelson, [“Quantum Fluctuation”]{}, Princeton University, New Jersey (1985); E. Nelson, Phys. Rev A, [**150**]{}, 1079-1085 (1966). M. namiki, [“Stochastic Quantization”]{}, Springer, Berlin (1992). W. Coffey, [“The Langevin Equation”]{}, Singapore: World Scientific (1996). H. Risken, [“The Fokker-Plank Equation”]{}, Springer (1984). W. E. Lamb, Jr. and M. Sargent, [*Laser Physics*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Advanced Book Program (1974); W. E. lamb, [“The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”]{}, Jr., Rinton Press (2001); T. W. Hansch, I. S. Shahin and A. L. Schawlow, Nature, [ **235**]{}, 63 (1972); T. W. Hansch, A. L. Schawlow and P. Toschek, IEEE J. Quant. Electr. [**QE-8**]{}, 802 (1977). H. Haken, [“Light”]{}, Vol 1, North-Holland (1981). R. Arnowitt, S. Desser and C. W. Misner, [“The dynamics of General Relativity”]{} In [“Gravitation: An Introduction to current research”]{}, ed. L. Witten, Wiley, New-York (1962) Andrea Macrina, [“Towards a gauge invariant scattering theory of cylindrical gravitational waves”]{}, Diploma thesis, (2002); C. Torre, , Class. Quantum Grav, 8, 1895 (1991); M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds, [“Handbook of mathematical functions”]{}, Dover, New-York (1970) L. I. Schiff, [“Quantum Mechanics”]{}, 3-rd Edition, McGraw-Hill (1968) R. Weinstock, [“Calculus of variations”]{}, Dover, New-York (1974) D. kannan, [“An Introduction to Stochastic Processes”]{}, Elsevier, North-Holland (1979); L. C. Rogers and D. Williams, [“Diffusions, Markov Processes and Martingales”]{}, $2^{nd}$ edition, Wiley (1987); J. L. Doob, [“Stochastic Processes”]{}, Wiley, New York (1953). A. L. Pipes, [“Applied Mathematics for Engineers and Physicists”]{}, $2^{nd}$ edition, McGraw-Hill (1958). R. D. Mattuck, [“A Guide to feynman Diagrams in the Many Body Problem”]{}, $2^{nd}$ edition, McGraw-Hill (1967). E. Merzbacher, [“Quantum Mechanics"]{}, Second edition, John Wiley, New York, 1961; C. C. Tannoudji, B. Diu and F. Laloe, [“Quantum Mechanics”]{}, John Wiley, (1977) R. P. Feynman, [*Rev. Mod. Phys*]{},[**20**]{}, 2, 367 (1948); R. P. feynman and A. R. Hibbs, [“Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals”]{}, McGraw-Hill, New-York (1965). G. Roepstorff, [“Path Integral Approach to Quantum Physics”]{}, Springer-Verlag (1994); M. Swanson, [“Path Integrals and Quantum Processes”]{}, Academic (1992); M. Swanson, [“Path Integrals and Quantum Processes”]{}, Academic Press (1992). {width="6"}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'This is the era of smart devices or *things* which are fueling the growth of Internet of Things (IoT). It is impacting every sphere around us, making our life dependent on this technological feat. It is of high concern that these smart things are being targeted by cyber criminals taking advantage of heterogeneity, minuscule security features and vulnerabilities within these devices. Conventional centralized IT security measures have limitations in terms of scalability and cost. Therefore, these smart devices are required to be monitored closer to their location ideally at the edge of IoT networks. In this paper, we explore how some security features can be implemented at the network edge to secure these smart devices. We explain the importance of Network Function Virtualization (NFV) in order to deploy security functions at the network edge. To achieve this goal, we introduce [NETRA]{}– a novel lightweight Docker-based architecture for virtualizing network functions to provide IoT security. Also, we highlight the advantages of the proposed architecture over the standardized NFV architecture in terms of *storage, memory usage, latency, throughput, load average, scalability* and explain why the standardized architecture is not suitable for IoT. We study the performance of proposed NFV-based edge analysis for IoT security and show that attacks can be detected with more than 95% accuracy in less than a second.' author: - 'Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]' bibliography: - 'DockerNFV.bib' title: | [NETRA]{}: Enhancing IoT Security using\ NFV-based Edge Traffic Analysis --- IoT, Edge, Security, NFV, Docker. Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Architecture {#sec:architecture} ============ Edge Traffic Analysis {#sec:edge_traffic} ===================== Related Work {#sec:related} ============ Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== In this paper, we proposed [NETRA]{}- a light-weight Docker-based framework for deploying VNFs at the network edge in order to make NFV compliant with IoT environment. We described how this framework can be applied to enhance the security of IoT. We presented traffic analysis at the network edge for IoT security. This work suggests that NFV will greatly benefit from container-based virtualization. Experimental results have shown that Docker-based VNFs perform well for IoT than existing VM-based frameworks. Using the architecture, VNFs that can improve the security of IoT environment were implemented and tested using IoT devices like smart cameras, smart sockets etc. Real time traffic from a TP-Link camera were captured to train the edge-analysis VNF which is able to successfully detect attacks with approximately 95% accuracy within a second. The known attacks are mitigated using appropriate VNFs, and we will study the handling of *zero-day attacks* in future work. With this work, it is now possible to envisage a scenario where all security VNFs can be deployed at the IoT gateway itself effectively. Our research motivates further investigation in improving security of IoT devices at the network edge with the use of lightweight containers, thus resulting in a smart and secure world of *things*.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We construct electrically charged Kerr black holes (BHs) with scalar hair. Firstly, we take an uncharged scalar field, interacting with the electromagnetic field only indirectly, via the background metric. The corresponding family of solutions, dubbed Kerr-Newman BHs with ungauged scalar hair, reduces to (a sub-family of) Kerr-Newman BHs in the limit of vanishing scalar hair and to uncharged rotating boson stars in the limit of vanishing horizon. It adds one extra parameter to the uncharged solutions: the total electric charge. This leading electromagnetic multipole moment is unaffected by the scalar hair and can be computed by using Gauss’s law on any closed 2-surface surrounding (a spatial section of) the event horizon. By contrast, the first sub-leading electromagnetic multipole – the magnetic dipole moment –, gets suppressed by the scalar hair, such that the gyromagnetic ratio is always smaller than the Kerr-Newman value ($g=2$). Secondly, we consider a gauged scalar field and obtain a family of Kerr-Newman BHs with gauged scalar hair. The electrically charged scalar field now stores a part of the total electric charge, which can only be computed by applying Gauss’ law at spatial infinity and introduces a new solitonic limit – electrically charged rotating boson stars. In both cases, we analyse some physical properties of the solutions.' author: - | [Jorge F. M. Delgado]{}[^1], [^2], [^3]  and [Helgi Rúnarsson]{}[^4]\ \ [Departamento de Física da Universidade de Aveiro and]{}\ [Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA)]{}\ [Campus de Santiago, 3810-183 Aveiro, Portugal]{} bibliography: - 'bibtex\_calculation.bib' date: August 2016 title: '[**Kerr-Newman black holes with scalar hair**]{}' --- Introduction ============ The Kerr metric [@Kerr:1963ud] is the fundamental BH solution in General Relativity, believed to describe an untold number of BHs in (or near) equilibrium in the Cosmos. It is straightforward to generalize this solution to include an electric (or magnetic) charge, yielding the Kerr-Newman (KN) solution [@Newman:1965my]. The latter is, perhaps, of a more limited astrophysical interest, as electric charge is expected to be residual in astrophysical BHs, due to efficient discharge mechanisms (but see the discussion in [@Cardoso:2016olt]). Theoretically, however, the KN solution introduces some qualitatively new features, with respect to its vacuum counterpart, including: a (Komar) energy and angular momentum component outside the horizon [@Delgado:2016zxv]; a more general extremal limit with different (including supersymmetric, when embedded in supergravity [@Gibbons:1982fy; @Tod:1983pm; @Herdeiro:2000ap]) properties, depending on the electric charge; and a dipole magnetic moment, induced by the electric charge and the rotation. The corresponding gyromagnetic ratio turns out to have precisely the (non-anomalous) electron value, $g=2$ [@Carter:1968rr]. Moreover, the KN solution provides an arena for the study of the fully non-linear interplay between electromagnetism and gravity, in the framework of Einstein’s theory, with often challenging properties, as for instance its stability – see, $e.g.$, the discussions in [@Pani:2013ija; @Pani:2013wsa; @Zilhao:2014wqa]. As recently discovered, the Kerr solution admits also families of generalizations with scalar hair [@Herdeiro:2014goa; @Herdeiro:2015gia; @Kleihaus:2015iea; @Herdeiro:2015tia; @Chodosh:2015oma] (and also Proca hair [@Herdeiro:2016tmi]). In its simplest guise [@Herdeiro:2014goa; @Herdeiro:2015gia], a non-trivial distribution of a complex, massive scalar field can be added to Kerr BHs, keeping them asymptotically flat and regular on and outside the event horizon. Such a scalar field carries a conserved Noether charge, but which, unlike the electric charge, is not associated to a Gauss law. As such, it cannot be computed as a flux integral at infinity; it must be evaluated by a volume integral, summing up the appropriate component(s) of the conserved Noether current, from infinity up to the horizon. These solutions have an intimate connection to the superradiant instability of Kerr BHs [@Herdeiro:2014ima], in the presence of a massive scalar field (see [@Brito:2015oca] for a review). They bifurcate from Kerr for particular backgrounds that can support a stationary scalar cloud in the linear theory [@Hod:2012px; @Hod:2013zza; @Herdeiro:2014goa; @Benone:2014ssa; @Hod:2015ota; @Hod:2015goa], and reduce to boson stars [@Schunck:2003kk], horizonless gravitating solitons, when the horizon area vanishes. Kerr BHs with scalar hair (KBHsSH) can have phenomenological properties distinct from Kerr, for instance their shadows [@Cunha:2015yba]. This fact, in view of the various observations/experiments that promise to deliver detailed information on BH candidates and strong gravity in the near future, makes their analysis in the astrophysical context quite timely – see [@Vincent:2016sjq; @Ni:2016rhz] for recent examples of such phenomenological studies. It is expectable that KBHsSH, just like the Kerr solution, admit electrically charged generalizations. Again, the astrophysical interest of such solutions is, perhaps, more limited, but understanding their existence and their physical properties is of relevance to fully grasp the impact of this scalar (or other) hair on the paradigmatic BHs of General Relativity. The purpose of this paper is, precisely, to construct examples of such electrically charged generalizations of KBHsSH and to examine some of their physical properties. We shall focus on Einstein–Maxwell–(complex)Klein-Gordon theory, where the scalar field is massive and has no self-interactions. All couplings, moreover, are minimal. We start by considering an ungauged (hence electrically uncharged) scalar field. In this case, the family of solutions – Kerr-Newman BHs with ungauged scalar hair (KNBHsUSH) – is described by four continuous parameters (with one non-trivial constraint between them): $(1)$ the ADM mass, $M$, which can be split into the horizon and exterior matter/energy contribution (composed of the scalar $\Psi$ plus electromagnetic fields), $M=M_{\rm H}+M^\Psi+M^{\rm EM}$; $(2)$ the total angular momentum, $J$, which can also be split in a similar fashion, $J=J_{\rm H}+J^\Psi+J^{\rm EM}$; $(3)$ the Noether charge, $Q$, associated to the global $U(1)$ invariance of the complex scalar field, which obeys $Q=J^\Psi/m$, where $m$ is the azimuthal winding number; $(4)$ and the total electric charge, $Q_E$. All electric charge is contained within the BH horizon, $Q_E=Q_E^{\rm H}$, whereas all Noether charge is contained outside the horizon. By Gauss’s law the former can be computed by the flux of the electric field on any closed 2-surface surrounding the horizon, and is unaffected by $Q$. The magnetic dipole moment, on the other hand, which is induced by the electric charge in the rotating spacetime, is affected by the Noether charge, with respect to the KN value. This is appropriately described by the gyromagnetic ratio, which is $g=2$ for KN and it is $g\leqslant 2$ for the hairy BHs. Thus, for the same amount of total mass, angular momentum and electric charge, KNBHsUSH have less magnetic dipole moment, a suppression of the magnetic dipole due to the scalar hair. The domain of existence of KNBHsUSH is bounded by (a particular set of) KN BHs, when $Q=0$; a set of extremal (zero temperature) BHs; and (electrically uncharged) rotating boson stars, when $Q_E=0$, for which $M=M^\Psi$ and $J=J^\Psi=mQ$. As for the uncharged KBHsSH, there is no static limit for KNBHsUSH. Gauging the scalar field, with a gauge coupling $q_E$, hence endowing the scalar particles with electric charge, leads to a family of KN BHs with gauged scalar hair (KNBHsGSH), which exhibits some changes with respect to the previously discussed KNBHsUSH. Firstly, as in the ungauged case, both the mass and the angular momentum can be split into the horizon and exterior contribution. However, the corresponding parts for the electromagnetic and the scalar $\Psi$ fields cannot be rigorously separated since here they interact directly, not only via the spacetime geometry. Moreover this time the total electric charge has both a horizon and a contribution sourced by the scalar field, $Q=Q^{\rm H}_E+Q^\Psi_E$, and needs to be calculated by the asymptotic flux. $Q_E^\Psi$ is determined by the total Noether charge, which counts the number of the scalar particles, multiplied by their individual electric charge: $Q_E^\Psi=q_E Q/(4 \pi)$. This redistribution of the electric charge, does not, however change the qualitative behaviour of the gyromagnetic ratio. For all solutions constructed so far we still observe that it is always $g\leqslant 2$, with equality attained for the KN case. The boundaries of the domain of existence of KNBHsGSH are sensitive to the gauging. Both the KN, extremal and solitonic limits are different. In particular, the latter is a set of rotating boson stars with $nonzero$ electric and magnetic fields, for which $Q_E= q_E Q/(4\pi)= q_E J/(4 \pi m)$. This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec\_mod\_u\] we describe the ungauged scalar field model, the boundary conditions, physical quantities of interest and the numerical results for the domain of existence of the solutions, as well as some physical properties, including the gyromagnetic ratio. A similar, albeit less extensive analysis, is performed in Section \[sec\_mod\_g\] for the gauged case, emphasizing the differences with respect to the ungauged one. Finally, in Section \[sec\_remarks\] we present some closing remarks. The ungauged scalar field model {#sec_mod_u} =============================== Action, equations of motion and ansatz {#sec_mofrl} -------------------------------------- We start by considering Einstein–Maxwell theory, minimally coupled to a complex, massive (mass $\mu$) ungauged scalar field $\Psi$. The corresponding action is $$\begin{aligned} \label{action} \mathcal{S} = \frac{1}{4\pi G}\int d^4x \sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{R}{4}- \frac{1}{4}F_{ab}F^{ab}- g^{ab}\Psi^*_{,a}\Psi_{,b} -\mu^2\Psi^*\Psi \right]\ , \end{aligned}$$ where $F_{ab}$ are the components of the Maxwell 2-form, $F$, related to the 1-form potential $A=A_adx^a$ as $F=dA$. The Einstein–Klein-Gordon–Maxwell equations, obtained by varying the action with respect to the metric, scalar field and electromagnetic field, are, respectively, $$G_{ab} = 2\left( T_{ab}^\Psi+T_{ab} ^{\rm EM} \right)\ , \qquad \Box \Psi =\mu^2\Psi \ , \qquad D_aF^a_{~b}=0 \ , \label{eom}$$ where the two components of the energy-momentum tensor are $$\label{emt} T_{ab}^\Psi \equiv \Psi_{ , a}^*\Psi_{,b} +\Psi_{,b}^*\Psi_{,a} -g_{ab} \left[ \frac{1}{2} g^{cd} ( \Psi_{,c}^*\Psi_{,d}+ \Psi_{,d}^*\Psi_{,c} )+\mu^2 \Psi^*\Psi\right] \ , \qquad T_{ab}^{\rm EM} \equiv F_a^{~c}F_{bc} - \frac{1}{4}g_{ab}F_{cd}F^{cd} \ .$$ This model is invariant under a *global* transformation $\Psi\rightarrow \Psi e^{i\alpha}$, where $\alpha$ is constant. KNBHsUSH are obtained using the metric, scalar field and electromagnetic potential ansatz given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{metric_ansatz} ds^2 &= -e^{2F_0}Ndt^2 + e^{2F_1}\left( \frac{dr^2}{N} + r^2d\theta^2 \right) + e^{2F_2}r^2\sin^2\theta \left(d\varphi - Wdt \right)^2 \ ,\\ \label{scalar_ansatz} \Psi &= \phi(r,\theta)e^{i(m\varphi-w t)}~, \\ \label{electric_ansatz} A_adx^a &= \left( A_t - A_\varphi W\sin\theta \right)dt + A_\varphi\sin\theta d\varphi \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $N\equiv 1-r_H/r$ and $r_H$ is a constant describing the event horizon location in this coordinate system; the metric ansatz functions $F_i,W$, $i=0,1,2$, as well as $\phi$, $A_t$ and $A_\varphi$, depend on the spheroidal coordinates $r$ and $\theta$ only; $w\in \mathbb{R}^+$ is the scalar field frequency and $m=\pm 1,\pm 2$…is the azimuthal harmonic index. In the following we shall focus on the case $m=1$ as an illustrative set of solutions, and also nodeless solutions for the scalar field profile $\phi$. Solutions with nodes will also exist, corresponding to excited states with higher ADM mass. Boundary conditions {#sec_bc} ------------------- In order to find KNBHsUSH, we use the numerical strategy and code already discussed in some of our previous works (see, $e.g.$ [@Herdeiro:2015gia; @Herdeiro:2016tmi]). To obtain these solutions, appropriate boundary conditions must be imposed, that we now summarize. At spatial infinity, $r\rightarrow\infty$, we require that the solutions approach a Minkowski spacetime with vanishing matter fields: $$\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}{F_i}=\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}{W}=\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty}{\phi}=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_\varphi=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_t=0\ .$$ (Observe that the last equality could be changed to a constant, rather than zero, in a different gauge.) On the symmetry axis, $i.e.$ at $\theta=0,\pi$, axial symmetry and regularity require that $$\partial_\theta F_i = \partial_\theta W = \partial_\theta A_t = \phi = A_\varphi = 0\ .$$ Moreover, all solutions herein are invariant under a reflection in the equatorial plane ($\theta=\pi/2$). The event horizon is located at a surface with constant radial variable, $r=r_H>0$. By introducing a new radial coordinate $x=\sqrt{r^2-r_H^2}$ the boundary conditions and numerical treatment of the problem are simplified. Then one can write an approximate form of the solution near the horizon as a power series in $x$, which implies the following boundary conditions $$\partial_x F_i \big|_{x=0}= \partial_x \phi \big|_{x=0} = 0,~~W \big|_{x=0}=\Omega_H,~~ A_t \big|_{x=0} = \Phi_H,~~ \partial_x A_\varphi \big|_{x=0}=0 , \label{bch1}$$ where $\Omega_H $ is the horizon angular velocity and $\Phi_H$ is the horizon electrostatic potential. Similarly to the uncharged case, the existence of a smooth solution imposes also the *synchronization condition* $$\begin{aligned} \label{cond} w=m\Omega_H\ .\end{aligned}$$ Physical quantities {#sec_pq} ------------------- Axi-symmetry and stationarity of the spacetime (\[metric\_ansatz\]) guarantee the existence of two conserved global charges, the total mass $M$ and angular momentum $J$, which can be computed either as Komar integrals at spatial infinity or, equivalently, from the decay of the appropriate metric functions: $$\begin{aligned} \label{asym} g_{tt} =-e^{2F_0}N+e^{2F_2}W^2r^2 \sin^2 \theta \to -1+\frac{2GM}{r}+\dots, ~~ g_{\varphi t}=-e^{2F_2}W r^2 \sin^2 \theta \to \frac{2GJ}{r}\sin^2\theta+\nonumber \dots. \end{aligned}$$ These quantities can be split into the horizon contribution – computed as a Komar integral on the horizon – and the matter contributions, composed of the scalar field and electromagnetic parts, computed as the volume integrals of the appropriate energy-momentum tensor components: $$\begin{aligned} \label{MH-hor} M=M^\Psi+M^{\rm EM}+M_H\ , \qquad J=J^\Psi+J^{\rm EM}+J_H\ , $$ where $M_H$ and $J_H$ are the horizon mass and angular momentum. $M^\Psi$ and $J^\Psi$ are the scalar field energy and angular momentum outside the horizon, with $$\begin{aligned} \label{Mpsi} -M^\Psi\equiv \int_{\Sigma} dS^a (2T_{ab}^\Psi \xi^b-T^\Psi\xi_a) = 4\pi \int_{r_H}^\infty dr \int_0^\pi d\theta~r^2\sin \theta ~e^{F_0+2F_1+F_2} \left( \mu^2-2 e^{-2F_0}\frac{w(w-mW)}{N} \right)\phi^2 ~~,\end{aligned}$$ while $J^\Psi=mQ$, where $Q$ is the Noether charge associated with the the $global$ $U(1)$ symmetry of the complex scalar field $$\begin{aligned} \label{Q-int} Q=4\pi \int_{r_H}^\infty dr \int_0^\pi d\theta ~r^2\sin \theta ~e^{-F_0+2F_1+F_2} \frac{(w-mW)}{N}\phi^2 ~.\end{aligned}$$ To measure the hairiness of a BH, it is convenient to introduce the normalized Noether charge $$\begin{aligned} \label{q} q=\frac{mQ}{J}~,\end{aligned}$$ with $q=1$ for solitons and $q=0$ for KN BHs. Also, $M^{\rm EM}$ and $J^{\rm EM}$ are the mass and angular momentum stored in the electromagnetic field outside the horizon. The solutions possess also an electric charge $Q_E$ that can be computed using Gauss’s law, on any closed 2-surface covering the horizon. Alternatively, $Q_E$ can be computed from the decay of the 4-potential, together with the magnetic dipole moment $\mu_M$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{asym-matter-fields} A_t\sim \frac{Q_E}{r}+\dots \ , \qquad A_{\varphi}\sim \frac{\mu_M \sin \theta}{r}+\dots\ . \end{aligned}$$ As with the KN BHs, the gyromagnetic ratio $g$ defines how the magnetic dipole moment is induced by the total angular momentum and charge, for a given total mass: $$\mu_M=g\frac{Q_E}{2M}J \ . \label{gyro}$$ The BH horizon introduces a temperature $T_H$ and an entropy $S={A_H}/({4G})$, where $$\begin{aligned} \label{THAH} T_H=\frac{1}{4\pi r_H}e^{(F_0-F_1)|_{r_H}}\ , \qquad A_H=2\pi r_H^2 \int_0^\pi d\theta \sin \theta~e^{(F_1+F_2)|_{r_H}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The various quantities above are related by a Smarr mass formula $$\begin{aligned} \label{smarr} M=2 T_H S +2\Omega_H (J-m Q) + \Phi_H Q_E+ M^\Psi,\end{aligned}$$ The solutions satisfy also the 1st law $$\begin{aligned} \label{first-law} dM=T_H dS +\Omega_H dJ + \Phi_H dQ_E\ .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, observe that and are consistent with a different Smarr relation, only in terms of horizon quantities $$\begin{aligned} \label{rel-hor} M_H=2T_H S+2 \Omega_H J_H~, $$ together with the electromagnetic relation $M^{\rm EM}=\Phi_HQ_E+2\Omega_HJ^{\rm EM}$. The results {#sec_results_u} ------------ As in the previous work [@Herdeiro:2015gia; @Herdeiro:2016tmi] the numerical integration is performed with dimensionless variables introduced by using natural units set by $\mu$ and $G$. The global charges and all other quantities of interest are also expressed in units set by $\mu$ and $G$ (we set $G=1$ in what follows). In particular this means we set $\mu Q_E\rightarrow Q_E$; note that $\Phi_H$ is dimensionless (in units such that $4\pi \epsilon_0=1$). Let us start by getting an overview of the domain of existence of KNBHsUSH. This requires fixing the new degree of freedom, related to electric charge. An important observation here is that, similarly to the KN case, no solitonic limit exists, for a nonzero $Q_E$. Thus, for most of the numerical solutions we have chosen to fix the electrostatic potential on the horizon $\Phi_H$ and vary the remaining input parameters $\Omega_H$ and $r_H$. This allows these two-dimensional sections of the full domain of existence to reach the solitonic limit, wherein the horizon area vanishes and the electrostatic potential becomes constant everywhere and pure gauge. In Fig. \[fig:w-M\] (left panel), we exhibit the $(\Omega_H,M)$ domain of existence of the solutions, where we have fixed the horizon electrostatic potential to be $\Phi_H=0.3$. Observe that the domain therein was obtained by extrapolating into the continuum the results from discrete sets of around two thousand numerical solutions; we also remark that a qualitatively similar picture has been found for $\Phi_H=0.6$. As shown in the main panel (the inset is for $\Phi_H=0$), this domain of existence is bounded by boson stars (red solid line), the KN limit (blue dotted line – dubbed *existence line*) and the extremal KNBHsUSH limit (green dashed line). The last two limits vary with the electrostatic potential whereas the first one does not; this can be observed in the right panel, where part of the line of extremal KNBHsUSH is shown for $\Phi_H=0; 0.6$ and $0.8$, as well as the corresponding existence line and the line for extremal KN BHs (black solid lines). The trend is that the larger the electrostatic potential becomes, the lower the mass of the extremal KN BH is, along the existence line (henceforth dubbed as *Hod point*, following [@Herdeiro:2015tia]), whence the line of extremal KNBHsUSH starts. This is the expected result from the known behaviour of KN BHs. Another trend, illustrated by comparing the main left panel with the inset, is that for higher $\Phi_H$, there are extremal hairy BHs with lower horizon angular velocity. ![The $(\Omega_H,M)$ domain of existence for a sample of KNBHsUSH. (Main left panel) Diagram for $\Phi_H=0.3$ with the boson star envelope (red solid line), the existence line on the domain of KN BHs (blue dotted line) and the line of extremal KNBHsUSH (green dashed line). The black solid line corresponds to the extremal KN BHs; non-extremal solutions exist below. The black dotted lines have constant normalized Noether charge $q$. (Inset) diagram for $\Phi_H=0$, for comparison. (Right panel) Detail around the intersection of the existence lines with the extremal KNBHsUSH lines and the extremal KN lines for $\Phi_H=0,0.6$ and $0.8$. []{data-label="fig:w-M"}](BH-w-M "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} ![The $(\Omega_H,M)$ domain of existence for a sample of KNBHsUSH. (Main left panel) Diagram for $\Phi_H=0.3$ with the boson star envelope (red solid line), the existence line on the domain of KN BHs (blue dotted line) and the line of extremal KNBHsUSH (green dashed line). The black solid line corresponds to the extremal KN BHs; non-extremal solutions exist below. The black dotted lines have constant normalized Noether charge $q$. (Inset) diagram for $\Phi_H=0$, for comparison. (Right panel) Detail around the intersection of the existence lines with the extremal KNBHsUSH lines and the extremal KN lines for $\Phi_H=0,0.6$ and $0.8$. []{data-label="fig:w-M"}](zoom-w-M "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} In Fig. \[fig:w-g\] (left panel), we exhibit the ratio $ M^{\Psi}/M$, which gives another measure of hairiness as a function of $\Omega_H$, for $\Phi_H=0.3$. The figure shows that small fractions of the total energy in the hair are only allowed for sufficiently large horizon angular velocity. When the angular velocity is small, equilibrium between the hair and the horizon is only possible for solutions with $q$ close to unity, $i.e.$, boson star-like. The inset in this figure shows the $(\Omega_H,Q_E)$ domain of existence of the KNBHsUSH solutions. It illustrates that the electric charge of the solutions, for fixed $\Omega_H$ between that of the Hod point and the maximum allowed frequency, $\Omega_H=\mu$, is maximized along the existence line (and in particular at the Hod point). But for lower values of the frequency, slightly larger charges than that found at the Hod point are possible, occurring along the extremal hairy BHs line. ### Gyromagnetic ratio Rotating charges give rise to a magnetic dipole moment, $\mu_M$. In classical electromagnetism, a generic relation of the form , between $\mu_M$ and the total angular momentum, mass and charge can be derived, for systems with constant ratio of charge to mass density, yielding $g=1$. When experiments such as that performed for Stern and Gerlach in the early XXth century, showed that the electron should have $g=2$, it became clear that a new fundamental description for the electron was necessary, beyond the scope of the non-relativistic quantum theory. Such a description appeared with the Dirac equation, which, from first principles predicts $g=2$, a value that is corrected by loop diagrams in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), yielding the so called anomalous magnetic moment, whose agreement with experiment is one of the outstanding successes of QED. In BH physics, Carter first observed that $g=2$ for the KN solution. Since then many other studies considered the gyromagnetic ratio of rotating charged BHs, for instance with different asymptotics and in higher dimensions (see $e.g.$  [@Garfinkle:1990ib; @Herdeiro:2000ap; @Aliev:2004ec; @Ortaggio:2006ng; @Aliev:2006tt]). Here we show that the addition of scalar hair leads to a suppression of the gyromagnetic ratio, and of the corresponding magnetic dipole moment, with respect to that of a comparable KN BH. A novel aspect is that $g$ can be smaller than 1, a rather unsual feature in other models of relativistic, charged and spinning compact objects, $cf.$ [@Novak:2003uj]. In Fig. \[fig:w-g\] (right panel), we exhibit the gyromagnetic ratio in a $(q,g)$-diagram, for KNBHsUSH with $\Phi_H=0.3$. The diagram shows that the gyromagnetic ratio, $g$, of both the extremal and non-extremal hairy BH solutions, is always less than $2$. As expected, it does approach $2$, for both cases, in the limit of vanishing hair. Further insight is obtained by considering the quantity $$\begin{aligned} \Delta\equiv \frac{M^2}{Q_E^2+J^2/M^2} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ which determines the KN bound $\Delta\geqslant 1$. Indeed, all KN BHs have $\Delta>1$. This bound is, however, violated by a large set of KNBHsUSH, in particular by those close to the BS limit. This is reminiscent of what has been found for KBHsSH - see the discussions in [@Herdeiro:2014goa; @Herdeiro:2015gia; @Herdeiro:2015tia; @Delgado:2016zxv]. Our results show that solutions with $g<1$ predominantly exhibit $\Delta<1$ and thus violate the KN bound – $cf.$ the inset of Fig. \[fig:w-g\] (right panel). ![(Left panel) The ratio $M^\Psi/M$ is shown as a function of $\Omega_H$ for a sample of KNBHsUSH. The inset shows the electric charge as a function of $\Omega_H$, where the blue dotted line is the existence line. (Right panel) The $(q,g)$ space. The inset show $g$ as a function of $\Delta$, that determines the KN bound. []{data-label="fig:w-g"}](Mpsi "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} ![(Left panel) The ratio $M^\Psi/M$ is shown as a function of $\Omega_H$ for a sample of KNBHsUSH. The inset shows the electric charge as a function of $\Omega_H$, where the blue dotted line is the existence line. (Right panel) The $(q,g)$ space. The inset show $g$ as a function of $\Delta$, that determines the KN bound. []{data-label="fig:w-g"}](qg "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} Gauged scalar field model {#sec_mod_g} ========================= Main differences in the model ----------------------------- Let us now consider the model described in Section \[sec\_mod\_u\] but with a *gauged* scalar field, that couples minimally to the electromagnetic field, with gauge coupling $q_E$. This coupling is implemented by replacing the partial derivatives of the scalar field in the action  as $$\partial_a \Psi \longrightarrow D_a\Psi=\partial_a \Psi + iq_E A_a \Psi \ . \label{mc}$$ The Einstein equations still take the form , but with the substitution  in the scalar field energy-momentum tensor . Then, the scalar and Maxwell equations of motion become $$\begin{aligned} \label{field-eqs} D_{a}D^{a}\Psi=\mu^2 \Psi\ , \qquad \nabla_{b}F^{ba}= iq_E \big [ (D^{a}\Psi^*) \Psi-\Psi^*(D^a \Psi) \big ] \equiv q_E j^a \ .\end{aligned}$$ Physically, the scalar field is now electrically charged (its quanta, the scalar particles, carry a charge $q_E$), and thus the scalar field sources the Maxwell field. This model is invariant under the $local$ U(1) gauge transformation $$\begin{aligned} \label{gauge-transf} \Psi \to \Psi e^{-i q_E \alpha}\ ,~~A_a\to A_a+\partial_a \alpha \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is a real function. One consequence of this gauge invariance is that the $(t, \varphi)$-dependence of the scalar field ansatz , can now be gauged away by applying the local $U(1)$ symmetry (\[gauge-transf\]) with $\alpha = (m\varphi -w t)/q_E$. This, however, also changes the gauge field, as $A_t\to A_t-w/q_E$, $A_\varphi \to A_\varphi+m/q_E$. Consequently, the solutions cannot be constructed starting with the configurations in the previous sections and increasing $q_E$. Thus, in order to be able to consider this approach, we keep the $(t,\varphi)$-dependence in the scalar field ansatz and fix the corresponding gauge freedom by setting $A_t = A_\varphi = 0$ at infinity. One major difference with respect to the case discussed in the previous section is that the solitonic limit of the solutions carries now a nonzero electric charge. Self-gravitating charged boson stars were first considered, in spherical symmetry, in [@Jetzer:1989av] (see also the recent work [@Pugliese:2013gsa]). To the best of our knowledge, no rotating generalizations of these static solutions have been reported[^5]. The Noether charge $Q$ of the solitons, $i.e.$ the total particle number, is now intrinsically related to the electric charge $Q_E$. The former can be computed as $$\begin{aligned} \label{Q1} Q= \int j^t \sqrt{-g} dr d\theta d\varphi= 4\pi \int_{0}^\infty dr \int_0^\pi d\theta ~r^2\sin \theta ~e^{-F_0+2F_1+F_2} (w-q_E A_t -mW)\phi^2 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ whereas the latter is read from the asymptotics of the electric potential $A_t$, as given in (\[asym-matter-fields\]). A straightforward computation shows that both the Noether charge and the electric charge of the spinning *solitons* are proportional to the total angular momentum, $$\begin{aligned} \label{JQ} J= m Q=\frac{4 \pi m Q_E}{q_E}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Features of the gauged scalar field solutions {#sec_results_g} --------------------------------------------- The construction of the gauged scalar field solutions is similar to that described above for the ungauged case ($q_E=0$ limit). In particular, the KNBHsGSH are subject to the same set of boundary conditions used in the ungauged case. The synchronization condition, however, is different, $$\label{cond-new} w-q_E \Phi_H=m \Omega_H \ ,$$ in agreement with the result found in the linear theory [@Hod:2014baa; @Benone:2014ssa]. The electrically charged boson stars also form a part of the domain of existence of KNBHsGSH. Thus we have paid special attention to this limiting case. These solutions are obtained by considering the ansatz – with $r_H=0$ and replacing the boundary conditions at the horizon  by the following boundary conditions at the origin $$\begin{aligned} \label{bc0} \partial_r F_i|_{r=0}= W|_{r=0}=0\ ,~~ \phi| _{r =0}=0\ ,~~\partial_r A_t|_{r=0}=A_\varphi|_{r=0}=0\ .\end{aligned}$$ Some results of the numerical integration are shown in Fig. \[fig:w-M-gauged\] (left panel). The basic properties of the spinning gauged boson stars solutions can be summarized as follows. First, for all values of the gauge coupling considered so far, the frequency dependence of the solutions is qualitatively similar to the ungauged case. The solutions exist for a limited range of frequencies $0<w_{min}<w<\mu$. In particular, we observe that the minimal frequency increases with $q_E$. After this minimal frequency, a backbending towards larger values of $w$ occurs, yielding a second branch of solutions. A second backbending, towards smaller values of $w$, is observed as the frequency reaches a maximal value along the second branch, $w\to w_{max}$, whose value increases again with $q_E$. Then, similarly to the ungauged limit, a third branch of solutions develops – not shown in Fig. \[fig:w-M-gauged\] (left panel). Subsequently, we expect the existence of an inspiraling behaviour of the solutions, in analogy with uncharged boson stars, towards a limiting configuration. ![ (Left panel) The $(w,M)$ diagram for spinning boson stars with $q_E=0$ (red curve), $q_E/\mu=0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5$ and $0.6$ (top curve). (Right panel) The mass $M$ is shown as a function of the gauge coupling constant $q_E$ for several frequencies, $w/\mu=0.7, 0.8, 0.9$ and $0.95$ (as an inset). []{data-label="fig:w-M-gauged"}](BS-w-M-gauged "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} ![ (Left panel) The $(w,M)$ diagram for spinning boson stars with $q_E=0$ (red curve), $q_E/\mu=0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5$ and $0.6$ (top curve). (Right panel) The mass $M$ is shown as a function of the gauge coupling constant $q_E$ for several frequencies, $w/\mu=0.7, 0.8, 0.9$ and $0.95$ (as an inset). []{data-label="fig:w-M-gauged"}](BS-g-M-gauged "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} Although only the mass is displayed in Fig. \[fig:w-M-gauged\] (left panel), the $J(w)$ diagram has a very similar shape. Consequently, the axially symmetric gauged boson stars do not possess a static limit. Observe also that the maximal mass of spinning gauged boson stars solutions increases with $q_E$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:w-M-gauged\] (right panel), the solutions possess also a nontrivial dependence on the gauge coupling constant $q_E$. For given values of $w$, spinning solutions exist up to a maximal value of the gauge coupling constant only, $q_E=(q_E)_{max}$. The physics rationale behind this behaviour is similar to that discussed for the spherically symmetric case [@Jetzer:1989av; @Pugliese:2013gsa]. For $q_E>(q_E)_{max}$ the charge repulsion becomes bigger than the scalar and gravitational attraction and localized solutions cease to exist (note that the maximal value of $q_E$ increases with frequency). Also, as seen in Fig. \[fig:w-M-gauged\] (right panel), all global charges stay finite as $q_E\to (q_E)_{max}$. KNBHsGSH are obtained by adding a horizon at the center of the spinning gauged boson star we have just described, which can be done for any such solution. One way to construct the BHs is to start from boson stars and slightly increase the horizon size via the parameter $r_H$. In this approach, the other input parameters $\Omega_H$, $q_E$, $\Phi_H$ and $m$ are kept fixed. We recall that for BHs, the frequency $w$ is fixed by the synchronization condition (\[cond-new\]). Then one finds three possible behaviours for the resulting branches of BH solutions – see Fig. \[fig:q-AH-gauged\] (left panel). First ($i$), for small enough values of $\Omega_H$, the branch of BHs connects two different boson stars; as $r_H\to 0$ the horizon area vanishes, $q\to 1$, while the temperature diverges. For intermediate values of $\Omega_H$, the branch of solutions ends in an extremal KNBHsGSH solution ($ii$). These limiting configurations have finite horizon size and global charges, $0<q<1$ and appear to possess a regular horizon. Finally ($iii$), for large values of $\Omega_H$, the branch of KNBHsGSH interpolates between a charged boson star and a set of critical KN solutions (with $q=0$ and $A_H>0$), which lies again on an [*existence line*]{}. In Fig. \[fig:q-AH-gauged\] (right panel) we exhibit the (Komar) energy density and angular momentum density (in the inset) for an illustrative example of a KNBHGSH with physical input parameters $r_H=0.24, w =0.86, q_E =0.2, \Phi_H=0.1$. These densities have a contribution from both the electromagnetic and the scalar field. The main feature we wish to emphasize is the composite structure revealed by the plots. KN BHs have an (electromagnetic) energy and angular momentum density that decays with the radial coordinate, whereas KBHsSH (and boson stars) have toroidal-like distributions for the (scalar) energy and angular momentum densities. Consequently, KNBHsGSH exhibit a superposition of these two behaviours, with decaying densities from the horizon but which exhibit a local maximum, in the neighbourhood of the equatorial plane, at some finite radial coordinate. A similar energy and angular momentum distribution can be found for KNBHsUSH. The behaviours illustrated in Fig. \[fig:q-AH-gauged\] supports the expectation that the domain of existence of KNBHsGSH will fill in the domain delimited by the boson star curves exhibited in Fig. \[fig:w-M-gauged\] (left panel), together with the existence line of KN BHs and a line of extremal KNBHsGSH, in a qualitatively similar fashion to that shown in Fig. \[fig:w-M\] (left panel). Having established these solutions exist, and that their domain of existence will be analogue to the case of KNBHsUSH, we will not enter further details here; its systematic and detailed study will be reported elsewhere. Here we mention only that, similar to the ungauged case, the gyromagnetic ratio of KNBHsGSH constructed so far is always smaller than $g=2$. ![ (Left panel) The $(A_H,q)$ diagram is shown for three sets of KNBHsGSH solutions with fixed values of $\Omega_H$ and $q_E/\mu=0.2$, $\Phi_H=0.1$. (Right panel) Energy density (and angular momentum density in the inset) along three different slices of constant $\theta$ for an illustrative example of a KNBHGSH. []{data-label="fig:q-AH-gauged"}](BH-q-AH "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} ![ (Left panel) The $(A_H,q)$ diagram is shown for three sets of KNBHsGSH solutions with fixed values of $\Omega_H$ and $q_E/\mu=0.2$, $\Phi_H=0.1$. (Right panel) Energy density (and angular momentum density in the inset) along three different slices of constant $\theta$ for an illustrative example of a KNBHGSH. []{data-label="fig:q-AH-gauged"}](energy-2d "fig:"){width="49.70000%"} Remarks {#sec_remarks} ======= The Kerr solution [@Kerr:1963ud], which describes the paradigmatic BH geometry in General Relativity, allows a generalization with electric (or magnetic) charge [@Newman:1965my], discovered shortly after the Kerr metric. Much more recently, it was found that the Kerr solution also allows a generalizations with scalar [@Herdeiro:2014goa; @Herdeiro:2015gia; @Kleihaus:2015iea; @Herdeiro:2015tia; @Chodosh:2015oma] or Proca hair [@Herdeiro:2016tmi]. The former are known as Kerr BHs with scalar hair (KBHsSH). In this paper we have added electric charge to KBHsSH, both considering an ungauged and a gauged scalar field and analysed some basic properties of the solutions. In both cases, their domain of existence is qualitatively similar to the of the uncharged hairy BHs. In particular it is bounded by three curves, corresponding to the solitonic limit (boson stars), extremal hairy BHs, and bald (KN) BHs. In the gauged case, the solitonic limit corresponds to rotating charged boson stars, which hitherto have not been studied in the literature. As an example of a novel physical property of these solutions we have considered the gyromagnetic ratio, $g$. This quantity measures how a magnetic dipole moment is induced by the charge and angular momentum of the BH. It is well known the relativistic (Dirac) value holds for the KN BH, $g=2$ [@Carter:1968rr]. We have shown that the gyromagnetic ratio of these hairy charged BHs is always $g\leqslant 2$, with equality attained only in the “bald" case. Thus, the scalar hair leads to a suppression of the magnetic dipole moment. Preliminary work (not reported herein), analysing the electromagnetic field lines of the BHs, suggests that the scalar hair also suppresses the higher electric multipole moments. We hope to give a detailed account of this behaviour in the near future. There are other interesting applications for these solutions. As an example we mention testing the no-short hair conjecture. As originally stated [@Nunez:1996xv], this conjecture suggested that, when hair exists around a spherically symmetric BH, the ‘hair’ should extend beyond $3r_+/2$, where $r_+$ is the areal radius of the event horizon. This radius coincides with the location of the circular null geodesic for the Schwarzschild solution, which led to an improved version of the conjecture that the hair must extend beyond the null circular orbit of the spacetime [@Hod:2011aa]. For rotating BHs, an analysis of linearized hair suggested the no-short hair conjecture holds for uncharged BHs [@Hod:2016dkn], but may be violated for electrically charged ones [@Hod:2014sha; @Hod:2015ynd]. The latter possibility can be tested using the fully non-linear solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell-Klein-Gordon field equations reported in this paper. Finally, we emphasize that all of the analysis presented herein is classical. At the quantum mechanical level, the introduction of electric charge can lead to new phenomena, such as the pair production of oppositely charged particles ($a.k.a.$ Schwinger pair production [@Schwinger:1951nm]). In the context of BH physics, it has been argued that this phenomenon sets un upper bound on the electric field strength outside the horizon and on the BH’s electric charge [@1974Natur.247..530Z]. It will be very interesting to analyse the physical properties of KNBHsGSH and KNBHsUSH in relation with this quantum mechanical bound (see $e.g.$ [@Hod:2015hga] for a related discussion in the gauged case and test field approximation). Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ C. H. and E. R. acknowledge funding from the FCT-IF programme. H.R. is supported by the grant PD/BD/109532/2015 under the MAP-Fis Ph.D. programme. This work was partially supported by the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015 Grant No. StronGrHEP-690904, and by the CIDMA project UID/MAT/04106/2013. Computations were performed at the BLAFIS cluster, in Aveiro University. [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] [^3]: [email protected] [^4]: [email protected] [^5]: Some properties of the spinning charged solitons, with a self-interacting ($Q$-ball type) scalar field model, were addressed in [@Brihaye:2009dx].

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Recently a lot of progress has been made in deriving the heavy quark potential within a QCD medium. In this article we have considered heavy quarkonium in a hot quark gluon plasma phase. The heavy-quark potential has been modeled properly for short as well as long distances. The potential at long distances is modeled as a QCD string which is screened at the same scale as the Coloumb field. We have numerically solved the 1+1-dimensional Schrodinger equation for this potential and obtained the eigen wavefunction and binding energy for the $1S$ and $2S$ states of charmonium and bottomonium. Further, we have calculated the decay width and dissociation temperature of quarkonium states in the QCD plasma. Finally, we have used our recently proposed unified model with these new values of decay widths to calculate the survival probability of the various quarkonium states with respect to centrality at relativistic heavy ion collider (RHIC) and large hadron collider (LHC) energies. This study provides a unified, consistent and comprehensive description of spectroscopic properties of various quarkonium states at finite temperatures along with their nuclear modification factor at different collision energies.\ author: - 'P. K. Srivastava$^1$[^1]' - 'O. S. K. Chaturvedi$^2$' - 'Lata Thakur$^3$[^2]' title: 'Heavy Quarkonia in a Potential Model: Binding Energy, Decay Width, and Survival Probability' --- Introduction ============ Heavy quarkonium production and suppression was one of the earliest proposed tool to study the properties of the medium created in heavy ion collisions. In mid 80’s, Matsui and Satz [@Matsui:1986dk]has proposed theoretically that quarkoinum suppression is the signal of the possible creation of quark gluon plasma (QGP) in collision experiments. From there onward, the physical picture of quarkonium dissociation in a thermal medium has undergone various theoretical and experimental refinements [@Brambilla:2010cs]. Recent experimental observations suggest that the charmonium suppression in QCD plasma is not the result of a single mechanism, but is a complex interplay of various physical processes. Heavy quarkonia ($ Q\bar{Q} $) has a special edge over many other proposed tools since the heavy mass scale ($m_{J/\psi}=3.1$ GeV for $J/\psi$ and $m_\Upsilon=9.2$ GeV for $\Upsilon$) makes this system possible for analytical treatment theoretically. On the other side, decay of heavy quarkonia via dileptonic channel lead to relatively clean signal which can be precisely measured experimentally. We can get the physical insight of the medium dependence by analyzing the behavior of spectral function of heavy quarkonium. The two useful approaches to study the production and suppression via spectral function of heavy quarkonium are potential method and lattice approach [@Karsch:2000gi; @Mocsy:2004bv; @Wong:2004zr; @Cabrera:2006wh; @Mocsy:2007jz; @Alberico:2007rg; @Mocsy:2007yj; @deForcrand:2000akx]. As we all know that lattice QCD method is first principle tool to study the properties and behavior of heavy quarkonium thus none of the potential method can be alternative to this approach. However, the lattice observations are suffering from discretization effects and statistical errors. In this scenario, potential models can be utilized to surve the purpose. As we now know that the problem of heavy quark bound state at zero temperature involves different energy scales, i.e., hard scale, which is the mass $m_Q$ of heavy quark, soft scale which is inverse size $m_Qv\sim 1/r$ of bound state and ultrasoft scale, which is the binding energy $mv^{2}\sim \alpha_{s}/r$. After integrating out the hard scale modes, one obtains an effective field theory non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD) [@Bodwin:1994jh; @Bodwin:2010py]. Subsequently, integrating out the modes related with the inverse size scale, potential NRQCD (pNRQCD) appears [@Brambilla:1999xf; @Brambilla:2004jw]. In this pNRQCD, the heavy quark-antiquark pair in singlet and octet state are included via dynamical singlet and octet fields (or potentials). The generalization of this approach at finite temperature involves three different thermal scales : $T$, $gT$ and $g^{2}T$. In the static limit and if the binding energy is larger than the temperature $T$, the derivation of pNRQCD proceed in the same way as in zero temperature theory and heavy quark potential is not affected by the medium. However, the bound state properties can be affected through interaction of bound states with the ultrasoft gluons of the medium. The main effect of this interaction is the reduction of binding energy of the heavy quark bound state and emergence of a finite thermal width. In second case when one of the thermal scales is higher than binding energy, the singlet and octet potential become temperature dependent and will acquire an imaginary part [@Brambilla:2008cx]. It is important to state here that the real part of the potential leads to colour screening while imaginary part of the potential introduces the Landau damping to the heavy quark bound states [@Laine:2006ns; @Thakur:2013nia; @Margotta:2011ta; @Strickland:2011aa]. Another observation from numerical lattice calculations show the crossover type of deconfinement transition from hadron gas to QGP [@Karsch:2006xs]. Thus, we can expect some non-perturbative effects such as non-vanishing string tension in heavy quark-antiqurk potential above the critical temperature $T_{C}$ as well. So it is reasonable to assume the string term above $T_{C}$ [@Cheng:2008bs; @Maezawa:2007fc; @Andreev:2006eh]. Further this potential should also incorporate the effect of Landau damping induced thermal width by calculating the imaginary part of the potential. In the recent years, the real [@Agotiya:2008ie; @Thakur:2012eb] and imaginary parts [@Thakur:2013nia; @Thakur:2016cki] of the heavy quark potential have been calculated by modifying both the perturbative and non-perturbative terms of the Cornell potential in the static as well as in a moving medium. The complex static interquark potential at finite temperature has also been derived in Ref. [@Burnier:2015nsa] by considering both the Coulombic and linear string terms. One can calculate the dissociation coefficient at a given temperature by solving the Schrödinger equation using the modified heavy quark complex potential [@Agotiya:2008ie; @Thakur:2012eb; @Thakur:2013nia; @Agotiya:2016bqr; @Ganesh:2014lha]. Recently we have constructed a unified model for charmonium suppression in Ref. [@Singh:2015eta]. Here we want to incorporate this modified heavy quark potential from Ref. [@Agotiya:2008ie; @Thakur:2013nia] in unified model to calculate the survival probability of heavy quarkonium states. The survival probability of heavy quarkonium states has been studied recently in Refs. [@Patra:2009qy; @Kakade:2015xua]. Specially we will focus here on the double ratio of two states of charmonium since most of the suppression models are failed to reproduce the suppression pattern of this double ratio. In this article we have modified our unified model to properly include perturbative as well as nonperturbative effects on quarkonium suppression. We have constructed this model based on the kinetic approach whose original ingredients was given by Thews et al. [@Thews:2005fs]. In this approach, there are two terms written on the basis of Boltzmann kinetic equation as shown in subsection \[D\]. First term, which we call as dissociation term, includes the dissociation process like gluo-dissociation and collisional damping. The second term (formation term) provides the (re)generation of $J/\psi$ due to the recombination of charm-anticharm quark. These two terms compete over the entire temporal evolution of the QGP and we get the multiplicity of finally survived quarkonia at freezeout temperature. To define the dynamics of the system created in the heavy ion collisions, we have used the 1+1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamics. Here we have included only the shear viscosity and neglected the bulk viscosity. We have also suitably incorporated the overall feed-down correction from the higher states to the low-lying states. Rest of the paper is organised as follows : In section \[secII\], model formulation, we have provided four subsections which discuss briefly about modified heavy quark potential at finite temperature, binding energy, decay width and calculation of survival probability, respectively. Further in section \[secIII\], we have presented our results along with their discussions. In the end of this section, we have also summarized our present work. Model Formalism {#secII} =============== Heavy Quark Complex Potential {#A} ----------------------------- In this section we discuss about the heavy quark-antiquark potential which have both the columbic and string-like parts. Authors in Ref. [@Laine:2006ns] have derived the static potential between heavy quark-antiquark pair at finite temperature by defining a suitable gauge-invariant Green’s function and computing it to first order in hard thermal loop (HTL) resummed perturbtion theory. In medium both the columbic and string-like part of potential receive modification. Further complications arise from the fact an imaginary part of the potential arises due to the presence of scattering of light medium degrees of freedom with the color string spanning in between the heavy quarks and antiquarks. It has been pointed out that the physics of the finite width originates from the Landau damping of low-frequency gauge fields. Further it has been studied non-perturbatively by making use of the classical approximation. In the view of above observations, a meaningful description of the relavant physics of quarkonium must therefore consist both the effects of screening of the real part of potential and imaginary part of the potential. There are several efforts to derive and/or phenomenologically construct HQ potential which can be used as an input in the quarkonium suppression models [@Laine:2006ns; @Burnier:2015nsa; @Krouppa:2018; @Blaizot:2016; @Rothkopf:2012; @Burnier:2017]. The standard Polyakov loop correlator is fail to reproduce the expected Debye-screening potential at asymptotically large distances. Many modified descriptions of Polyakov loop correlator are affected by gauge ambiguities. There are studies based on generalized Gauss law and further its combination with the characterization of in-medium effects through the perturbative HTL permittivity. The use of Gauss law, non-local concept leads to a self-consistent descriptions of both screening and damping effects. Recently, direct lattice determination of the quarkonium spectral function have been attempted [@deForcrand:2000akx]. However, these calculations are again plagued by the model assumptions as there are very finite number of points in time direction and data is of statisctical nature in these lattice studies. On the other side, similar observables have been calculated for strongly-coupled $N=4$ super Yang-Mills theory through AdS/CFT correspondence [@Ali:2014; @Patra:2015qoa; @Liu:2007; @Fadafan:2013; @Tahery:2017]. In these derivations, static potentials in real time can be calculated by computing the standard Wilson loop in Euclidean spacetime, and then carry out the analytic continuation. In other words, the expectation value of a particular timelike Wilson loop defines the potential between a static quark and antiquark at finite temperature. The medium modified heavy quark potential can be obtained by correcting both the Coulombic (short-distance) and string (long-distance) terms, not its Coulomb term alone, with a dielectric function encoding the effects of the deconfined medium as discussed in Refs. [@Agotiya:2008ie; @Thakur:2012eb; @Thakur:2013nia]. In the literature only a screened Coulomb potential was assumed above critical temperature ($ T_c $) and the non-perturbative (string) term was usually overlooked (assumed zero), was certainly worth investigation. Recent lattice results indicate the phase transition in full QCD appears to be a crossover rather than a phase transition with the related singularities in thermodynamic observables as discussed in introduction section. The effects of string tension between the $ Q\bar{Q} $ pairs should not be ignored beyond $ T_c $. Therefore, it is important to incorporate the string term while setting up the criterion for the dissociation. In our approach, we make the assumption that medium potential can be derived from the vacuum potential by multiplying it with a field-theoretically determined complex permittivity in momentum space. It is possible to reproduce the real and imaginary part of the corresponding in-medium potential in by using the hard thermal loop permittivity. The real part of the medium modified heavy quark potential can be written as [@Agotiya:2008ie; @Thakur:2012eb] $$ReV (r,~T) = -\alpha m_{D}\left(\frac{e^{-\hat r}}{\hat r}+1\right)+\frac{2\sigma}{m_{D}}\left(\frac{e^{-\hat r}-1}{\hat r}+1 \right), \label{Repot}$$ where $\hat{r}= rm_{D}$ and $\alpha=4/3~\alpha_{s}$ with $\alpha_s $ as the one loop running coupling constant given as $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_{s}(T)=\frac{g_s^{2}(T)}{4 \pi}=\frac{6 \pi}{\left(33-2 N_{f}\right)\ln \left(\frac{2\pi T}{\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we take $\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}=0.1 $ GeV and the string tension, $ \sigma=0.184 $ GeV$^2$. $m_{D}$ is the Debye screening mass which is defined as $$m_{D}^{2} = \frac{g^{2}T^{2}}{6}\left(N_{f}+2N_{c}\right),$$ with $N_{f}$ and $N_{c}$ as the number of flavours and colours, respectively.\ In the small $r$ limit, the real part of potential reduces to the Cornell potential. $$ReV (r)\approx -\frac{\alpha}{r}+ \sigma r.$$ On the other hand, in the large distance limit (where the screening occurs), potential is reduced to a long-range Coulomb potential with a dynamically screened-color charge. However, if we compare our $ Q\bar{Q} $ potential (Eq. \[Repot\]) with the classical concept of Debye-Hückel theory by Digal et.al. [@Digal:2005ht], we found that in the asymptotic limit $ (r \rightarrow \infty) $, Eq. (\[Repot\]) reduces to $$ReV (r\rightarrow \infty,~T)= F(\infty,T)=\frac{2\sigma}{m_{{D}}}-\alpha m_{{D}},$$ whereas in Ref. [@Digal:2005ht] free energy reduces to $$F^{\rm{Digal}} (\infty,T)= \frac{\Gamma(1/4)}{2^{3/2}\Gamma(3/4)}\frac{\sigma}{m_{{D}}}-\alpha m_{{D}},$$ here the difference can be seen only in the string term only and may be due to the treatment of the problem classically or quantum mechanically. Also in the framework of Debye-Hückel theory, Digal et al. employed different screening functions, $f_c$ and $f_s$ for the Coulomb and string terms, respectively, to obtain the free energy. Here we have used the same screening scale, $ m_D $ for both the Coulombic and linear terms. The imaginary part of the medium modified heavy quark potential can be calculated in the similar way as in Ref. [@Thakur:2013nia] and is given by $$ImV(r,~T) = -\alpha T~\phi(m_D r) -\frac{2\sigma T}{m_{D}^{2}}\psi(m_D r),$$ where the functions $ \phi(\hat r) $ and $ \psi(\hat r) $ are defined as $$\phi(\hat r)=2\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{z~dz}{(z^{2}+1)^{2}}\left(1-\frac{sin~z\hat{r}}{z\hat{r}}\right)$$ and $$\psi (\hat r) = 2\int_{0}^{\infty}\frac{dz}{z(z^{2}+1)^{2}}\left(1-\frac{sin~z\hat{r}}{z\hat{r}}\right),$$ ![Variation of the imaginary part of potential with the separation distance $r$ at three different values of temperature.[]{data-label="ImV"}](IMAG_POTE.eps) In the small $r$ limit, we can expand the potential and at leading logarithmic order in $\hat{r}$ we get $$\begin{aligned} %Im V (\hat r,T)&=&Im V_c (\hat r,T)+Im V_s (\hat r,T)\nonumber\\ Im V (\hat r,T)\approx-\alpha T\frac{ {\hat r^2}}{3}\log\big(\frac{1}{\hat r}\big) -\frac{2\sigma T}{m_D^2}\left(\frac{\hat r^2}{6} -\frac{\hat r^4}{60}\right)\log\big(\frac{1}{\hat r}\big). \label{Impot}\end{aligned}$$ ![The variation of radial part of wavefunction of different charmonia states with respect to $r$. Solid curve represents the $1S(J/\psi)$, dashed curve is for $2S(\psi^{'})$ and dash-dotted curve represents the radial wavefunction of $1P(\chi_{c})$ state.[]{data-label="fig3"}](final_wavefunction_160.eps) ![The variation of radial part of wavefunction of different bottomonia states with respect to $r$. Solid curve represents the $1S(\Upsilon)$, dashed curve is for $2S(\Upsilon)$ and dash-dotted curve represents the radial wavefunction of $1P(\chi_{b})$ state.[]{data-label="fig4"}](final_wave_upsilon_160.eps) ![Comparison of radial part of wavefunction of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $J/\psi$ at critical temperature $T_{C}=160$ MeV.[]{data-label="fig5"}](comparison_ups_jpsi.eps) ![Variation of radial wavefunction of $J/\psi$ with respect to $r$ at $T=T_{C},~1.5~T_{C},~2.0~T_{C}$ and $2.5~T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](comparison_1S.eps) Binding Energy {#B} -------------- Binding energy can be calculated by knowing the energy eigen value of different quarkonia state. The binding energy here is a function of temperature instead of a constant factor. To know the energy eigen value and energy eigen function of different quarkonia states, we have solved the Schrodinger equation with the real part of heavy quark potential as described above and a angular momentum dependent part. The motivation behind using only the real part of the potential in solving Schrodinger equation is the large magnitude of real part over imaginary part (one can easily veriy it from Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). We have used the method of Ganesh and Mishra [@Ganesh:2014lha] to numerically solve the one dimensional Schrodinger equation on a logarithamic equally spaced one dimensional lattice. We have obtained the energy eigen values and eigen functions of different quarkonium states. Then we calculate the energy eigen value at infinity ($U_{\infty}$). The binding energy of a given quarkonia state with principal quantum number $n$ and orbital quantum number $l$ is calculated by using the following relation [@Satz:2005hx] $$B. E. (n,l) = g_{nl} - U_{\infty}.$$ ![Variation of radial wavefunction of $\Upsilon(1S)$ with respect to $r$ at $T=T_{C},~1.5~T_{C},~2.0~T_{C}$ and $2.5~T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig7"}](comparison_ups_1S.eps) ![Variation of radial wavefunction of $\psi^{'}$ with respect to $r$ at $T=T_{C},~1.5~T_{C},~2.0~T_{C}$ and $2.5~T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig8"}](comparison_2S.eps) ![Variation of radial wavefunction of $\Upsilon(2S)$ with respect to $r$ at $T=T_{C},~1.5~T_{C},~2.0~T_{C}$ and $2.5~T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig9"}](comparison_ups_2S.eps) Decay Width ($\Gamma$) {#C} ---------------------- ![Variation of binding energy (B.E.) with respect to temperature in units of $T_{C}$. Solid and dashed curves represent the binding energy of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig10"}](charmonia_BE.eps) ![Variation of binding energy (B.E.) with respect to temperature in units of $T_{C}$. Solid and dashed curves represent the binding energy of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig11"}](upsilon_BE.eps) We have calculated the decay width ($\Gamma$) of $1S$ and $2S$ of quarkonia state numerically. As we know that the thermal width can be calculated from the imaginary part of the potential by using the following expression [@Thakur:2013nia; @Thakur:2016cki; @Patra:2015qoa] $$\Gamma = 4\pi\int g_{nl}^{*}[ImV]g_{nl}~r^{2} dr.$$ It is important to mention here that analytically one can calculate the decay width by folding the imaginary part of the potential with 1S and 2S hydrogen atom wavefunction ($g_{_{1S}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi a_{0}^{3}}} exp\left(-\frac{r}{a_{0}}\right),$ and $g_{_{2S}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{32\pi a_{0}^{3}}}\left(2-\frac{r}{a_{0}}\right) exp\left(-\frac{r}{2a_{0}}\right)$) which are assumed to represent most of the properties of heavy quarkonia states. However as we will show in our results that the various quarkonia wavefunctions actually depends on temperature very strongly and thus assuming a temperature independent coloumbic wave function to calculate the decay width is not realistic. Thus we have used the wavefunctions as obtained by us, solving Schrodinger equation at different temperatures. For the sake of comparison, we are providing here the expression of decay widths obtained by folding the imaginary part of the potential with the coloumbic wavefunctions of different quarkonia state as follows : $$\Gamma_{1S} = \frac{4T}{\alpha m_{Q}^{2}}m_{D}^{2}\log\left(\frac{\alpha m_{Q}}{m_{D}}\right)+\frac{4\sigma T}{\alpha^{2}m_{Q}^{2}}\left[1-\frac{3m_{D}^{2}}{\alpha^{2}m_{Q}^{2}}\right]\log\left(\frac{\alpha m_{Q}}{m_{D}}\right),$$ and $$\Gamma_{2S} = \frac{56T}{\alpha m_{Q}^{2}}m_{D}^{2}\log\left(\frac{\alpha m_{Q}}{m_{D}}\right)+\frac{8\sigma T}{\alpha^{2}m_{Q}^{2}}\left[7-\frac{192m_{D}^{2}}{\alpha^{2}m_{Q}^{2}}\right]\log\left(\frac{\alpha m_{Q}}{2m_{D}}\right),$$ ![Comparison of binding energy of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $J/\psi$.[]{data-label="fig12"}](jpsi_upsilon_BE.eps) ![Variation of decay width ($\Gamma$) with respect to $T/T_{C}$. Solid and dash-dotted curves represent the decay width of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig13"}](jpsi_dissociation.eps) The dissociation temperature for the quarkonium states can be determined by using the conservative quantitative condition $ \Gamma_{n,~l}(T_{C}) \approx 2\times B. E._{n,~l}(T_{C}) $ [@Mocsy:2007jz], where $T_{C}$ is the dissociation temperature of that particular quarkonia state having principal quantum number $n$ and azimuthal quantum number $l$. Survival Probability including Regeneration {#D} ------------------------------------------- The survival probability or the nuclear modification factor of various quarkonia states with respect to centrality, rapidity and transverse momentum is key signatures to quantify the properties of medium created in heavy ion collision experiments. As we have the decay width of various quarkonia states from our calculation, we can calculate their survival probability by using our recently proposed unified model [@Singh:2015eta]. Here we show the variation of survival probability with respect to participant number ($N_{part}$) which actually measures the centrality of collision. To understand the evolution dynamics of the system created in heavy ion collisions, we have used 1+1 dimensional viscous hydrodynamics in which we have included the shear viscous effect. We have done our calculation for mid-rapidity region only where Bjorken scaling are applicable. We have derived the cooling law for temperature [@Srivastava:2013dxa; @Srivastava:2012pd] which depends only on proper time $\tau$ and then extend this cooling law to make it $\tau$ and $N_{part}$ dependent using Ref. [@Ganesh:2014lha; @Ganesh:2013sqa]. To calculate the survival probability we have used the following expression : $$S = \frac{N_{HM}^{f}}{N_{HM}^{i}}$$ where $N_{HM}^{i}$ and $N_{HM}^{f}$ is the initial and final multiplicity of heavy meson (quarkonia). The final multiplicity of quarkonia can be calculated as [@Singh:2015eta]: $$N_{HM}^{f} = \epsilon(\tau_{f})\left[N_{HM}^{i}+N_{Q\bar{Q}}^{2}\int_{\tau_0}^{\tau_f}\Gamma_{f}(V(\tau)\epsilon(\tau))^{-1}d\tau\right].$$ Here $\Gamma_{f}$ is the reactivity for the recomination of uncorrelated $Q$ and $\bar{Q}$ quark to form a quarkonia and it can be calculated by using decay width [@Singh:2015eta]. $N_{Q\bar{Q}}$ is the number density of quark-antiquark pair. $\epsilon(\tau_{f})$ is the dissociation factor which can be calculated using the following expression : $$\epsilon(\tau_f) = exp\left(-\int_{\tau_{0}}^{\tau_{f}}\Gamma~d\tau\right)$$ where $\tau_{0}$ and $\tau_{f}$ are initial and final proper time which actually spans over the QGP lifetime, i.e., $\tau_{0}=0.5$ fm and $\tau_{f}=6.0$ fm. We have used $\tau$ and $N_{part}$ dependent cooling law for temperature as follows [@Srivastava:2013dxa; @Ganesh:2013sqa]: $$T(\tau) = T_{c}\left(\frac{N_{part}(bin)}{N_{part}(bin_{0})}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\tau_{QGP}}{\tau}\right)^{1/3},$$ where $N_{part}(bin_{0})$ is the number of participant corresponding to the most central bin as used in our calculation and $N_{part}(bin)$ is the number of participant corresponding to the bin at which we want to calculate the temperature. $\tau_{QGP}$ is the lifetime of QGP.\ The cooling law for volume is derived using the condition of isentropic evolution of the medium and can be expressed as follows [@Singh:2015eta]: $$V(\tau,~b) = V(\tau_0,~b)\left(\frac{\tau_{0}}{\tau}\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{R} -1\right)}$$ where $V(\tau_0,~b)= \pi\;(r_{t} - b/2)^{2}\tau_{0}$ is volume at the initial time $\tau_0$ and an impact of $b$ fm.\ $N_{c\bar{c}}$ and $N_{b\bar{b}}$ are calculated in our model using the help of Glauber model. The extrapolation to the nucleus-nucleus collisions is done via standard overlap integral scaling as follows : $$N_{c\bar{c}} (b) = \sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{NN}\; T_{AA}$$ where $\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{NN}$ is the cross section for $c\bar{c}$ pair production in p$+$p collision. The $\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{NN}$ has been calculated using pQCD approach for GRV HO hadronic structure function [@Thews:2005fs], we have obtained $\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{NN} = 3.546$ mb and $\sigma_{b\bar{b}}^{NN} = 0.1105$ mb for LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 2.76$ TeV. Further we have obtained $\sigma_{c\bar{c}}^{NN} = 0.346$ mb $\sigma_{b\bar{b}}^{NN} = 0.01035$ mb for RHIC at $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV. Here, $T_{AA}(b)$ is nuclear overlap function, its impact parameter ($b$) dependent values have been taken from Ref. [@cern]. Here it is important to mention that we have not incorporated any type of cold nuclear matter (CNM) effect in the present calculations. Results and Discussions {#secIII} ======================= ![Variation of decay width ($\Gamma$) with respect to $T/T_{C}$. Solid and dashed curves represent the decay width of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig14"}](upsilon_dissociation.eps) ![Comparison of decay width of $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon(1S)$.[]{data-label="fig15"}](comp_jpsi_upsilon.eps) ![Variation of two times of binding energy of $J/\psi$ and decay width with respect to $T/T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig16"}](jpsi_disso_temp.eps) The main ingredient of this paper is the heavy quark potential in QCD plasma [@Agotiya:2008ie; @Thakur:2013nia]. We first show few characteristics of this potential. In Fig. \[ReV\], we demonstrate the variation of the real part of the heavy-quark potential with respect to the separation distance ($r$) between the $ Q\bar{Q} $ pair. We have plotted the real part of potential at three different values of temperature, i.e., $T=160,~320$ and $480$ MeV by solid, dashed and dash-dotted curve, respectively. The real potential starts from negative value and increases very sharply to zero as we increase the distance from zero to $0.5$ fermi. Further the real part of potential increases from zero to $0.4$ GeV as we increase the distance at $T=160$ MeV. We choose this specific value of temperature since we take $160$ MeV as the critical crossover temperature ($T_{C}$) in our calculation. We also show the variation in the saturation value of real potential with increase in temperature. As we increase the temperature the potential saturates at lower values, i.e., $0.4$ GeV at $T=160$ MeV to $0.05$ GeV at $T=480$ MeV. In Fig. \[ImV\], we have plotted the imaginary part of heavy-quark potential with respect to $r$. The imaginary potential starts from zero value at $r=0$ fm and then decreases and became negative with increase in $r$. As we increase the temperature the magnitude of imaginary potential also increases in the negative direction. At higher temperatures, we observed a flucuating behaviour for $r > 0.4$ fm. This is due to the $sine$ term in imaginary potential. Fig. \[fig3\] represents the variation of radial part of eigen wavefunction for a given state $n$ and $l$, i.e., $g_{nl}(r)$ of $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi^{'}$ and $\chi_{C}$ states with respect to the $r$ at the critical temperature, $T_{C}$. Similarly, Fig. \[fig4\] demonstrates the radial part of wavefunction of different bottomonia states and their variation with respect to $r$ at $T_{C}$. ![Variation of two times of binding energy of $\psi^{'}$ and decay width with respect to $T/T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig17"}](psiprime_disso_temp.eps) ![Variation of two times of binding energy of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and decay width with respect to $T/T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig18"}](upsilon_disso_temp.eps) ![Variation of two times of binding energy of $\Upsilon(2S)$ and decay width with respect to $T/T_{C}$.[]{data-label="fig19"}](upsilon_2s_disso_temp.eps) Fig. \[fig5\] presents a comparison between eigen wave function of charmonium ($J/\Psi$) and bottomonium ($\Upsilon(1S)$). Here one can clearly see the difference in peak height and peak-width of $J/\Psi$ and $\Upsilon(1S)$ and understand the strong binding of $b-\bar{b}$ quark in $\Upsilon(1S)$ in comparison to the binding of $c-\bar{c}$ quark in $J/\Psi$. Fig. \[fig6\] shows the change in the radial part of wavefunction of charmonium as we increase the temperature from $T_{C}$ to $2.5~T_{C}$ in the step of $0.5~T_{C}$. From here it is clear that as we increase the temperature the peak-height of eigen function decreases and the peak-width increases which causes the binding between the heavy quark and anti-quark in the the bound state of charmonium to decrease. Similarly we have shown the change in eigen function of $\Upsilon(1S)$ with respect to temperature in Fig. \[fig7\]. ![Variation of survival probability (S) of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$ with respect to $N_{part}$ at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Experimental Data is taken from Ref. [@Adamczyk:2012ey].[]{data-label="fig20"}](RHIC_surv_jpsi_recomb.eps) ![Variation of survival probability (S) of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$ with respect to $N_{part}$ at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV. Experimental Data is taken from Ref. [@Murray:2012fya].[]{data-label="fig21"}](LHC_surv_jpsi_recomb.eps) ![Variation of survival probability (S) of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ with respect to $N_{part}$ at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. Experimental Data are taken from Ref. [@Adamczyk:2014ey].[]{data-label="fig22"}](RHIC_surv_upsilon.eps) ![Variation of survival probability (S) of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ with respect to $N_{part}$ at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV. Experimental Data are taken from Ref. [@Murray:2012fya].[]{data-label="fig23"}](LHC_surv_upsilon.eps) ![Variation of survival probability (S) of $[\psi^{'}/J/\psi]_{PbPb}/[\psi^{'}/J/\psi]_{pp}$ with respect to $N_{part}$ at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV. Experimental Data are taken from Ref. [@Murray:2012fya].[]{data-label="fig24"}](LHC_double_ratio.eps) In Fig. \[fig8\] and \[fig9\], we demonstrate the change in shape of eigen functions of $\Psi^{'}$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ state with respect to temperature going from $T_{C}$ to $2.5~T_{C}$, respectively. Fig. \[fig10\] represents the variation of binding energy of $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi^{'}$ with respect to temperature. Here we present the temperature in the unit of $T_{C}$. It is clear from the plot that initially when the temperature is near $T_{C}$, the binding energy of $J/\Psi$ is large and thus charmonium can still survive after critical temperature. As we start to increase the temperature from $T_{C}$ to higher values, the binding energy of charmonium starts decreasing and acquires a low value which is near to zero. However, our calculation shows that even at $2.5~T_{C}$, there is a finite value of binding energy for $J/\Psi$. For $\Psi^{'}$, the binding energy starts from a lower value in comparison to $J/\Psi$ which is quite obvious and it decreases with increase in temperature and acquire almost zero value at $2.0~T_{C}$. Bottomonia wavefunction is more columbic at $T_{C}$ in comparison to charmonia states due to the large mass of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ in comparison to $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi^{'}$. Therefore the binding energy of various bottomonia states start from a higher value in comparison to corresponding charmonia states. Fig. \[fig11\] represents the variation of binding energy of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ with respect to $T/T_{C}$. Further, Fig. \[fig12\] shows the comparison of binding energy of charmonia $1S$ state with bottomonia $1S$ state. We now present the decay width coming only due to the imaginary part of the heavy quark potential. In Fig. \[fig13\], we demonstrate the variation of decay width of 1S and 2S charmonia states with respect to $T/T_{C}$. As we have earlier shown in Fig. \[fig10\] that the binding energy of $J/\Psi$ is large at $T_{C}$ and thus the decay width should be small at $T_{C}$. As the binding energy of $\Psi^{'}$ is less in comparison to $J/\Psi$ over the entire temperature range therefore $\Psi^{'}$ has a larger decay width than $J/\Psi$ as shown in this figure at each temperature. Further, the decay width increases with the increase in temperature. Furthermore, the difference between the decay width of $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi^{'}$ increases with the temperature. Charmonium States Diss. Temp. ($T_{d}$) Bottomonium States Diss. Temp. ($T_{d}$) ------------------- ----------------------- -------------------- ----------------------- $J/\psi$ $2.4~T_{C}$ $\Upsilon(1S)$ $3.2~T_{C}$ $\psi^{'}$ $1.6~T_{C}$ $\Upsilon(2S)$ $2.2~T_{C}$ : Dissociation Temperature ($T_{d}$) for various quarkonium states. In Fig. \[fig14\], we have plotted the variation of decay width of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ with respect to $T/T_{C}$. The trend is quite similar with the charmonia states but the decay width of $\Upsilon(2S)$ increases rapidly after $T=3.5~T_{C}$. Fig. \[fig15\] presents a comparison between the decay width of $J/\Psi$ and $\Upsilon(1S)$. This figure clearly shows that decay width of $J/\Psi$ and $\Upsilon(1S)$ starts from almost similar value at $T_{C}$. However, the width of $J/\Psi$ increases more rapidly in comparison to $\Upsilon(1S)$. This means that the $J/\Psi$ dissociates at lower temperatures in comparison to bottomonium which is a tightly bound state and thus survive to higher temperatures.\ After that we have obtained the dissociation temperature for the different quarkonium states. Different dissociation criteria have been discussed in the literature. The first criteria is that a quarkonium state should dissociate at the temperature $T$ where $B.E. = T$. Here $B.E.$ is the binding energy of that particular quarkonia state. This criteria can provide an upper bound on the dissociation temperature. Here we use a more strict dissociation criteria which suggest that any quarkonium state should dissociate at that temperature where the decay width of the quarkonium state becomes equal to two times of its binding energy, i.e., $\Gamma=2~B.E.$ [@Mocsy:2007jz; @Thakur:2013nia]. In Fig. \[fig16\] we have plotted the decay width and two times of binding energy of $J/\Psi$ with respect to $T/T_{C}$. The two curves intersect each other at $2.4~T_{C}$. Thus the dissociation temperature of $J/\Psi$ comes out as $2.4~T_{C}$ in our calculation. We have plotted the width and the two times of binding energy of $\Psi^{'}$ with respect to $T/T_{C}$ in Fig. \[fig17\]. The dissociation temperature of $\Psi^{'}$ as obtained from the graph is $1.6~T_{C}$. Figs. \[fig18\] and \[fig19\] are the similar graphs but for $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ states, respectively. The dissociation temperature as obtained from the respective Figs. \[fig18\] and \[fig19\] are $3.2~T_{C}$ and $2.2~T_{C}$. In Fig. \[fig20\], we present the variation of survival probability of $J/\Psi$ and $\Psi^{'} $with respect to $N_{part}$ at highest RHIC energy, i.e., $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200$ GeV. As it is clear from the binding energy and decay width curve of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$, the dissociation probability of $\psi^{'}$ is large in comparison to $J/\psi$. Thus the survival probability of $J/\psi$ is larger than the $\psi^{'}$ at each centrality. In other words, it means a less suppression of $J/\psi$ in comparison to $\psi^{'}$. We have compared our $J/\psi$ results with the corresponding results obtained by STAR experiment [@Adamczyk:2012ey]. Our model results underestimate the data in most peripheral collisions. However, it suitably describes the data for central and semi-peripheral collisions. Fig. \[fig21\] shows the variation of survival probability of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$ with respect to centrality at LHC energy, i.e., $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV. As the energy increases, the corresponding temperature and energy density in each centrality class also increases and thus the survival probability of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$ decreases in comparison to RHIC energy results. We have compared our model result with the experimental data obtained by CMS Collaboration [@Murray:2012fya]. Model results for $J/\psi$ satisfy the data over the entire centrality region except in extreme central collisions. From this plot, one can observe that as we move towards the central collisions from the semiperipheral collisions, there is a small rise in the survival probability. This rise is quite clearly visible in the case of $\psi^{'}$. The rise of survival probability in central collsions at LHC energy is due to the rise of regeneration effect through recombination of charm-anticharm pairs in the later stage of the medium evolution. We found in our calculation that the regeneration effect is negligibly small at RHIC energy. ![Variation of survival probability (S) of $[\Upsilon(2S)/\Upsilon(1S)]_{PbPb}/[\Upsilon(2S)/\Upsilon(1S)]_{pp}$ with respect to $N_{part}$ at center of mass energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=2.76$ TeV. Experimental Data is taken from Ref. [@Murray:2012fya].[]{data-label="fig25"}](upsilon_double_ratio.eps) Figures \[fig22\] and \[fig23\] presents the survival probability of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ at RHIC and LHC energies, respectively. Due to their large mass in comparison to charmonia, the decay width is small and thus the survival probability of $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ is large at each $N_{part}$ in comparison to the survival probability of $J/\psi$ and $\psi^{'}$, respectively. We have compared our model results with the experimental data wherevere they are available. In Fig. \[fig22\], we have shown the STAR data [@Adamczyk:2014ey] for $\Upsilon(1S)$ and combined suppression of $\Upsilon(1S)+\Upsilon(2S)+\Upsilon(3S)$. Further in Fig. \[fig23\], we have plotted the CMS data [@Murray:2012fya] for $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$. We observed that our model at RHIC energy is able to reproduce the experimental data of $\Upsilon(1S)$. Further at LHC energy, model results regarding $\Upsilon(1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ satisfy the experimental data satisfactorily. However our results underestimate the data in semi-peripheral collisions. In central collisions, one can again observe the clear effect of regeneration on the survival probability of $\Upsilon (1S)$ and $\Upsilon(2S)$ which is negligibly small at RHIC energy. Finally we have calculated the double ratio between charmonia states ($\psi^{'}$ and $J/\psi$) and bottomonia states ($\Upsilon(2S)$ and $\Upsilon(1S)$) at $2.76$ TeV with respect to $N_{part}$ in Figs. \[fig24\] and \[fig25\], respectively. In Fig. \[fig24\], we have compared model result for the double ratio of charmonium states with the recent experimental data from CMS Collaboration at mid-rapidity as well as at forward rapidity. Since we have done our calculation for survival probability at mid-rapidity thus one can observe that our model with modified heavy quark potential satisfies the data well in most peripheral collisions while it underestimates the data at semicentral and central collisions. Similarly, in Fig. \[fig25\], we have compared our model results for the double ratio of bottomonium states with the experimental data. We observed that the model results satisfy the data satisfactorily well. Only in the semi-peripheral region, the model underestimates. In summary, we have solved the 1+1 dimension Schrodinger equation using a modified heavy quark potential and obtained the eigen function and eigen values of the different charmonium and bottomonium states. We have also calculated the binding energy by solving the 1+1 dimensional Schrodinger equation for an infinite heavy quark potential. Further we have obtained the decay width of different quarkonium states using temperature dependent wavefunction obtained by us and demonstrate their variation with respect to temperature. Furthermore we have obtained the dissociation temperature of diffferent quarkonium states by using the dissociation criteria, i.e., decay width = $2\times$binding energy. After that we feed these decay widths in our recently proposed unified model to calculate the survival probability of various quarkonium states. We have also obtained the nuclear modification factor for double ratios and observed that our model suitably describes the experimental data regarding nuclear modification factor (or survival probability). Acknowledgments =============== PKS acknowledges IIT Ropar, India for providing an institute postdoctoral research grant. [99]{} T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett.  B [**178**]{}, 416 (1986). N. Brambilla [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1534 (2011). F. Karsch, M. G. Mustafa and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Lett. B [**497**]{}, 249 (2001). A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Eur. Phys. J. C [**43**]{}, 77 (2005). C. Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 034906 (2005). D. Cabrera and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 114506 (2007). A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**99**]{}, 211602 (2007). W. M. Alberico, A. Beraudo, A. De Pace and A. Molinari, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 017502 (2008). A. Mocsy and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 014501 (2008). P. de Forcrand [*et al.*]{} \[QCD-TARO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 054501 (2001). G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1125 (1995) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 5853 (1997)\]. G. T. Bodwin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser.  [**02**]{}, 9 (2011). N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Nucl. Phys. B [**566**]{}, 275 (2000). N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto and A. Vairo, Rev. Mod. Phys.  [**77**]{}, 1423 (2005). N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 014017 (2008). M. Laine, O. Philipsen, P. Romatschke and M. Tassler, JHEP [**0703**]{}, 054 (2007). L.Thakur, U.Kakade, B.K.Patra Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 094020 (2014). M. Margotta, K. McCarty, C. McGahan, M. Strickland and D. Yager-Elorriaga, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 105019 (2011). M. Strickland and D. Bazow, Nucl. Phys. A [**879**]{}, 25 (2012). F. Karsch, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.  [**46**]{}, 122 (2006) \[hep-lat/0608003\]. M. Cheng [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 034506 (2008). Y. Maezawa [*et al.*]{} \[WHOT-QCD Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 074501 (2007). O. Andreev and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B [**645**]{}, 437 (2007). V. Agotiya, V. Chandra and B. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 025210 (2009). L. Thakur, N. Haque, U. Kakade and B. K. Patra, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 054022 (2013). L. Thakur, N. Haque and H. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 3, 036014 (2017). Y. Burnier and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Lett. B [**753**]{}, 232 (2016). V. K. Agotiya, V. Chandra, M. Y. Jamal and I. Nilima, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 9, 094006 (2016). S. Ganesh and M. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C [**91**]{}, no. 3, 034901 (2015). C. R. Singh, P. K. Srivastava, S. Ganesh and M. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C [**92**]{}, 034916 (2015). B. K. Patra, V. Agotiya and V. Chandra, Eur. Phys. J. C [**67**]{}, 465 (2010). U. Kakade, B. K. Patra and L. Thakur, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**30**]{}, no. 09, 1550043 (2015). R. L. Thews, Eur. Phys. J. C [**43**]{}, 97 (2005); Nucl. Phys. A [**702**]{}, 341 (2002); J. Phys. G [**30**]{}, S369 (2004). B. Krouppa, A. Rothkopf, M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, 016017 (2018). J. P. Blaizot, D. DeBoni, P. Faccioli, G. Garberoglio, Nucl. Phys. A [**946**]{}, 49 (2016). A. Rothkopf, T, Hatsuda, S. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 162001 (2012). Y. Burnier, A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, 054511 (2017); Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 051503(R) (2012). M. Ali-Akbari, D. Giataganas, Z. Rezaei, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 086001 (2014). B. K. Patra, H. Khanchandani and L. Thakur, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 085034 (2015). H. Liu, K. Rajagopal, U. A. Wiedemann, J. High Ener. Phys. [**03**]{}, 066 (2007). K. B. Fadafan, D. Giataganas, H. Soltanpanahi, J. High Ener. Phys. [**11**]{}, 107 (2013). S. Tahery, J. Sadeghi, J. Phys. G [**44**]{}, 105001 (2017). S. Digal, O. Kaczmarek, F. Karsch and H. Satz, Eur. Phys. J. C [**43**]{}, 71 (2005). H. Satz, J. Phys. G [**32**]{}, R25 (2006). P. K. Srivastava, S. K. Tiwari and C. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. C [**88**]{} 044902 (2013). P. K. Srivastava, M. Mishra and C. P. Singh, Phys. Rev. C [**87**]{}, 034903 (2013). S. Ganesh and M. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C [**88**]{}, 044908 (2013). The ATLAS Collaboration, CERN-PH-EP-2014-172. L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**722**]{}, 55 (2013); M. Murray \[CMS Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.  [**233**]{}, 212 (2012); H. Kim \[CMS Collaboration\], J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**422**]{}, 012015 (2013). L. Adamczyk [*et al.* ]{}\[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**735**]{}, 127 (2014); L. Adamczyk [*et al.*]{} \[STAR Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**743**]{}, 537 (2015). [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- author: - | [Abhishek Kumar]{}\ {abhishk,vsindhw}@us.ibm.com\ \ IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 USA bibliography: - 'fastconicalhull.bib' ---

ArXiv

CeRhIn$_5$ is a recently reported heavy Fermion compound that orders antiferromagnetically at $T_N=3.8$ K[@hegger]. As a function of applied pressure, magnetism gives way to superconductivity with $T_C=2.1$ K at 16 kbar. Unlike the smooth evolution of $T_N$ to zero reported for other Ce-based heavy-Fermion antiferromagnetic superconductors, e.g., CeIn$_3$[@cmbr], in CeRhIn$_5$ the transition is apparently first-order[@hegger]. CeRhIn$_5$ crystallizes in the tetragonal HoCoGa$_5$ structure ($a=4.65 \AA$, $c=7.54\AA$ at 295 K), which can be viewed, at least schematically, as alternating layers of CeIn$_3$ and RhIn$_2$[@nstru]. It has been suggested that the resulting quasi-two-dimensional configuration of the CeIn$_3$ layers is at the heart of the unusual pressure dependence of CeRhIn$_5$. Magnetic susceptibility reveals a factor of two anisotropy at $T_N$ for $H \parallel c$ versus $H \perp c$. $^{115}$In NQR measurements indicate that in the Néel state the ordered moments lie strictly in the CeIn$_3$ plane and suggest a spiral spin structure along the $c$ axis[@nqr]. The ordered moment develops much faster than would be expected in mean field theory and is inferred to saturate at about 0.1 $\mu_B$/Ce. Heat capacity[@new1] and NQR measurements[@nqr] also point to a partial gapping of the Fermi surface coincident with the Néel transition that is suggestive of a spin-density-wave (SDW) state. The magnetic behavior of CeRhIn$_5$ should be contrasted with that of CeIn$_3$, which orders antiferromagnetically at 10 K. Neutron diffraction measurements reveal an ordered moment of 0.48-0.65$\mu_B$/Ce and a commensurate ordering wave vector (1/2,1/2,1/2)[@cein; @ssc]. The development of the ordered moment below $T_N$ is consistent with mean field theory. The striking differences between CeIn$_3$ and CeRhIn$_5$ certainly suggest that a complete determination of the magnetic structure of the latter compound using neutron diffraction is indicated. Single crystals of CeRhIn$_5$ were grown from an In flux as reported previously[@hegger]. The resulting crystals are well-faceted rectangular parallelepipeds. Neutron scattering experiments were performed at NIST using the thermal triple-axis spectrometers BT9 with neutrons of energy $E=14.7$ meV, and BT2 with neutrons of $E=35$ meV. Pyrolytic graphite (PG) (002) was used as the monochromator, as well as the analyzer when it was used in some scans. PG filters of 3 or 5 cm thickness were used to remove higher order neutrons. The horizontal collimations are 40-40-40-open at BT9 and 60-40-40-open at BT2. Sample temperature was regulated by a top loading pumped He cryostat. Lattice parameters at 1.2-7 K are $a=4.64 \AA$ and $c=7.51\AA$. A powder sample, ground from 10 grams of crystals and inside a $2.5\times 5\times 0.15$ cm Al container, was first examined at BT9. No peak showing temperature dependence between 1.2 and 7 K could be detected above the incoherent scattering background. This puts an upper limit for the intensity of any magnetic peak at 15% of that of the (100) structural peak. A roughly disk-shaped single crystal of $\sim$1 cm in diameter and $\sim$3 mm in thickness, with the “disk” surface of the (001) plane, was used at BT9 to search for temperature dependent peaks. They were found as satellites of structural peaks with an incommensurate magnetic wave vector ${\bf q}_M=(1/2,1/2,\delta)$. No higher order harmonics can be detected at 2${\bf q}_M$ and 3${\bf q}_M$. The upper limits for them are 2% and 0.2% of the $(1/2,1/2,\delta)$ peak, respectively, at 1.6 K. Fig. \[magp\](a) shows a pair of the satellite peaks and the -2pc incommensurability $\delta=0.297$. The intensity of the (1/2, 1/2, 0.297) Bragg peak is shown in Fig. \[magp\](b) as the square of the order parameter of the magnetic phase transition. A Néel temperature of 3.8 K is consistent with that determined from heat capacity and resistivity[@hegger]. The rapid development of the ordered moment with temperature is in agreement with the NQR measurements[@nqr]. As shown by the scans at various temperatures in the insert to Fig. \[magp\](b), there is no detectable change in the incommensurability, $\delta$, as a function of temperature. Additionally, there is no detectable broadening of the peak at this spatial resolution up to 3.6 K. In this regard, the incommensurate magnetic structure in CeRhIn$_5$ resembles that found in metallic V$_{2-y}$O$_3$[@bao93] which is due to formation of a SDW by electrons on the nesting part of Fermi surface. However, the relation between the magnetic order parameter and resistivity for a SDW, observed in Cr and metallic V$_{2-y}$O$_3$[@bao93; @Cr_dbmtmr], seems absent in CeRhIn$_5$ (refer to Fig. 3 in [@hegger] and Fig. 1(b) here). The magnetic wave vector, ${\bf q}_M = (1/2,1/2,\delta)$, already determines that the magnetic moments of Ce or Rh ions in an $a$-$b$ plane have a simple nearest-neighbor antiferromagnetic arrangement which changes incommensurately with a pitch $\delta$ along the $c$-axis. This incommensurate change along $c$, in general, for magnetic moments at $nc$, takes the form $${\bf M}=M {\rm Re}\left[({\bf x}+\alpha {\bf y}) e^{i2\pi n \delta} \right],$$ where $\alpha$ is a complex number, [**x**]{} and [**y**]{} are [*any*]{} two perpendicular unit vectors, and $M$ is the magnitude of the magnetic moment. A trivial overall phase has been ignored here. To determine the remaining variables, a reasonable set of magnetic Bragg peaks needed to be measured. To minimize significant absorption corrections associated with the large disk-shaped crystal, a bar-shaped single crystal of cross section $\sim$$1.5\times 3$ mm in the scattering plane (sides along the $c$ and (110) directions respectively) was measured at BT2 with neutrons of $E=35$ meV. At this energy, the neutron penetration length is 1.7 mm. A PG filter of 5 cm thickness is sufficient to suppress high order neutrons since an additional PG filter did not change the intensity ratio among Bragg peaks (003), (220), (111) and (1/2, 1/2, 0.297). Equivalent structural Bragg peaks, such as (111), (11$\overline{1}$) and ($\overline{1}\overline{1}\overline{1}$) with widely different rocking angles, have similar intensity, indicating that the sample is mostly transparent to the neutron beam. Rocking scans for the quartet of the {1/2,1/2,0.297} magnetic Bragg peaks in Fig. \[peak4\] also show similar intensity. Besides reinforcing the rocking angle independence for Bragg peaks, the symmetry of these intensities places useful limits on the possible magnetic moment orientation. Integrated intensities of 20 independent magnetic Bragg peaks were measured using rocking scans, such as those in Fig. \[peak4\]. The scattering cross-sections, $\sigma({\bf q})=I({\bf q}) \sin(\theta_4)$, normalized to structural Bragg peaks {111} to yield the absolute intensity, are listed in Table \[mlist\]. In such units, [cd|cd]{} ${\bf q}$ & $\sigma$ & ${\bf q}$ & $\sigma$\ (0.5 0.5 0.297 ) & 8.9(2) & (0.5 0.5 5.297 ) & 3.7(4)\ (0.5 0.5 0.703 ) & 10.8(2) & (0.5 0.5 5.703 ) & 3.3(5)\ (0.5 0.5 1.297 ) & 13.2(2) & (0.5 0.5 6.297 ) & 2.7(5)\ (0.5 0.5 1.703 ) & 12.6(1) & ( 1.5 1.5 0.297 ) & 3.4(1)\ (0.5 0.5 2.297 ) & 11.0(1) & ( 1.5 1.5 0.703 ) & 3.6(2)\ (0.5 0.5 2.703 ) & 9.5(1) & ( 1.5 1.5 1.297 ) & 3.1(5)\ (0.5 0.5 3.297 ) & 7.7(2) & ( 1.5 1.5 1.703 ) & 3.1(5)\ (0.5 0.5 3.703 ) & 6.8(5) & ( 1.5 1.5 2.297 ) & 3.1(2)\ (0.5 0.5 4.297 ) & 6.3(7) & ( 1.5 1.5 2.703 ) & 2.9(3)\ (0.5 0.5 4.703 ) & 5.9(8) & ( 2.5 2.5 0.297 ) & 1.1(4)\ $$\sigma({\bf q})=\left(\frac{\gamma r_0}{2}\right)^2 \langle M\rangle^2 \left|f(q)\right|^2 \sum_{\mu,\nu}(\delta_{\mu\nu} -\widehat{\rm q}_{\mu}\widehat{\rm q}_{\nu}) {\cal F}^*_{\mu}({\bf q}){\cal F}_{\nu}({\bf q}), \label{eq_cs}$$ where $(\gamma r_0/2)^2=0.07265$ barns/$\mu_B^2$, $M$ is the staggered moment, $f(q)$ the atomic form factor, $\widehat{\bf q}$ the unit vector of ${\bf q}$, and ${\cal F}_{\mu}({\bf q})$ the $\mu$th Cartesian component of magnetic structure factor per CeRhIn$_5$. The pattern of magnetic Bragg peaks (Table \[mlist\] and Fig. \[peak4\]) indicates that ${\bf z}\equiv {\bf x}\times{\bf y}$ is parallel to the $c$ axis. We now consider two cases: (I) $\alpha=\pm i$, a magnetic spiral, and (II) $\alpha=0$, a collinear magnetic moment modulation. For model I, the cross-section is $$\sigma^I({\bf q})=\left(\frac{\gamma r_0}{2}\right)^2 \langle M\rangle^2 \left|f(q)\right|^2 (1+|\widehat{\bf q}\cdot \widehat{\bf c}|^2). \label{eq_cs1}$$ For model II, let ${\bf x}={\bf a}\cos(\phi+\pi/4)+{\bf b}\sin(\phi+\pi/4)$, i.e., magnetic moment pointing at an angle $\phi$ away from the (110) direction in the $a$-$b$ plane. In general, there can be eight magnetic twins. Assuming equal occupation among the twins, $$\sigma^{II}({\bf q})=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\gamma r_0}{2}\right)^2 \langle M\rangle^2 \left|f(q)\right|^2 \left(1+|\widehat{\bf q}\cdot \widehat{\bf c}|^2 \right).$$ Thus $\sigma^{II}({\bf q})=\sigma^{I}({\bf q})/2$, and model I and model II can not be distinguished in the diffraction. However, we prefer model I since a collinear magnetic modulation (model II) usually squares up with lowering temperature, generating higher order harmonics[@jeff]. This is not what we have observed in CeRhIn$_5$. Handedness of the magnetic spiral ($\alpha=i$ or $-i$) can not be distinguished in this experiment. Fig. \[formf\] shows the quantity $\sigma({\bf q})/(1+|\widehat{\bf q}\cdot \widehat{\bf c}|^2)$ which is proportional to atomic form factor $|f(q)|^2$ \[refer to Eq. (\[eq\_cs1\])\]. The $\chi^2$ for best fit using Rh ion form factor (the dashed line) is one order of magnitude larger than that using the Ce one (solid line). This indicates that the magnetic moments reside on the Ce ions rather than on the Rh ions. The staggered moment at 1.4 K is $\langle M\rangle=0.374(5)\mu_B$ per Ce. Within a CeIn$_3$ layer of CeRhIn$_5$, the local environment of a Ce ion is similar to that in the cubic compound CeIn$_3$. It is interesting to note that magnetic moments on these Ce share the same antiferromagnetic alignment. The twist of magnetic moments along the $c$ axis in CeRhIn$_5$, approximately 107$^o$ per CeIn$_3$ layer, apparently is related to the intervening RhIn$_2$ layer. From this diffraction work, we cannot definitely tell whether this incommensurate twisting is due to competing magnetic interactions in a localized moment model or a divergent magnetic susceptibility at a nesting Fermi surface wave vector, i.e., a SDW. The staggered moment of 0.374(5)$\mu_B$ per Ce in CeRhIn$_5$ is substantially reduced compared to that in its cubic counterpart CeIn$_3$. This could be a sign of SDW order, but could also be caused by a stronger Kondo effect or be a result of enhanced local moment fluctuations due to low dimensionality. Revealing evidences may be obtained in an inelastic neutron scattering experiment, as in the case of metallic V$_{2-y}$O$_3$[@bao93; @bao96a]. In conclusion, we find the incommensurate magnetic structure as depicted in Fig. \[mstru\] for CeRhIn$_5$. A magnetic moment of 0.374(5)$\mu_B$ resides on the Ce ion at 1.4K and the $a$-$b$ plane is its easy plane. Within an $a$-$b$ plane, magnetic moments form a simple nearest neighbor antiferromagnet on a square lattice, and they spiral transversely along the $c$ axis with an incommensurate pitch $\delta$. The incommensurability, $\delta$, does not change with temperature. We thank G. Aeppli, S. M. Shapiro, and C. Broholm for valuable discussions. Work at Los Alamos was performed under the auspices of the US Department of Energy. ZF gratefully acknowledges NSF support at FSU. PGP acknowledges FAPESP for partial support. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We design and build a system called EpiFi, which allows epidemiologists to easily design and deploy experiments in homes. The focus of EpiFi is reducing the barrier to entry for deploying and using an in-home sensor network. We present a novel architecture for in-home sensor networks configured using a single configuration file and provide: a fast and reliable method for device discovery when installed in the home, a new mechanism for sensors to authenticate over the air using a subject’s home WiFi router, and data reliability mechanisms to minimize loss in the network through a long-term deployment. We work collaboratively with pediatric asthma researchers to design three studies and deploy EpiFi in homes.' author: - Philip Lundrigan - Kyeong Min - Neal Patwari - Sneha Kasera - Kerry Kelly - Jimmy Moore - Miriah Meyer - 'Scott C. Collingwood' - Flory Nkoy - Bryan Stone - Katherine Sward bibliography: - 'biblio.bib' title: | EpiFi: An In-Home Sensor Network Architecture\ for Epidemiological Studies --- &lt;ccs2012&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010521.10010537.10010538&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Client-server architectures&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010575.10010577&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Reliability&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10002978.10002991.10002992&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Security and privacy Authentication&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010583.10010588.10010595&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Hardware Sensor applications and deployments&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010583.10010588.10011669&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Hardware Wireless devices&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;/ccs2012&gt; Research reported in this paper was supported by the NIBIB of the National Institutes of Health under award number U54EB021973. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'S. Adrián-Martínez' - 'I. Al Samarai' - 'A. Albert' - 'M. André' - 'M. Anghinolfi' - 'G. Anton' - 'S. Anvar' - 'M. Ardid' - 'A.C. Assis Jesus' - 'T. Astraatmadja,' - 'J-J. Aubert' - 'B. Baret' - 'S. Basa' - 'V. Bertin' - 'S. Biagi' - 'C. Bigongiari' - 'C. Bogazzi' - 'M. Bou-Cabo' - 'B. Bouhou' - 'M.C. Bouwhuis,' - 'J. Brunner' - 'J. Busto' - 'A. Capone' - 'C. C$\mathrm{\hat{a}}$rloganu' - 'J. Carr' - 'S. Cecchini' - 'Z. Charif' - 'Ph. Charvis' - 'T. Chiarusi' - 'M. Circella' - 'R. Coniglione' - 'L. Core' - 'H. Costantini' - 'P. Coyle' - 'A. Creusot' - 'C. Curtil' - 'G. De Bonis' - 'M.P. Decowski' - 'I. Dekeyser' - 'A. Deschamps' - 'C. Distefano' - 'C. Donzaud' - 'D. Dornic' - 'Q. Dorosti' - 'D. Drouhin' - 'T. Eberl' - 'U. Emanuele' - 'A. Enzenhöfer' - 'J-P. Ernenwein' - 'S. Escoffier' - 'K. Fehn' - 'P. Fermani' - 'M. Ferri' - 'S. Ferry' - 'V. Flaminio' - 'F. Folger' - 'U. Fritsch' - 'J-L. Fuda' - 'S. Galatà' - 'P. Gay' - 'K. Geyer' - 'G. Giacomelli' - 'V. Giordano' - 'J.P. Gómez-González' - 'K. Graf' - 'G. Guillard' - 'G. Hallewell' - 'M. Hamal' - 'H. van Haren' - 'A.J. Heijboer' - 'Y. Hello' - 'J.J.  Hernández-Rey' - 'B. Herold' - 'J. Hö[ß]{}l' - 'C.C. Hsu' - 'M. de Jong' - 'M. Kadler' - 'O. Kalekin' - 'A. Kappes,' - 'U. Katz' - 'O. Kavatsyuk' - 'P. Kooijman' - 'C. Kopper' - 'A. Kouchner' - 'I. Kreykenbohm' - 'V. Kulikovskiy' - 'R. Lahmann' - 'G. Lambard' - 'G. Larosa' - 'D. Lattuada' - 'D.  Lefèvre' - 'G. Lim' - 'D. Lo Presti' - 'H. Loehner' - 'S. Loucatos' - 'F. Louis' - 'S. Mangano' - 'M. Marcelin' - 'A. Margiotta' - 'J.A. Martínez-Mora' - 'T. Montaruli' - 'M. Morganti,' - 'L. Moscoso,' - 'H. Motz' - 'M. Neff' - 'E. Nezri' - 'D. Palioselitis' - 'G.E. Păvălaş' - 'K. Payet' - 'J. Petrovic' - 'P. Piattelli' - 'V. Popa' - 'T. Pradier' - 'E. Presani' - 'C. Racca' - 'C. Reed' - 'G. Riccobene' - 'C. Richardt' - 'R. Richter' - 'C. Rivière' - 'A. Robert' - 'K. Roensch' - 'A. Rostovtsev' - 'J. Ruiz-Rivas' - 'M. Rujoiu' - 'G.V. Russo' - 'F. Salesa' - 'D.F.E. Samtleben' - 'A. Sánchez-Losa' - 'P. Sapienza' - 'J. Schnabel' - 'F. Schöck' - 'J-P. Schuller' - 'F. Schüssler' - 'T. Seitz' - 'R. Shanidze' - 'F. Simeone' - 'A. Spies' - 'M. Spurio' - 'J.J.M. Steijger' - 'Th. Stolarczyk' - 'M. Taiuti' - 'C. Tamburini' - 'A. Trovato' - 'B. Vallage' - 'C. Vallée' - 'V. Van Elewyck' - 'M. Vecchi' - 'P. Vernin' - 'E. Visser' - 'S. Wagner' - 'G. Wijnker' - 'J. Wilms' - 'E. de Wolf' - 'H. Yepes' - 'D. Zaborov' - 'J.D. Zornoza' - 'J. Zúñiga' title: 'First search for neutrinos in correlation with [gamma-ray bursts]{}with the  neutrino telescope' --- , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Introduction {#sec:introduction} ============ Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), transient flashes of gamma-rays having a duration of sub-seconds up to several hundred seconds, are the most powerful known extra-galactic events. Several models predict a burst of high-energy neutrinos in concurrence with the flash of gamma-rays, also referred to as the prompt emission (see e.g. \[1\] for a review). In this, neutrinos are produced by interactions of protons that are accelerated by shock waves with energetic ambient photons. A variety of models has been put forth covering a wide range in the expected amount of neutrinos. Some of those models have already been challenged by the recent IceCube measurements [@ic59]. In particular, the IceCube results do not support the notion of GRBs as primary source of ultra high-energy cosmic rays, at least under the assumption that these ultra high-energy cosmic rays are protons coming from the decay of photohadronically produced neutrons (i.e. via the resonant channel $p+\gamma\rightarrow\Delta^{+}\rightarrow n+\pi^{+}$) and are therefore connected to neutrinos. In this scenario, neutrons, as opposed to the protons, can escape because they are not magnetically confined inside the source. Nevertheless, a viable phase space of models with a potentially measurable neutrino flux from GRBs in the TeV–PeV region can still be tested for a better understanding of the nature of these energetic events. In this paper, the first data taken with the  neutrino telescope in 2007 are used to perform a search for TeV–PeV neutrinos in correlation with a selection of GRBs detected by satellite observatories. The data are treated in a stacking approach in which the data observed during the prompt emission of all the selected GRBs are accumulated. The detection of a single neutrino event would constitute an observation with more than 3$\sigma$ significance. Previous searches for neutrinos from GRBs have been performed in the Northern hemisphere by AMANDA [@amanda] and IceCube [@ic22; @ic40] at similar energies (TeV–PeV) and by ANITA [@anita] at higher energies ($>$PeV). IceCube also included some GRBs in the Southern hemisphere [@ic59] that is observed by  but not during the period considered in this analysis. Other searches in the Southern hemisphere were performed by Super-Kamiokande [@sk] at lower energies (MeV–100 TeV) and by the Baikal neutrino telescope NT200 [@baikal]. Both these experiments have a lower sensitivity than the current analysis in the comparable energy range. The  neutrino telescope is the most sensitive instrument to observe high-energy neutrinos from the GRBs considered in this analysis. In addition, the vast majority of these GRBs have not been studied for neutrino emission in the TeV–PeV range before. Despite the fact that more stringent limits have been published [@ic59; @ic22; @ic40] for different GRB samples,  might still have observed events from the GRB sample presented here. The completed  detector is the largest neutrino telescope on the Northern hemisphere and is sensitive to neutrinos in the TeV to PeV energy range. Located in the Mediterranean Sea, the  detector is sensitive to GRBs in the Southern hemisphere where the sensitivity of IceCube significantly suffers from the large background from muons produced by cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere above the detector. Due to the transient nature of the GRBs and the variety of their characteristics, it is essential to permanently monitor the full sky in order to maximise the probability to observe a neutrino signal. The search described in this paper is the first in a series of searches which will be pursued with the data that will be acquired by the completed  detector up to 2016 and then continued with data from the future KM3NeT [@km3net] neutrino observatory in the Mediterranean Sea. Neutrino detection {#sec:neu_detection} ================== High-energy neutrinos can be detected indirectly by a neutrino telescope such as . The detection principle relies on measuring the Cherenkov light induced by high-energy charged particles that are produced in a neutrino interaction inside or near the instrumented volume. In particular, a high-energy muon is produced in a charged current muon-neutrino interaction. High-energy muons can travel large distances, which facilitates an accurate determination of the direction. At the typical neutrino energies considered in this analysis (5 TeV–6 PeV), the direction of the muon closely follows that of the incident neutrino. Above 5 TeV the median angle between the neutrino direction and the muon direction is less than $0.3^{\circ}$. The direction of a high-energy muon can thus be correlated to the positions of GRBs. The Cherenkov light is detected by photo-multiplier tubes, housed in optical modules [@om]. Triplets of optical modules are attached to vertical detection lines of about 450 metres height, which are anchored to the sea bed at a depth of 2475 metres and held upright by a buoy. In its final configuration, the  detector consists of 12 detection lines with a spacing of about 60 metres (see figure \[fig:detector\]). (10,10.5) (0.0,0.0) Eleven of these detection lines each contain 25 evenly spaced triplets of optical modules and one contains 20 triplets. The positions and orientations of the optical modules vary due to the sea currents. An acoustic positioning system, combined with compasses and tiltmeters located along the detection lines, measures the positions and orientations of the optical modules with an accuracy of about 10 cm. A detailed description of the detector is given in ref. [@detector]. The arrival time and charge of the photo-multiplier tube signals are digitised [@ars] and transmitted to shore. The absolute time stamping is performed by interfacing the clock system to the GPS which provides a time accuracy of about 100 ns with respect to Universal Time Coordinated [@timecalibration]. The data are dominated by optical background due to bioluminescence and natural radioactive decays. On shore, the physics signals are selected from the data stream by a software data filter that operates in real time. This data filter has multiple algorithms implemented, each designed to find a specific physics signal. The physics events are stored on disk for offline reconstruction. A detailed description of the data acquisition and data filtering is given in ref. [@daq]. Data selection {#sec:data_selection} ============== The analysis described in this paper has been applied to data collected in 2007, in the period from January 27 to December 7. At this time, the  detector was still under construction and consisted of 5 detection lines. GRB selection {#subsec:grb_selection} ------------- The GRBs examined for neutrino emission were selected from the observations of GRBs by satellite instruments, as archived by the Gamma-ray Burst Coordinates Network (GCN) [@gcncircular; @gcnreport]. In order to suppress the background from muons produced by cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere above the detector, hereafter referred to as atmospheric muons, GRBs were selected that occurred below the horizon of the detector. Neutrinos from such GRBs would traverse the Earth and cross the detector in an upward-going direction. In the period considered, 46 GRBs occurred below the  horizon during physics data taking. By requiring the availability of detector alignment data, and by applying quality criteria based on the environmental conditions, the data in coincidence with 6 GRBs were excluded. The time and position information of the [40]{} remaining GRBs, listed in table \[tab:grbs\], were used to search for a correlated neutrino signal. A total of 32 GRBs were detected by the Swift satellite [@swift], 4 by INTEGRAL [@integral] and 4 by other satellites of the Third Interplanetary Network [@ipn]. GRB GCN Circular GCN Report ------------ -------------- ------------ GRB070207 6089 GRB070209 6101 32.2 GRB070227 37.1 GRB070311 6189 GRB070326 6653 GRB070328 42.3 GRB070330 43.2 GRB070419 47.1 GRB070419B 49.1 GRB070420 48.1 GRB070429B 7140 51.1 GRB070508 54.2 GRB070509 55.1 GRB070517 56.2 GRB070611 63.3 GRB070612 6556 64.1 GRB070612B 65.1 GRB070615 6537 GRB070707 6615 GRB070721 72.2 : [*List of the GRBs that are included in the analysis. The column “GRB" indicates the name of the GRB. The columns “GCN Circular" and “GCN Report" indicate the numbers of the GCN Circulars archive [@gcncircular] and GCN Reports [@gcnreport] respectively, from which the measured GRB data were taken.*]{}[]{data-label="tab:grbs"} GRB GCN Circular GCN Report ------------ -------------- ------------ GRB070724 74.2 GRB070729 77.1 GRB070805 6711 GRB070808 6724 GRB070810B 81.1 GRB070821 6766 GRB070824 6768 GRB070911 6810 82.2 GRB070913 88.1 GRB070923 6821 GRB071001 86.1 GRB071003 87.2 GRB071008 91.1 GRB071010 6864 89.2 GRB071010B 6888 92.1 GRB071017 6927 GRB071028B 105.1 GRB071031 99.1 GRB071112B 103.1 GRB071117 106.2 : [*List of the GRBs that are included in the analysis. The column “GRB" indicates the name of the GRB. The columns “GCN Circular" and “GCN Report" indicate the numbers of the GCN Circulars archive [@gcncircular] and GCN Reports [@gcnreport] respectively, from which the measured GRB data were taken.*]{}[]{data-label="tab:grbs"} Data processing {#subsec:data_processing} --------------- This analysis focuses on the search for (anti)muons, produced by [muon-(anti)neutrino]{} charged current interactions. Throughout the rest of this paper, [muon-neutrinos]{} denotes both [muon-neutrinos]{} and [muon-antineutrinos]{}. A data filter algorithm that is sensitive to muons from any direction has been applied during data taking. This algorithm first selects photons detected within 20 ns by separate optical modules in the same triplet. It then identifies a muon by requiring that for at least 5 triplets the relative arrival times of these photons are compatible with the signal expected from a muon traversing the detector. The muon purity for this data filter algorithm is better than 90%. Its average event rate was 1.0 Hz in the period considered and is mainly due to the background from atmospheric muons. These events were reconstructed offline to determine the muon trajectory, using a multi-stage fitting procedure. The reconstruction code follows the algorithm described in ref. [@aart_proefschrift]. Minor modifications were made to improve agreement between data and Monte Carlo. The most important modification compared to ref. [@aart_proefschrift] is that the amplitude information of the detected photons (hereafter referred to as hits) is discarded. As a result, the initial selection of signal hits is purely based on coincidences and the causality criterion. The algorithm starts with a linear prefit which is used as a starting track for the subsequent stages. In addition, eight different starting tracks are generated by rotating and translating the result of the prefit. This is to increase the probability to find the global maximum of the likelihood function. The final stage of the fitting procedure consists of a maximum likelihood fit of the measured photon arrival times. A quality parameter for the fit, indicated by $\Lambda$, is determined based on the final value of the likelihood function. The $\Lambda$ parameter is quantified by $$\Lambda \equiv \frac{\log(L)}{ N_{\rm hits}-5} + 0.1 \times (N_{\rm comp} -1 ), \label{eq:lambda}$$ which incorporates the maximum value of the likelihood, $L$, and the number of degrees of freedom of the fit, i.e. the number of hits, $N_{hits}$, used in the fit minus the number of fit parameters; $N_{comp}$ is the number of times the repeated initial steps of the reconstruction converged to the same result. In general, $N_{comp}$ = 1 for badly reconstructed events while it can be as large as nine for well reconstructed events. The coefficient 0.1 in eq. \[eq:lambda\] was chosen to maximise the separation in $\Lambda$ between simulated signal and misreconstructed downgoing muons. The same reconstruction algorithm was used for the analysis described in ref. [@aart_pointsource2] which contains a brief description of the algorithm. For a more detailed description of the reconstruction algorithm see ref. [@aart_proefschrift]. The fit also provides an estimate of the uncertainties on the track parameters. These are used to select events with a well defined direction. The distribution of the estimated angular uncertainty on the direction of the reconstructed muon track, indicated by $\beta$, is shown in figure \[fig:aafit\] (left). Since all selected GRBs occurred below the  horizon, only events with an upward reconstructed direction are considered. (10,7) (0.0,0.0) Due to the changing detector conditions during the period considered, and the varying environmental conditions, the statistics of the uncorrelated data that are equivalent to the conditions during the GRBs is too limited to estimate the background. Hence the background estimate has been made based on simulations. Figure \[fig:aafit\] includes the expected distributions from atmospheric muons, atmospheric [muon-neutrinos]{} as well as an assumed signal with an [$E^{-2}$]{} spectrum, obtained from simulations. The neutrino signal is generated with software packages [@david] that simulate the neutrino interaction as well as the production and propagation of charged particles. The simulation uses the model for the atmospheric [muon-neutrino]{} flux from ref. [@bartol]. The atmospheric muon contribution is simulated with the MUPAGE package [@mupage], which is based on a full Monte Carlo simulation of primary cosmic ray interactions and shower propagation in the atmosphere and reproduces the MACRO data [@macro1; @macro2]. The simulated atmospheric muon contribution has an equivalent live time of one month. In the simulations, the stochastic energy loss of the muons, the production and propagation of the Cherenkov photons, the response of the photo-multiplier tubes to Cherenkov light and the simulation of the detector electronics are all included. The simulated photon signals are processed with the same data filter and reconstruction algorithms as the data. To obtain a realistic simulation of the varying environmental conditions due to bioluminescence, the measured optical background in coincidence with the prompt emission of each of the selected GRBs is taken from the data and added to the simulated events. Selection cuts on the $\Lambda$ and $\beta$ parameters are set to achieve a reliable rejection of misreconstructed atmospheric muons, while keeping a high signal efficiency. Neutrino candidates are required to be reconstructed as upgoing muons, with an estimated angular uncertainty $\beta\leq1^{\circ}$, see figure \[fig:aafit\] (left). This cut removes 72% of the misreconstructed atmospheric muons. Figure \[fig:aafit\] (right) shows the cumulative $\Lambda$ distribution for upgoing reconstructed events, where the cut of $\beta\leq1^{\circ}$ has been applied. Neutrino candidates are, in addition, required to have a quality value of $\Lambda\geq-5.5$. The cuts on the $\Lambda$ and $\beta$ parameters are chosen such that the background rate is reduced to a level below $2\times10^{-5}$ Hzsr$^{-1}$, while the signal efficiency is about 60% for the models considered in this analysis. The strong constraints from the time and direction coincidence with a GRB allow for a looser cut on the quality parameter $\Lambda$ than that applied for the  point source search [@aart_pointsource]. In both plots of figure \[fig:aafit\], the contribution from atmospheric muons was scaled by 0.85 to reproduce the data. This scaling factor is well within the uncertainty on the flux normalisation [@mupage_line5]. The neutrino effective area of the detector consisting of 5 detection lines is shown in figure \[fig:effective\_area\] (left) as a function of the neutrino energy. (10,7.5) (0.0,0) The presented effective areas include the selection cuts and are the average of the effective areas for [muon-neutrinos]{} and [muon-antineutrinos]{}. The angle averaged effective area is shown as well as the effective areas for different neutrino zenith angle bins. For vertically upward-going neutrinos the effective area is suppressed at high energies due to the absorption in the Earth. The angular resolution of the detector is determined by the angular uncertainty on the reconstructed muon direction ($\beta$) and the neutrino scattering angle. The distribution of the angle between the reconstructed muon direction and the true neutrino direction for the detector consisting of 5 detection lines was evaluated with simulations. The cumulative distribution of this angle is shown in figure \[fig:effective\_area\] (right) for events with a neutrino spectrum proportional to [$E_{\nu}^{-2}$]{} that passed the selection cuts. The median of this angular resolution was estimated to be $0.5\pm0.1$ degrees. Data analysis {#sec:detector_performance} ============= The remaining background due to atmospheric [muon-neutrinos]{} (89%) and misreconstructed atmospheric muons (11%), after the cuts on $\beta$ and $\Lambda$, was estimated from simulations. The measured optical background from the data in coincidence with the prompt emission of each of the selected GRBs was added to the simulated events. The background rate per unit solid angle as a function of the reconstructed muon direction in detector coordinates is shown in figure \[fig:bkg\] (top plots). (10,10.5) (0.0,0) The contribution from atmospheric muons was scaled by 0.85 to reproduce the data. The background rate as a function of the reconstructed zenith angle, $\theta$, is less isotropic compared to the background rate as a function of the reconstructed azimuthal angle, $\phi$. However, since the selected GRBs are distributed rather isotropically (bottom plots of figure \[fig:bkg\]), the average background rate may be used for each GRB. The expected background rate per unit solid angle is estimated by taking a weighted average of the background rate in each solid angle bin, where the weighting accounts for the relative duration of GRBs in that solid angle bin. This results in an estimated background rate of $1.54\times10^{-5}$ Hzsr$^{-1}$. A neutrino candidate is considered to come from the GRB when the reconstructed muon track points back to the GRB within $2^{\circ}$. From simulations it was estimated that for about 85% of the neutrino candidates, the muon is reconstructed within $2^{\circ}$ from the neutrino direction. This high signal efficiency is the result of the selection of events with a good angular resolution (the cut on the $\beta$ parameter). The uncertainty on the source positions of the GRBs considered (table \[tab:grbs\]) is smaller than $0.07^{\circ}$. The total background, $\mu_{bkg}$, due to atmospheric [muon-neutrinos]{} and misreconstructed atmospheric muons during the prompt emission of the [40]{} GRBs can be expressed as $$\mu_{bkg}~=~\frac{dR}{d\Omega}\times\Omega\times T$$ where $\frac{dR}{d\Omega}$ is the background rate per unit solid angle, $\Omega$ is the solid angle of the 2$^\circ$ search cone and $T$ is the total prompt emission duration of the [40]{} GRBs. For the prompt emission duration of the GRB, the so called $T_{90}$ time interval is taken [@kouveliotou], extended by 5% before the start, and 5% after the end of this time interval. $T$ amounts to 2114 seconds. The total estimated background amounts to $1.24\times10^{-4}$ events. Results {#sec:results} ======= This analysis focuses only on the detection of [muon-neutrinos]{} in coincidence with the prompt emission phase of the GRB. The search for neutrinos in correlation with GRBs was done in a stacking analysis, in which all data in coincidence with the prompt emission of the GRBs were accumulated. Selected neutrino candidates are considered to be correlated with a GRB when their detection time is in coincidence with the prompt emission of the GRB, assuming that neutrinos travel at the speed of light. After unblinding the data, no neutrino candidates were found in correlation with the selected GRBs. GRB neutrino spectra {#subsec:neu_spectra} -------------------- A general neutrino spectrum of [$E_{\nu}^{-2}$]{} is assumed for the neutrino emission from GRBs, where [$E_{\nu}$]{} is the neutrino energy. In addition, three other energy spectra for neutrino emission from GRBs have been considered: the energy spectrum proposed by Guetta et al. [@guetta3], the general Waxman and Bahcall energy spectrum [@wb2], and the energy spectrum proposed by Ahlers et al. [@ahlers]. The energy spectrum according to Guetta et al. is calculated for each GRB individually using the data from the instruments on the satellite that detected the GRB, taken from the references given in table \[tab:grbs\]. The method to calculate a neutrino fluence from an individual GRB is provided in ref. [@guetta3]. The prediction therein referred to as “Model 2” is used. In case not all required parameters were measured, nor default values are provided in ref. [@guetta3], the values as listed in table \[tab:guetta\_defaults\] were used. Parameter Value ---------------------------- -------------------------------- $z$ 0.25 or 2.8 $\epsilon_{e}$ 0.1 $\epsilon_{B}$ 0.1 $\varepsilon_{\gamma}^{b}$ 0.4 MeV $\alpha_{\gamma}$ 1 $\beta_{\gamma}$ 2 $L_{\gamma}$ $10^{51}$ ergss$^{-1}$ $F_{\gamma}$ $6\times10^{-6}$ ergscm$^{-2}$ : [*Assumed parameter values used for calculating the neutrino spectrum for an individual GRB using the method described in ref. [@guetta3] (see text). The symbols correspond to those used in ref. [@guetta3]. The redshift $z$ is set to 0.25 for GRBs with a prompt emission duration of less than 2 s [@redshift_short], and set to 2.8 for other GRBs [@redshift_long]; the values for the fraction of the internal energy in electrons ($\epsilon_{e}$) and the magnetic field ($\epsilon_{B}$) are taken from [@waxman]; the default values for the break energy in the $\gamma$-ray spectrum $\varepsilon_{\gamma}^{b}$, the spectral indices of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum before ($\alpha_{\gamma}$) and after ($\beta_{\gamma}$) $\varepsilon_{\gamma}^{b}$, the $\gamma$-ray luminosity $L_{\gamma}$, and the $\gamma$-ray fluence $F_{\gamma}$ are the mean values from the Swift catalogue [@swift1; @swift2].*]{}[]{data-label="tab:guetta_defaults"} Within the list of GRBs no single GRB yields a detectable signal. The total estimated [muon-neutrino]{} fluence for the [40]{} selected GRBs according to Guetta et al. is the sum of the calculated individual [muon-neutrino]{} fluences, and is shown in figure \[fig:limits\] (left). The total number of expected events from the [40]{} selected GRBs for the estimated [muon-neutrino]{} fluence with the energy spectrum according to Guetta et al. is $1.7\times10^{-3}$. The estimated [muon-neutrino]{} fluence represents the fluence at Earth and includes the effect of neutrino oscillations. (10,7.5) (0.0,0.0) Waxman and Bahcall [@wb2] provide an approximate estimate of the neutrino energy spectrum, which is assumed to be the same for each GRB. The expected number of events for [40]{} GRBs assuming the Waxmann and Bahcall energy spectrum is $7.0\times10^{-3}$. The estimated GRB [muon-neutrino]{} intensity assuming a Waxman and Bahcall energy spectrum is presented as a diffuse flux in figure \[fig:limits\] (right) where a total of $10^3$ GRBs are expected per year.[^1] The right plot in figure \[fig:limits\] also includes an estimated diffuse [muon-neutrino]{} flux according to Ahlers et al. [@ahlers] where typical values for the parameters of the GRB environment were used as provided in ref. [@ahlers]. The estimated diffuse [muon-neutrino]{} fluxes for both energy spectra represent the fluxes at Earth and include the effect of neutrino oscillations. Upper limits on the diffuse neutrino flux and the neutrino fluence {#subsec:upper_limits} ------------------------------------------------------------------ Since no events were found in correlation with the prompt photon emission of the [40]{} selected GRBs, upper limits have been placed on the intensity of the diffuse [muon-neutrino]{} flux and the [muon-neutrino]{} fluence at Earth for the different models. The 90% confidence level limits were set using the Feldman-Cousins prescription [@feldman_cousins], and are shown in figure \[fig:limits\]. The same systematic uncertainties as described in ref. [@aart_pointsource] have been considered. These include the effect of reduced optical module efficiencies and the effects which have a net result of degrading the time resolution, such as possible mis-alignments of the detector, inaccuracies in the simulation of light propagation in the water or in the transit time distribution of the photo-multiplier tubes. The impact of the systematic uncertainties were evaluated by including these effects in the simulation, described in ref. [@aart_pointsource]. This results in a degradation of the limits of less than 10%. For the [$E_{\nu}^{-2}$]{} energy spectrum, 90% of the signal is expected in the energy range 5.2 TeV$<\,E_{\nu}\,<$1.4 PeV. The upper limit on the diffuse [muon-neutrino]{} flux for the [$E_{\nu}^{-2}$]{} energy spectrum is $2.7\times10^{-7}$ ($E_{\nu}$/GeV)$^{-2}$GeV$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$sr$^{-1}$. For the energy spectrum according to Waxman and Bahcall 90% of the signal is expected in the energy range 41 TeV$<\,E_{\nu}\,<$2.1 PeV and a 90% CL upper limit of about 294 times the predicted flux as shown in figure \[fig:limits\] (right) was set. For the energy spectrum according to Ahlers et al. 90% of the signal is expected in the energy range 33 TeV$<\,E_{\nu}\,<$2.0 PeV and a 90% CL upper limit of about 11 times the predicted flux as shown in figure \[fig:limits\] (right) was set. For the energy spectrum according to Guetta et al. 90% of the signal is expected in the energy range 86 TeV$<\,E_{\nu}\,<$6.0 PeV and a 90% CL upper limit of about 1467 times the predicted fluence as shown in figure \[fig:limits\] (left) was set. Conclusions {#sec:conclusions} =========== A search for [muon-neutrinos]{} in correlation with the prompt emission of [gamma-ray bursts]{} using the data taken with the  detector during the first year of operation has been presented. During the period considered, the detector was less than half its final size. The [40]{} GRBs that were examined for neutrino emission were selected from the GRB observations by satellite instruments. No correlations between neutrinos and the selected GRBs have been found. Upper limits have been obtained on the fluence of [muon-neutrinos]{} from the [40]{} GRBs and on the diffuse [muon-neutrino]{} flux for different models. A neutrino telescope in the Mediterranean Sea is well suited to detect high-energy neutrinos in correlation with GRBs spread over a wide region of the sky, including in particular the Southern hemisphere. The low background is the result of the short duration of GRBs and the excellent angular resolution. The  detector was completed mid 2008 and is 2.5 times bigger than the detector configuration considered in this analysis. Since the completion of the detector, on average 250 GRBs per year have been detected in the Southern hemisphere and at least five more years of data taking are foreseen. With this, a large sample of GRBs is available for further analysis, complementary to the IceCube field of view and energies. The next-generation neutrino telescope KM3NeT [@km3net], to be built in the Mediterranean Sea, will surpass the  sensitivity by two orders of magnitude. Once operational it will probe GRB models with unprecedented sensitivity, and will push the boundaries towards new discoveries. The authors acknowledge the financial support of the funding agencies: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Commissariat á l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA), Agence National de la Recherche (ANR), Commission Européenne (FEDER fund and Marie Curie Program), Région Alsace (contrat CPER), Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur, Département du Var and Ville de La Seyne-sur-Mer, France; Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Germany; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), Italy; Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), Nederlandse organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), the Netherlands; Council of the President of the Russian Federation for young scientists and leading scientific schools supporting grants, Russia; National Authority for Scientific Research (ANCS - UEFISCDI), Romania; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN), Prometeo of Generalitat Valenciana and MultiDark, Spain; Agence de l’Oriental, Morocco. We also acknowledge the technical support of Ifremer, AIM and Foselev Marine for the sea operation and the CC-IN2P3 for the computing facilities. [99]{} P. Mészáros, *Gamma-ray bursts*, Rep. Prog. Phys. **69** (2006) 2259 R. Abbasi et al., *An absence of neutrinos associated with cosmic-ray acceleration in $\gamma$-ray bursts*, Nature **484** (2012) 351 A. Achterberg et al., *The Search for Muon Neutrinos from Northern Hemisphere Gamma-Ray Bursts with AMANDA*, Astrophys. J. **674** (2008) 357 R. Abbasi et al., *Search for Muon Neutrinos from Gamma-ray Bursts with the IceCube Neutrino Telescope*, Astrophys. J. **710** (2010) 346 R. Abbasi et al., *Limits on Neutrino Emission from Gamma-Ray Bursts with the 40 String IceCube Detector*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106** (2011) 141101 A.G. Vieregg et al., *The First Limits on the Ultra-high Energy Neutrino Fluence from Gamma-ray Bursts*, arXiv:1102.3206 S. Fukuda et al., *Search for Neutrinos from Gamma-Ray Bursts Using Super-Kamiokande*, Astrophys. J. **578** (2002) 317 A.V. Avrorin et al., *Search for neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts with the Baikal neutrino telescope NT200*, Astron. Lett. **37** (2011) 692 *KM3NeT Technical Design Report*, ISBN 978-90-6488-033-9 P. Amram et al., *The  optical module*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A **484** (2002) 369 J.A. Aguilar et al., *: The first undersea neutrino telescope*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A **656** (2011) 11 J.A. Aguilar et al., *Performance of the front-end electronics of the  neutrino telescope*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A **622** (2010) 59 J.A. Aguilar et al., *Time calibration of the  neutrino telescope*, Astropart. Phys. **34** (2011) 539 J.A. Aguilar et al., *The data acquisition system for the  neutrino telescope*, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A **570** (2007) 107 http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn3\_archive.html http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/report\_archive.html N. Gehrels et al., *The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission*, Astrophys. J. **611** (2004) 1005 S. Mereghetti et al., *The Integral Burst Alert System (IBAS)*, Astron. Astrophys. **411** (2003) L291 K. Hurley et al., *Mars Odyssey Joins the Third Interplanetary Network*, Astrophys. J. Supp. S. **164** (2006) 124 A. J. Heijboer, *Track Reconstruction and Point Source Searches with* , PhD thesis (2004), http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/services/newbiblio/theses.php S. Adrián-Martínez et al., *Search for cosmic neutrino point sources with four years of data from the  telescope*, Astrophys. J. **760** (2012) 53 D.J.L. Bailey, *Monte Carlo tools and analysis methods for understanding the  experiment and predicting its sensitivity to Dark Matter*, PhD thesis (2002), http://antares.in2p3.fr/Publications/index.html V. Agrawal et al., *Atmospheric neutrino flux above 1 GeV*, Phys. Rev. D **53** (1996) 1314 G. Carminati et al., *Atmospheric MUons from PArametric formulas: a fast GEnerator for neutrino telescopes (MUPAGE)*, Comput. Phys. Commun. **179** (2008) 915 M. Ambrosio et al., *High energy cosmic ray physics with underground muons in MACRO. I. Analysis methods and experimental results*, Phys. Rev. D **56** (1997) 1407; *High energy cosmic ray physics with underground muons in MACRO. II. Primary spectra and composition*, Phys. Rev. D **56** (1997) 1418 M. Ambrosio et al., *High statistics measurement of the underground muon pair separation at Gran Sasso*, Phys. Rev. D **60** (1999) 032001 S. Adrián-Martínez et al., *First Search for Point Sources of High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos with the  Neutrino Telescope*, Astrophys. J. Lett. **743** (2011) L14 J. A. Aguilar et al., *Zenith distribution and flux of atmospheric muons measured with the 5-line  detector*, Astropart. Phys., **34** (2010) 179 C. Kouveliotou et al., *Identification of Two Classes of Gamma-Ray Bursts*, Astrophys. J. **413** (1993) L101 D. Guetta et al., *Neutrinos from individual gamma-ray bursts in the BATSE catalog*, Astropart. Phys. **20** (2004) 429 E. Waxman and J. Bahcall, *High energy neutrinos from astrophysical sources: An upper bound*, Phys. Rev. D **59** (1998) 023002 M. Ahlers et al., *GRBs on probation: Testing the UHE CR paradigm with IceCube*, Astropart. Phys. **35** (2011) 87 C. Hopman et al., *The Redshift Distribution of Short Gamma-Ray Bursts from Dynamically Formed Neutron Star Binaries*, Astrophys. J. Lett. **643** (2006) L91 P. Jakobsson et al., *A mean redshift of 2.8 for Swift gamma-ray bursts*, Astron. Astrophys. **447** (2006) 897 E. Waxman et al., *Implications of the Radio Afterglow from the Gamma-Ray Burst of 1997 May 8*, Astrophys. J. **497** (1998) 288 N.R. Butler et al., *A Complete Catalog of Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Spectra and Durations: Demise of a Physical Origin for Pre-Swift High-Energy Correlations*, Astrophys. J. **671** (2007) 656 N.R. Butler et al., *The Cosmic Rate, Luminosity Function, and Intrinsic Correlations of Long Gamma-Ray Bursts*, Astrophys. J. **711** (2010) 495 G.J. Feldman and R.D. Cousins, *Unified approach to the classical statistical analysis of small signals*, Phys. Rev. D **57** (1998) 3873 [^1]: In ref. [@wb2] the evolution correction is assumed to be 1.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Inattentional blindness is the psychological phenomenon that causes one to miss things in plain sight. It is a consequence of the selective attention in perception that lets us remain focused on important parts of our world without distraction from irrelevant details. Motivated by selective attention, we study the properties of artificial agents that perceive the world through the lens of a *self-attention* bottleneck. By constraining access to only a small fraction of the visual input, we show that their policies are directly interpretable in pixel space. We find neuroevolution ideal for training self-attention architectures for vision-based reinforcement learning (RL) tasks, allowing us to incorporate modules that can include discrete, non-differentiable operations which are useful for our agent. We argue that self-attention has similar properties as *indirect encoding*, in the sense that large implicit weight matrices are generated from a small number of key-query parameters, thus enabling our agent to solve challenging vision based tasks with at least 1000x fewer parameters than existing methods. Since our agent attends to only task critical visual hints, they are able to generalize to environments where task irrelevant elements are modified while conventional methods fail. [^1]' author: - Yujin Tang - Duong Nguyen - David Ha bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'Neuroevolution of Self-Interpretable Agents' --- &lt;ccs2012&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010553.10010562&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Embedded systems&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010575.10010755&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Redundancy&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010553.10010554&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Robotics&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;100&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003083.10003095&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Network reliability&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;100&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;/ccs2012&gt; [^1]: Videos of our results and source code available at **<https://attentionagent.github.io/>**

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We employ optical photometry and high-resolution spectroscopy to study a field toward the open cluster Tombaugh 1, where we identify a complex population mixture, that we describe in terms of young and old Galactic thin disk. Of particular interest is the spatial distribution of the young population, which consists of dwarfs with spectral type as early as B6, and distribute in a [*blue plume*]{} feature in the colour-magnitude diagram. For the first time we confirm spectroscopically that most of these stars are early type stars, and not blue stragglers nor halo/thick disk sub-dwarfs. Moreover, they are not evenly distributed along the line of sight, but crowd at heliocentric distances between 6.6 and 8.2 kpc. We compare these results with present-day understanding of the spiral structure of the Ga;axy and suggest that they traces the outer arm. This range in distances challenges current Galactic models adopting a disk cut-off at 14 kpc from the Galactic center. The young dwarfs overlap in space with an older component which identifies the old Galactic thin disk. Both young and old populations are confined in space since the disk is warped at the latitude and longitude of Tombaugh 1. The main effects of the warp are that the line of sight intersects the disk and entirely crosses it at the outer arm distance, and that there are no traces of the closer Perseus arm, which would then be either un-important in this sector, or located much closer to the formal Galactic plane. We finally analysed a group of giant stars, which turn out to be located at very different distances, and to possess very different chemical properties, with no obvious relation with the other populations.' author: - Giovanni Carraro - Joao Victor Sales Silva - Christian Moni Bidin - 'Ruben A. Vazquez' title: 'Galactic structure in the outer disk: the field in the line of sight to the intermediate-age open cluster Tombaugh 1[^1]' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Colour-magnitude diagrams (CMD) of stellar fields in the third quadrant of the Milky Way have repeatedly unravel the remarkable complexity of the stellar populations in the outer Galactic disk. Beyond any reasonable doubt, two dominating features appear on top the main sequence of the nearby Galactic field: a thick main sequence (MS) with a prominent turn off point, and made of intermediate age stars poor in metals, and an almost vertical sequence of young blue stars, popularised as the [*blue plume*]{} [@moi06; @carr05; @car16]. This complexity was originally interpreted as the result of the accretion of a satellite onto the Milky Way disk [@mar04; @bel04], and different age and metallicity sequences described as different episodes of star formation in an individual stellar system, the Canis Major dwarf galaxy.\ The [*blue plume*]{} deserves particular attention, since up to date no general consensus exists about its nature. This is because in the vast majority of the cases, only photometric data are available, which are not univocal enough to derive solid estimate of the stars’ gravity and temperature, and, in turn, to infer their spectral type and distance. Because of the partial leverage of photometric data, various interpretations of the [*blue plumes*]{} are available. They can be made of genuine blue young stars, and describe either the last episode of star formation in Canis Mayor [@bel04], or the structure of the outer Galactic young disk, organised in spiral arms [@carr05; @moi06; @vazquez08]. Alternatively, these stars can be the blue straggler population of the old, metal poor population we mentioned before. Finally, they can be mostly hot sub-dwarfs of type O and B, which are known to be present in the general Galactic field, both in the disk and in the halo [@car15]. Obviously, a better scrutiny of these different scenarios can be obtained only via a dedicated spectroscopic study of these blue stars. This is one of the main scope of this work. We focus here on the line of sight toward the loose open cluster Tombaugh 1. To set the scene, we show in Fig. 1 an optical CMD of a 20$\times$20 arcmin field, in the V/V-I plane, derived from a novel set of UBV(RI)$_{KC}$ photometry obtained for the present study. In this CMD we highlight the features we have been discussing so far with four red boxes. Box A encompasses clump stars in the star cluster Tombaugh 1, which we already studied in @sal16, and are not relevant for this study. We remind the reader that Tombaugh 1 turned out to be an intermediate age ($\sim$ 1 Gy) open cluster, with a metallicy of $[Fe/H]=-0.11\pm$0.02, and at 2.6 kpc from the Sun. Boxes B, C, and D are on the other hand central for the present investigation. Box C encompasses a group of blue stars part of the [*blue plume*]{} feature. Box D includes stars belonging to a thick blue MS whose turn off point (TO) is located at $V\sim$ 19, $(V-I)\sim$0.9. Finally, box B is composed by a clump of scattered stars, possibly red giant stars belonging to the same stellar population of Box D. The aim of this work is to characterise these three different groups, and establish any possible relation among them. We selected a sample of stars inside each of these boxes and obtain for them high resolution spectroscopy, which we are going to present and analyse in tandem with the broad band optical photometry.\ The paper is organised as follows: In Sect. 2 we present the observational material, both photometric and spectroscopic. Section 3 is devoted to the analysis of the various photometry diagrams, and the derivation of blue plume star individual reddening and distance. A detailed discussion of the spectroscopic data is performed in Section. 4, and in Section 5 we focus on the results of the abundance analysis of box B stars. The discussion of our results, and the conclusions of this work are provided in Section 6. Observations and data reduction =============================== Photometry ---------- The region of interest has been observed with the Y4KCAM camera attached to the 1.0m telescope, which is operated by the SMARTS consortium[^2] and located at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO). This camera is equipped with an STA 4064$\times$4064 CCD with 15-$\mu$ pixels, yielding a scale of 0.289$^{\prime\prime}$/pixel and a field-of-view (FOV) of $20^{\prime} \times 20^{\prime}$ at the Cassegrain focus of the CTIO 1.0m telescope. The CCD was operated without binning, at a nominal gain of 1.44 e$^-$/ADU, implying a readout noise of 7 e$^-$ per quadrant (this detector is read by means of four different amplifiers)[^3]. As an illustration we show a V-band frame in Fig. 2.\ The observational data were acquired on the night of January 30, 2008, as summarised in Table \[table1\]. We observed Landolt’s SA 98 $UBV(RI)_{KC}$ standard stars area [@lan92 see Table 1], to tie our $UBVRI$ instrumental system to the standard system. The average seeing was 1.0$\arcsec$.\ 0.05truecm [lcccc]{} Target& Date & Filter & Exposure (sec) & airmass\ Tombaugh 1 & 30 January 2008 & U & 10,20,100,200,600,1500 &1.28$-$1.52\ & & B & 5,10,100,200,1600,1500 &1.15$-$1.20\ & & V & 5,10,60,120,600,1200 &1.01$-$1.21\ & & R & 3x5,10,60,120,600,1200 &1.02$-$1.15\ & & I & 5,4x10,100,200,600,1200 &1.03$-$1.24\ SA 98 & 30 January 2008 & U & 2x10,200,2x400 &1.15$-$2.21\ & & B & 10,100,2x200 &1.15$-$2.36\ & & V & 10,50,2x100 &1.16$-$2.53\ & & R & 10,50,2x100 &1.17$-$2.61\ & & I & 10,50,2x100 &1.16$-$2.46\ Our $UBVRI$ instrumental photometric system was defined by the use of a standard broad-band Kitt Peak $BVR_{kc}I_{kc}$ set in combination with a U+CuSO4 $U$-band filter[^4]. To determine the transformation from our instrumental system to the standard Johnson-Kron-Cousins system, we observed 46 stars in area SA 98 [@lan92] multiple times, and with different air-masses ranging from $\sim$1.2 to $\sim$2.3. Field SA 98 is very advantageous, as it includes a large number of well observed standard stars, and it is completely covered by the CCD’s FOV. Furthermore, the standard’s color coverage is very good, being: $-0.5 \leq (U-B) \leq 2.2$; $-0.2 \leq (B-V) \leq 2.2$ and $-0.1 \leq (V-I) \leq 6.0$.\ \[cmd\_tom1\] {width="\columnwidth"} \[To1\] {width="\columnwidth"} ### Data Reduction Basic calibration of the CCD frames was done using the IRAF[^5] package CCDRED. For this purpose, zero-exposure frames and twilight sky flats were acquired every night. Photometry was then performed using the IRAF DAOPHOT and PHOTCAL packages. Instrumental magnitudes were extracted following the point spread function (PSF) method (Stetson 1987). A quadratic, spatially variable, master PSF (PENNY function) was adopted. The PSF photometry was finally aperture-corrected, filter by filter. Aperture corrections were determined by performing aperture photometry for a suitable number (typically 20 to 40) of bright stars selected across the whole field. These corrections were found to vary between 0.105 and 0.315 mag, depending on the filter.\ ### Final photometry Our final photometric catalogs consist of 3275 entries with $UBV(RI)_{KC}$ measurements down to $V \sim $ 22 for Tombaugh 1 Many more entries are available when we include star not having $U$ magnitude. After removing both saturated stars and stars having only a few measurements in the catalog of @lan92, our photometric solutions for a grand total of 183 measurements in $U$ and $B$, and of 206 measurements in $V$, $R$ and $I$, are given by:\ $ U = u + (3.279\pm0.010) + (0.47\pm0.01) \times X - (0.030\pm0.016) \times (U-B)$\ $ B = b + (2.033\pm0.012) + (0.29\pm0.01) \times X - (0.110\pm0.012) \times (B-V)$\ $ V = v + (1.673\pm0.007) + (0.16\pm0.01) \times X + (0.022\pm0.007) \times (B-V)$\ $ R = r + (2.768\pm0.007) + (0.10\pm0.01) \times X + (0.053\pm0.007) \times (V-R)$\ $ I = i + (2.674\pm0.011) + (0.08\pm0.01) \times X + (0.048\pm0.008) \times (V-I)$\ The final [*r.m.s*]{} of the fitting was 0.073, 0.069, 0.035, 0.030, and 0.030 in $U$, $B$, $V$, $R$ and $I$.\ Global photometric errors were estimated using the scheme developed by @pat01 [Appendix A1], which takes into account the errors in the PSF fitting procedure (i.e. from ALLSTAR), and the calibration errors (corresponding to the zero point, color terms, and extinction errors). In Fig. 3 we present the global photometric error trends plotted as a function of $V$ magnitude. Quick inspection indicates that stars brighter than $V \approx 21$ mag have errors much lower than 0.10 mag both in color and in magnitude, apart from the $(U-B)$ color.\ \[Fig3\] {width="\columnwidth"} Astrometry ---------- For approximately three-hundred stars in our photometric catalog J2000.0 equatorial coordinates are available from the Guide Star Catalogue[^6], version 2 (GSC-2.2, 2001). Using the SkyCat tool at ESO and the IRAF tasks [*ccxymatch*]{} and [*ccmap*]{}, we first established a transformation between our $(X,Y)$ pixel coordinates (from ALLSTAR) and the International Celestial Reference Frame. These transformations have an ${\it r.m.s.}$ value of typically 0.15$^{\prime\prime}$. Finally, using the IRAF task [*cctran*]{}, we computed J2000.0 coordinates for all objects in our catalog. Spectroscopy ------------ During the nights of 2010 January 5, 6, 9 and 10, we observed 40 stars of the field towards the open cluster Tombaugh 1 (10 stars from box A and B, 11 stars from box C and 9 stars from box D, see Fig. 1 on Cerro Manqui at the Las Campanas Observatory using the [*Inamori-Magellan Areal Camera & Spectrograph*]{} [IMACS, @dre06], attached to the 6.5m Magellan Telescope. The ten potential cluster stars of box A were studied in @sal16. For the stars of boxes A, B and C, we used the multi-object echelle (MOE) spectroscopic mode, while the spectra of the box D stars were obtained using the multi-object mode with the grating 600 lines/mm (G600-8.6). The spectra have a resolution of R$\approx$20000 and R$\approx$5260 in case of the MOE and G600 mode, respectively. In both spectroscopic modes the wavelength ranges of stellar spectra vary according to the position of the star in the observation mask, but usually it goes from 4200 Å to 9100 Å for the MOE mode, while for the G600 mode the range is from 3650 Å to 6750 Å. The IMACS detector is a mosaic of eight CCDs with gaps of 0.93mm between them, causing small gaps in stellar spectra. The exposure times for the stars of the boxes B, C and D were 9000s, 14400s and 6300s, divided in 3, 4 and 2 exposures, respectively. Table \[t\_specdata\] gives some information about the observed stars: identification (IDs), equatorial coordinates, $V$ and $(V-I)$ from our photometry, and spectral signal-to-noise (S/N) at 6000 Å. The identification system for all stars analysed in this work refers to identification of stars in our photometry. The nominal S/N ratio was evaluated by measuring with IRAF the [*rms*]{} flux fluctuation in selected continuum windows.\ The reduction of the spectra was performed in a standard manner under IRAF as described in details in @sal16. The eight CCDs were de-biased and flat-fielded separately with the task [*ccdproc*]{}, combined in a single frame with [*imcreate*]{} and [*imcopy*]{}, then the spectra were optimum-extracted [@hor86] with [*doecslit*]{} ([*doslit*]{} for G600 mode), sky-subtracted with [*background*]{}, and wavelength calibrated with [*ecidentify*]{} ([*identify*]{} for the G600 spectra). The cosmic rays were removed with the IRAF Laplacian edge-detection routine [@dok01]. Photometric diagrams ==================== We start deriving some insights on the properties of the stellar population in the line of sight to Tombaugh 1 by inspecting a suite of photometric diagrams. Inspection of the CMDs of all the stars in the field of view in Fig. \[f\_cmd2\] reveals three prominent features: (1) a cluster MS with a TO at $B\sim14.5$ ($V\sim 18.5$) and a handful of scattered red clump stars at $B\sim14.3$ ($V \sim 14.2$)and (B-R) $\sim$ 1.2, which we discussed in @sal16; (2) a second, thick, well-populated MS with a TO at $B\sim19.5$ that looks like the MS of an intermediate-age/old stellar population; and (3) a scattered plume of blue stars, in the magnitude range 16–19 that resembles a young stellar population. The last feature is very similar to the [*blue plumes*]{} found in the directions of other clusters [@car16 and references therein] in the third Galactic quadrant.  As amply discussed in @car16 it is quite straightforward to characterise the [*blue plume*]{}, since it would be composed of supposedly young stars for which a robust handling of their properties is possible withUBV photometry. We start discussing more in detail the CMD, by plotting stars in different magnitude bins in the classical two-colour diagram (TCD) U-B/B-V, as shown in Fig. \[f\_tcd1\]. A synoptic view of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 helps the various CMD components to emerge more clearly, as we already illustrated in the past [see, e.g., @car10]. In the various panels the cyan line is an empirical zero reddening, zero-age main sequence (ZAMS) from Turner (1976,1979). The TCD for V$\leq$12 (lower left panel) only shows a few zero reddening stars of different spectral type (from A0 to F-G and M) located close to the Sun. The middle-left panel is surely more interesting, since on top the clump of nearby un-reddened F-G stars, it shows two groups of reddened stars (spectral type A and K-M) clearly belonging to the star cluster Tombaugh 1, the first indicating the cluster TO, and the second the red giant clump. The upper-left panel is sampling Tombaugh 1 TO and MS, but also shows a few giant stars, both reddened and un-reddened. The next panel (lower-right) is by far the most intriguing. One can readily notice an important sequence of early type, reddened stars, totally absent in the previous TCDs, which runs from approximately mid B spectral type all the way to K-M. One can also notice (at $(B-V)$ $\sim$0.5), $(U-B)$ $\sim$ 0.0) a somewhat detached, truncated, less reddened, sequence . This latter is, again, Tombaugh 1 MS, while the more reddened sequence samples the [*blue plume*]{} up to spectral type AO, and later starts to sample the thick blue MS whose TO is at (B-V) $\sim$0.8. This can be appreciated by the density increase of stars about this color in the TCD. Besides, also the giant sequence is dual, and contain zero reddening nearby giants, and more distant, reddened giants, possibly associated with the blue thick MS we just described. Finally, the middle-right panel only shows stars in the dominant thick blue MS. The last, top-right, panel is only used to indicate the approximate location of different spectral type stars.\ We focus now on the lower right panel, and attempt at deriving the properties of the stars which populated the early spectral type branch, and correspond to the [*blue plume*]{}. We obtain a reddening solution for these stars using the TCD in the standard way. This is illustrated in Fig. \[f\_tcd2\]. The reddening law in the third Galactic quadrant has been recently debated in the literature. As discussed in @car16 and earlier by [@moitinho01] and [@turner76] the reddening law in the third Galactic quadrant seems to deviate from the normal one, namely it is not described by the standard value of 3.1 for $R_V= \frac{A_V}{E(B-V)}$. A value of $R_V$=2.9 would to be more appropriate for this Galactic sector. This is certainly true for Tombaugh 1 line of sight, as discussed by [@turner83]. Although the level of deviation from the normal law is not large, we prefer to adopt 2.9 in the following. The solid black line in Fig. \[f\_tcd2\] is a zero reddening, zero age MS, while the two red lines are the same ZAMS, but shifted by $E(B-V)$ = 0.3 and 0.7 along the reddening line, which is indicated by the red arrow in the top-right corner of the plot. The two reddened ZAMS bracket the [*blue plume*]{} stars, which therefore exhibit a mean reddening $E(B-V)$=0.5$\pm$0.2, indicating a significant amount of variable reddening. We now analyse the reddening distribution of this population by deriving individual stars’ reddening.\ To determine reddenings, spectral types and, eventually, distances we then proceed as follows. First we derive intrinsic colours using the two relationships: $$E(U-B) = 0.76 \times E(B-V) ,$$ and $$(U-B)_0 = 3.69 \times (B-V)_0 + 0.03.$$ The intrinsic color (B-V)$_0$ is the positive root of the second order equation one derives by combining the above expressions. Intrinsic colours ((U-B)$_0$ and (B-V)$_0$) are then directly correlated to spectral type, as compiled for instance byTurner (1976,1979). The solution of the equations above therefore allows us to encounter stars having spectral types earlier than A0.5. For these stars we know the absolute magnitude M$_{V}$ and, from the apparent extinction-corrected magnitude V$_{0}$, we finally infer the photometric distance.\ Starting from the general equation for the distance: $$(m-M)_o = (m-M)_V - A_V= 5 \times log(Dist) -5$$ errors in distances are computed as follows: $\Delta$ (Dist) = ln(10) $\times$ Dist $\times$ $\Delta$ \[log(Dist)\]; $\Delta$ \[log(Dist)\] = $\frac{1}{5}$ $\times$ $\Delta$ V + $\Delta$ (M$_V$) + $\Delta$ (A$_V$)\]; $\Delta$ (M$_V$) = 0; $\Delta$ (A$_V$) = 2.9 $\times$ $\Delta$ (B-V); $\Delta$ (V) and $\Delta$(B-V) directly comes from photometry; finally $\Delta$ (Dist) = ln(10) $\times$ Dist $\times$ 1/5 $\times$ \[ $\Delta$ V + 2.9 $\times$ $\Delta$ (B-V) \] ![TCDs of the stars in the line of sight to the star cluster Tombaugh 1, and in the magnitude range $16 \leq V \leq 18$. The solid line is a zero reddening, zero age main sequence, while the two red lines encompassing the early type stars are the very same ZAMS, but displaced by 0.4 and 0.6 mag along the reddening vector.[]{data-label="f_tcd2"}](Fig6.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} \[f\_histo\] The reddening distribution is shown in the left panel of Fig. 7. It is quite broad, and peaks at E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.5. A gaussian fit yields the value E(B-V) = 0.55$\pm$0.20. On the right panel of the same figure we show the distribution of the absolute distance moduli for the same stars. Most stars are located in the range 14.0 $\leq (m-M)_0 \leq $ 15.5, which implies a distance range 6.3 $\leq d_{\odot} \leq$10.0 kpc. Errors in distances as computed using the formulae described above, are 0.5 kpc for the closer stars, and up to 1.5 kpc for the most distant stars. We notice, finally, a group of very distance stars, at $(m-M)_0 \sim 16$, whose distance would be as large as 19$\pm$3.5 kpc. We will return to this group later. Spectroscopic analysis ====================== Radial velocities ----------------- The radial velocity (RV) of the targets were measured on each single exposure independently. We thus checked for RV variations, and shifted them to laboratory wavelengths before co-adding the spectra of each star. The zero-point offset of each spectrum was estimated using the [*fxcor*]{} IRAF task, by cross-correlating [@ton79] the observed telluric band at 6800 Å with that of a FEROS high-resolution solar spectrum collected by us in a previous run [@mon12a]. The heliocentric correction was estimated through the [*rvcorrect*]{} task, and applied to each measurement. The final RV of each star was obtained from the weighted mean of the single epochs. Our results are given in Table \[t\_atmparamB\]. For box B stars, the line-to-line differences between the observed and laboratory wavelengths of the unblended Fe lines were used to determine the target RV. The final error was assumed as the largest difference between the three heliocentric radial velocity values multiplied by 0.59 [small sample statistics, see @kee62]. The RV of box C stars was estimated by cross-correlating the H$_\alpha$ line with the synthetic template of a 10000 K MS star taken from the @mun05 library. Previous works have shown that the results of cross-correlation are not affected by the exact choice of the template, and a marginal mismatch between object and template spectral types only enhances the formal uncertainties [@mor91; @mon11]. When other strong features were visible in the spectral range, such as the H$_\beta$ line, we verified that they returned identical results within errors. However, as the availability of these features varied among the targets, for the sake of consistency we used only the H$_\alpha$ line to derive the final results. The same procedure was adopted for box D stars, except that the aforementioned FEROS Solar spectrum was used as template. [lccccc]{}\ ID & RA(2000.0) & DEC(2000.0) & $V$ & $(V-I)$ & S/N\ & degree & degree & mag & mag &\ 11029 & 105.0619584 & $-$20.5959712 & $15.97$ & $1.446$ & 65\ 13540 & 105.0867260 & $-$20.6172278 & $16.25$ & $1.393$ & 60\ 13964 & 105.0912208 & $-$20.6830230 & $16.48$ & $1.457$ & 35\ 15490 & 105.1050867 & $-$20.4189783 & $16.06$ & $1.324$ & 35\ 26606 & 105.1789665 & $-$20.4134974 & $15.83$ & $1.428$ & 35\ 27955 & 105.1880177 & $-$20.5694871 & $15.72$ & $1.381$ & 75\ 28064 & 105.1887938 & $-$20.4728788 & $15.57$ & $1.392$ & 60\ 29403 & 105.1989331 & $-$20.6387084 & $16.62$ & $1.512$ & 20\ 31364 & 105.2138666 & $-$20.6505511 & $15.96$ & $1.475$ & 60\ 32782 & 105.2261239 & $-$20.4283761 & $16.06$ & $1.416$ & 35\ 35658 & 105.2524590 & $-$20.4933638 & $16.30$ & $1.458$ & 35\ \ 6507 & 105.0154684 & $-$20.7188840 & $17.31$ & $0.549$ & 20\ 8542 & 105.0351681 & $-$20.4324223 & $17.21$ & $0.566$ & 10\ 9227 & 105.0426156 & $-$20.4693299 & $16.82$ & $0.458$ & 20\ 12018 & 105.0719883 & $-$20.4367526 & $16.46$ & $0.491$ & 15\ 13279 & 105.0840465 & $-$20.4816043 & $16.88$ & $0.676$ & 20\ 16940 & 105.1177477 & $-$20.5710991 & $17.24$ & $0.653$ & 20\ 24772 & 105.1683352 & $-$20.4800548 & $16.77$ & $0.474$ & 15\ 28816 & 105.1943277 & $-$20.5676972 & $16.58$ & $0.489$ & 25\ 30971 & 105.2109730 & $-$20.6079883 & $17.06$ & $0.695$ & 25\ 31183 & 105.2125614 & $-$20.5339462 & $17.30$ & $0.696$ & 15\ 32089 & 105.2197018 & $-$20.6357812 & $16.41$ & $0.659$ & 40\ \ 7421 & 105.0244349 & $-$20.5505733 & $19.37$ & $1.052$ & 15\ 9011 & 105.0398536 & $-$20.6999266 & $18.65$ & $0.986$ & 20\ 9834 & 105.0492119 & $-$20.4859526 & $19.38$ & $1.044$ & 10\ 11923 & 105.0711463 & $-$20.4358597 & $19.10$ & $0.942$ & 10\ 19341 & 105.1359171 & $-$20.4658181 & $19.36$ & $1.045$ & 10\ 22319 & 105.1533307 & $-$20.5625042 & $18.88$ & $1.004$ & 20\ 23667 & 105.1614867 & $-$20.4377257 & $18.46$ & $0.966$ & 15\ 36132 & 105.2567499 & $-$20.4139628 & $18.54$ & $0.986$ & 10\ 31274 & 105.2133773 & $-$20.5128144 & $19.38$ & $1.057$ & 10\ Box B: stellar parameters and chemical abundances ------------------------------------------------- The lines list used to determine the chemical abundance of Na, Al, Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, Cr, Fe and Ni is the same we used recently in @sal16. In Tables \[tabelFea\] and \[tabellinesa\] we show our lines list with excitation potential ($\chi$) and oscillator strength (gf) for all absorption lines analysed in this work. The values of the oscillator strength adopted for the Fe I and Fe II lines were taken from @lam96 and @cas97. The references of the atomic parameters for the other absorption lines are shown in Table \[tabellinesa\]. The chemical abundance of Na, Al, Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, Cr and Ni for the red clump stars (box B) were obtained through the equivalent widths (EWs) of the absorption lines corresponding to each element. The EWs were measured using the task [*splot*]{} in IRAF by fitting the observed absorption line with a Gaussian profile . Absorption lines with EWs greater than 160 mÅ are saturated and were rejected in our analysis due to the impossibility to fit a Gaussian profile to these lines [@per11]. The EWs used to derive the chemical abundance are shown in Tables \[tabelFea\] and \[tabellinesa\]. The local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) model atmospheres of @kur93 and the spectral analysis code MOOG [@sne73] were used to determine the chemical abundances and atmospheric parameters for the stars of box B. The effective temperature, surface gravity and micro-turbulence velocity were derived using measurements of EWs for a set of Fe I and Fe II lines shown in Table \[tabelFea\]. The unique solution for the effective temperature, surface gravity and micro-turbulence velocity was obtained simultaneously under the approximations of excitation and ionisation equilibrium, and independence between the Fe abundance and reduced EW. The effective temperature was set through the excitation equilibrium determined by zero slope of the trend between the iron abundance derived from Fe I lines and the excitation potential of the measured lines. The micro-turbulence velocity was adjusted until both the strong and weak Fe i lines gave the same abundance. And the ionisation equilibrium was used to derive the surface gravity, and was defined by the equality of the abundances of Fe I and Fe II. Uncertainties in the effective temperature and micro-turbulence velocity were inferred from the uncertainties in the slopes of the FeI abundances versus potential excitation and abundance of Fe I versus reduced EW, respectively. On the other hand, the uncertainty in the surface gravity was obtained by varying this parameter iteratively around the first guess value until surface gravity was obtained, that changes the abundance of Fe II by exactly one standard deviation of the \[FeI/H\] mean value. In Table \[t\_atmparamB\] we show the atmospheric parameters and their respective uncertainties for the red clump stars. The atmospheric parameters for the stars $\#$15490, $\#$29403 and $\#$35658 were not determined because the spectra of these stars have low S/N. Despite the low S/N also shown by the spectrum of star $\#$13964 and $\#$32782, we could derive the atmospheric parameters for but with large uncertainty (see Table \[t\_atmparamB\]). In the analysis of the star $\#$26606, we faced a problem in obtaining the micro-turbulence velocity due to the low number of absorption lines with small EW, causing again considerable uncertainty in the atmospheric parameters. In Table \[abunda-NaB\] we show the abundance ratios (\[X/Fe\]) for Na, Al, Mg, Ca, Si, Ti, Cr and Ni for the red clump stars. Our chemical abundances were normalised to the solar abundances obtained through a high-resolution FEROS solar spectrum [@mon12a]. In Table \[sun\] we list our solar abundances compared to solar abundance of @gre98 and @asp09. The total uncertainty of the abundances for the red clump stars are shown in Table \[error-abun\]. The uncertainties of the chemical abundance associated to the errors of the effective temperature, micro-turbulence velocity and surface gravity were calculated independently, and then quadratically combined to provide the global abundance uncertainty. ----------- --------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------------- ID $T_{\rm eff}$ log $g$ $\xi$ \[FeI/H\]$\pm\sigma$ (\#) \[FeII/H\]$\pm\sigma$ (\#) $\langle$RV$\rangle$ $E(V-I)$ $(V-Mv)_{0}$ d (K) (dex) kms$^{-1}$ (km s$^{-1}$) (pc) 11029 5250$\pm$200 3.3$\pm$0.2 2.2$\pm$0.4 $-$0.03$\pm$0.13(43) $-$0.03$\pm$0.12(8) 76.2$\pm$1.4 0.53$\pm$0.19 12.41$\pm$0.61 3000$\pm$900 13540 5300$\pm$200 3.1$\pm$0.2 1.8$\pm$0.3 0.03$\pm$0.14(27) 0.05$\pm$0.07(3) 74.6$\pm$1.8 0.56$\pm$0.11 13.62$\pm$0.80 5300$\pm$2000 13964$^a$ 4700$\pm$300 2.0$\pm$0.4 2.5$\pm$0.6 $-$0.68$\pm$0.18(23) $-$0.70$\pm$0.18(3) 73.9$\pm$2.1 0.39$\pm$0.19 16.55$\pm$1.17 20500$\pm$11600 26606$^b$ 4600$\pm$450 2.7$\pm$0.5 2.5$\pm$1.0 $-$0.46$\pm$0.34(19) $-$0.45$\pm$0.26(3) 28.1$\pm$3.6 0.30$\pm$0.25 13.04$\pm$1.09 4000$\pm$2100 27955 5250$\pm$250 3.8$\pm$0.2 2.2$\pm$0.4 $-$0.24$\pm$0.15(35) $-$0.24$\pm$0.08(6) 116.5$\pm$1.3 0.53$\pm$0.10 10.46$\pm$0.57 1200$\pm$300 28064 4700$\pm$150 2.1$\pm$0.3 2.3$\pm$0.4 $-$0.58$\pm$0.14(33) $-$0.57$\pm$0.15(5) 68.0$\pm$3.2 0.37$\pm$0.15 15.45$\pm$0.89 12300$\pm$5200 31364 5050$\pm$150 2.0$\pm$0.2 1.5$\pm$0.3 $-$0.24$\pm$0.13(31) $-$0.23$\pm$0.08(3) 65.6$\pm$0.3 0.44$\pm$0.09 16.81$\pm$0.90 23000$\pm$980 32782 5000$\pm$250 3.1$\pm$0.3 3.0$\pm$0.6 $-$0.39$\pm$0.13(16) $-$0.41(1) 0.9$\pm$3.0 0.49$\pm$0.14 12.79$\pm$0.48 3600$\pm$800 ----------- --------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------- --------------- ---------------- ----------------- **Notes.** For \[Fe I/H\] and \[Fe II/H\], we also show the standard deviation and the number of lines ($\#$) employed. a: Large uncertainty in the atmospheric parameters and metallicity of this star due to low S/N. b: Problem in obtaining of micro-turbulent velocity ($\xi$) due to the low number of absorption lines with small equivalent width causing considerable uncertainty in the metallicity. 0.13truecm \[abunda-NaB\] [lcccccccc]{}\ ID & \[Na/Fe\]NLTE & \[Mg/Fe\] & \[Al/Fe\] & \[Si/Fe\] & \[Ca/Fe\] & \[Ti/Fe\] & \[Cr/Fe\] & \[Ni/Fe\]\ 11029 & $+$0.19(1) & $+$0.18(1) & — & $+$0.13$\pm$0.05(2)& $-$0.20$\pm$0.12(4)& $+$0.29$\pm$0.10(5)& $-$0.09$\pm$0.02(3)&$-$0.08$\pm$0.09(10)\ 13540 & $+$0.27$\pm$0.01(2) & — & $+$0.14$\pm$0.04(2) & $+$0.12$\pm$0.16(3)& $+$0.18$\pm$0.11(3)& $+$0.29$\pm$0.04(3)& $-$0.21$\pm$0.10(3)&$+$0.08$\pm$0.13(10)\ 13964 & $+$0.40(1) & $+$0.66(1) & $+$0.37$\pm$0.01(2) & — & $+$0.47$\pm$0.07(4)& $+$0.21$\pm$0.14(6)& $+$0.35(1) & $+$0.24$\pm$0.14(4)\ 26606 & — & $+$0.41$\pm$0.06(2) & $+$0.47(1) & $+$0.54(1) & — & $+$0.23$\pm$0.03(2)& $+$0.12(1) & $+$0.01(1)\ 27955 & — & $+$0.00$\pm$0.13(2) & — & $+$0.11$\pm$0.10(2)& $-$0.17$\pm$0.17(4)& $+$0.37$\pm$0.08(5)& $-$0.11$\pm$0.03(3)&$+$0.17$\pm$0.16(11)\ 28064 & $+$0.38(1) & $+$0.24$\pm$0.08(2) & $+$0.10$\pm$0.11(4) & $+$0.12(1) & $-$0.30$\pm$0.03(2)& +0.22$\pm$0.13(4) & $+$0.10$\pm$0.13(2)& $-$0.22$\pm$0.07(7)\ 31364 & $+$0.37(1) & $-$0.21$\pm$0.10(2) & — & $+$0.07$\pm$0.17(3)& $+$0.03$\pm$0.11(3)& $+$0.31$\pm$0.15(3)& $+$0.07$\pm$0.02(2)&$-$0.11$\pm$0.16(10)\ 32782 & $+$0.42(1) & $+$0.67(1) & $+$0.59(1) & — & — & $+$0.54$\pm$0.14(3)& $+$0.10(1) & $-$0.02$\pm$0.15(5)\ **Notes.** For all abundances ratios, we also show the standard deviation and the number of lines employed. \[Na/Fe\] accounts for the NLTE effects calculated as in @gra99, see text. 0.09truecm \[error-abun\] ---------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------- Element $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $_{\rule{0pt}{8pt}}$ $+$200 K $+$0.2 $+$0.4 kms$^{-1}$ $+$200 K $+$0.2 $+$0.3 kms$^{-1}$ Fe[i]{} $+$0.13 0.00 $-$0.11 0.17 $+$0.15 $-$0.01 $-$0.13 0.20 Fe[ii]{} $-$0.17 $+$0.08 $-$0.11 0.22 $-$0.15 $+$0.10 $-$0.12 0.22 Na[i]{} $+$0.13 0.00 $-$0.06 0.14 $+$0.14 $-$0.01 $-$0.07 0.16 Mg[i]{} $+$0.13 $-$0.02 $-$0.16 0.21 — — — — Al[i]{} — — — — $+$0.08 $-$0.01 $-$0.04 0.09 Si[i]{} $-$0.04 $+$0.02 $-$0.04 0.06 $+$0.01 $+$0.02 $-$0.06 0.06 Ca[i]{} $+$0.18 $-$0.02 $-$0.15 0.24 $+$0.18 $-$0.02 $-$0.16 0.24 Ti[i]{} $+$0.25 0.00 $-$0.11 0.27 $+$0.23 $-$0.01 $-$0.11 0.26 Cr[i]{} $+$0.25 $-$0.01 $-$0.20 0.32 $+$0.24 $-$0.01 $-$0.12 0.27 Ni[i]{} $+$0.09 $+$0.02 $-$0.12 0.15 $+$0.12 $+$0.01 $-$0.13 0.18 Element $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $_{\rule{0pt}{8pt}}$ $+$300 K $+$0.4 $+$0.6 kms$^{-1}$ $+$450 K $+$0.5 $+$1.0 kms$^{-1}$ Fe[i]{} $+$0.18 $-$0.03 $-$0.16 0.24 $+$0.34 $-$0.06 $-$0.35 0.49 Fe[ii]{} $-$0.35 $+$0.22 $-$0.10 0.43 $-$0.36 $+$0.23 $-$0.17 0.46 Na[i]{} $+$0.26 $-$0.01 $-$0.09 0.28 — — — – Mg[i]{} $+$0.07 $-$0.02 $-$0.12 0.14 $+$0.12 0.00 $-$0.16 0.20 Al[i]{} $+$0.15 $-$0.01 $-$0.04 0.16 $+$0.32 $-$0.01 $-$0.16 0.36 Si[i]{} — — — — $+$0.24 $+$0.09 $-$0.19 0.32 Ca[i]{} $+$0.35 $-$0.01 $-$0.25 0.43 — — — — Ti[i]{} $+$0.50 $-$0.01 $-$0.13 0.52 $+$0.68 0.00 $-$0.59 0.90 Cr[i]{} $+$0.28 $-$0.01 $-$0.08 0.29 $+$0.36 0.00 $-$0.10 0.37 Ni[i]{} $+$0.05 $+$0.06 $-$0.09 0.12 $+$0.13 $+$0.10 $-$0.33 0.37 Element $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $_{\rule{0pt}{8pt}}$ $+$250 K $+$0.2 $+$0.4 kms$^{-1}$ $+$150 K $+$0.3 $+$0.4 kms$^{-1}$ Fe[i]{} $+$0.14 0.00 $-$0.11 0.18 $+$0.14 $+$0.03 $-$0.13 0.19 Fe[ii]{} $-$0.18 $+$0.10 $-$0.08 0.22 $-$0.11 $+$0.16 $-$0.07 0.21 Na[i]{} — — — — $+$0.12 $-$0.01 $-$0.05 0.13 Mg[i]{} $+$0.10 $-$0.02 $-$0.07 0.12 $+$0.05 0.00 $-$0.07 0.09 Al[i]{} — — — — $+$0.08 $-$0.01 $-$0.04 0.09 Si[i]{} $+$0.06 $+$0.03 $-$0.04 0.08 $-$0.05 $+$0.07 $-$0.09 0.12 Ca[i]{} $+$0.22 $-$0.02 $-$0.12 0.25 $+$0.18 $-$0.01 $-$0.21 0.28 Ti[i]{} $+$0.30 $-$0.01 $-$0.15 0.34 $+$0.23 $-$0.01 $-$0.09 0.25 Cr[i]{} $+$0.24 $-$0.01 $-$0.10 0.26 $+$0.15 $-$0.01 $-$0.10 0.18 Ni[i]{} $+$0.10 $+$0.02 $-$0.12 0.16 $+$0.10 $+$0.05 $-$0.18 0.21 Element $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $\Delta T_{eff}$ $\Delta\log g$ $\Delta\xi$ $\left( \sum \sigma^2 \right)^{1/2}$ $_{\rule{0pt}{8pt}}$ $+$150 K $+$0.2 $+$0.3 kms$^{-1}$ $+$250 K $+$0.3 $+$0.6 kms$^{-1}$ Fe[i]{} $+$0.14 0.00 $-$0.12 0.18 $+$0.15 0.00 $-$0.14 0.21 Fe[ii]{} $-$0.12 $+$0.13 $-$0.13 0.22 $-$0.21 $+$0.13 $-$0.09 0.26 Na[i]{} $+$0.11 $-$0.01 $-$0.03 0.11 $+$0.19 $-$0.01 $-$0.08 0.21 Mg[i]{} $+$0.05 0.00 $-$0.05 0.07 $+$0.04 $-$0.06 $-$0.10 0.12 Al[i]{} — — — — $+$0.11 $-$0.01 $-$0.06 0.13 Si[i]{} $+$0.01 $+$0.03 $-$0.04 0.05 — — — — Ca[i]{} $+$0.16 $-$0.01 $-$0.17 0.23 — — — — Ti[i]{} $+$0.22 $-$0.01 $-$0.09 0.24 $+$0.34 0.00 $-$0.11 0.36 Cr[i]{} $+$0.25 $-$0.02 $-$0.17 0.30 $+$0.36 0.00 $-$0.10 0.37 Ni[i]{} $+$0.14 $+$0.02 $-$0.12 0.19 $+$0.11 $+$0.04 $-$0.15 0.19 ---------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------- -------------------------------------- **Notes.** Each column gives the variation of the abundance caused by the variation in $T_{\rm eff}$, $\log g$ and $\xi$. The last column for each star gives the compounded rms uncertainty of the second to fourth columns. \[tabelFea\] -------------- -------------- ------------ ---------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Element $\lambda$(Å) $\chi$(eV) log $gf$ 11029 13540 13964 26606 27955 28064 31364 32782 Fe[i]{} 5162.27 4.18 0.079 — 153 — — — — 143 — 5198.71 2.22 -2.140 — — — — — — 126 — 5242.49 3.63 -0.970 — — — — — 126 98 — 5288.52 3.69 -1.510 — — — — — — 82 — 5307.36 1.61 -2.970 160 140 — — 149 — — — 5315.05 4.37 -1.400 64 63 — — — — — — 5321.11 4.43 -1.190 — — — — — 69 — — 5322.04 2.28 -2.840 — — 128 127 108 — — — 5364.87 4.45 0.230 — 153 — — — — — — 5373.71 4.47 -0.710 95 97 84 — — — 84 — 5389.48 4.42 -0.250 159 — — — 131 — — — 5393.17 3.24 -0.720 — 156 — — — — 149 — 5417.03 4.42 -1.530 — — — — — — — 53 5441.34 4.31 -1.580 45 — — — — 42 — — 5445.04 4.39 -0.041 — 133 — — — 153 — — 5522.45 4.21 -1.400 70 — — 39 — — — — 5531.98 4.91 -1.460 — — — 59 20 30 — — 5532.75 3.57 -2.000 — — 40 — — — — — 5554.90 4.55 -0.380 — — — — 125 — — — 5560.21 4.43 -1.040 85 — — 67 — — 70 — 5567.39 2.61 -2.560 102 — — — — 124 83 — 5584.77 3.57 -2.170 — — — — — — 68 — 5624.02 4.39 -1.330 78 — — — — — — — 5633.95 4.99 -0.120 — — 105 107 76 — — — 5635.82 4.26 -1.740 56 — — — 25 — — 40 5638.26 4.22 -0.720 116 — — — — — — 131 5686.53 4.55 -0.450 122 — — — — — — — 5691.50 4.30 -1.370 — — — — 64 83 — — 5705.47 4.30 -1.360 — — 82 — 49 67 51 76 5717.83 4.28 -0.979 — — — 88 80 — — — 5731.76 4.26 -1.150 101 — — — — 91 — — 5806.73 4.61 -0.900 75 — — — — — — 80 5814.81 4.28 -1.820 — — — — — 37 29 — 5852.22 4.55 -1.180 78 76 — — — — 51 — 5883.82 3.96 -1.210 — — 95 — 79 101 — — 5916.25 2.45 -2.990 — 99 97 — — 108 86 99 5934.65 3.93 -1.020 111 103 105 — 113 — — — 6020.17 4.61 -0.210 — — — — 128 — — — 6024.06 4.55 -0.060 141 — 124 — 128 123 — — 6027.05 4.08 -1.090 — 107 112 92 87 — — — 6056.01 4.73 -0.400 — — 92 — 99 — 80 127 6079.01 4.65 -0.970 76 — 60 — — — — — 6082.71 2.22 -3.580 — — — — — 98 — — 6093.64 4.61 -1.350 46 — — — — — — — 6096.66 3.98 -1.780 70 65 — — — — 65 — 6120.25 0.91 -5.950 — — — — — 42 — — 6151.62 2.18 -3.290 98 92 112 — 79 103 — — 6157.73 4.08 -1.110 — — — 85 — — 85 — 6165.36 4.14 -1.470 64 66 75 93 78 — 71 — 6170.51 4.79 -0.380 — 102 — — — — — — 6173.34 2.22 -2.880 126 — — — — 146 — 155 6187.99 3.94 -1.570 82 77 89 — 57 88 72 — 6200.31 2.60 -2.440 130 — 133 — 118 144 — — : Observed Fe[i]{} and Fe[ii]{} lines. [cccccccccccc]{}\ & & & &\ & & & &\ Element & $\lambda$(Å) & $\chi$(eV) & log $gf$ & 11029 & 13540 & 13964 & 26606 & 27955 & 28064 & 31364 & 32782\ Fe[i]{} & 6213.43 & 2.22 & -2.480 & 149 & — & —& —& — & — & —& —\ & 6254.26 & 2.28 & -2.440 & 157 & — & —& —& — & — & —& —\ & 6265.13 & 2.18 & -2.550 & 147 & — & —& —& 143 & — & 124& —\ & 6322.69 & 2.59 & -2.430 & 137 & — & —& —& 124 & — & —& 142\ & 6380.74 & 4.19 & -1.320 & 86 & 84 & —& —& 83 & 81 & —& —\ & 6392.54 & 2.28 & -4.030 & 62 & — & —& —& 35 & 51 & —& —\ & 6411.65 & 3.65 & -0.660 & — & 139 & —& —& — & — & —& —\ & 6421.35 & 2.28 & -2.010 & — & — & —& —& 149 & — & 151& —\ & 6436.41 & 4.19 & -2.460 & — & — & —& —& 20 & 10 & —& —\ & 6469.19 & 4.83 & -0.620 & 98 & 79 & —& 116& 75 & 72 & —& —\ & 6574.23 & 0.99 & -5.020 & — & 86 & —& 101& 61 & 102 & 78& —\ & 6591.31 & 4.59 & -2.070 & 20 & — & —& —& — & — & —& —\ & 6593.87 & 2.44 & -2.420 & — & — & —& —& 129 & — & —& —\ & 6597.56 & 4.79 & -0.920 & 60 & — & —& 80& — & — & 46& —\ & 6608.03 & 2.28 & -4.030 & 61 & 37 & 58& 90& — & 63 & —& —\ & 6609.11 & 2.56 & -2.690 & 122 & — & —& —& — & 110 & —& 133\ & 6646.93 & 2.61 & -3.990 & — & 23 & —& —& 18 & 25 & —& —\ & 6653.85 & 4.14 & -2.520 & — & — & —& —& — & — & 22& —\ & 6703.57 & 2.76 & -3.160 & 68 & 79 & 78& 53& 41 & — & —& 55\ & 6710.32 & 1.80 & -4.880 & — & — & —& 68& — & — & —& —\ & 6739.52 & 1.56 & -4.950 & 39 & — & 57& 86& — & 58 & 34& 59\ & 6750.15 & 2.42 & -2.620 & 118 & — & —& 147& — & — & 118& 148\ & 6752.71 & 4.64 & -1.200 & 59 & 47 & —& —& 45 & — & 60& —\ & 6806.85 & 2.73 & -3.210 & 77 & — & 97& 113& — & 83 & —& —\ & 6820.37 & 4.64 & -1.170 & — & 74 & —& —& — & 43 & 50& —\ & 6841.34 & 4.61 & -0.600 & 124 & — & —& —& — & — & —& —\ & 6851.64 & 1.61 & -5.320 & — & — & —& 52& — & — & 24& —\ & 6858.15 & 4.61 & -0.930 & — & 91 & 75& —& 88 & 81 & —& 64\ & 7130.92 & 4.22 & -0.700 & 129 & 126 & 126& —& 111 & 115 & 113& —\ & 7132.99 & 4.08 & -1.610 & — & — & 76& —& — & — & 66& —\ Fe[ii]{} & 5132.66 & 2.81 & -4.000 & — & — & —& —& 26 & — & —& —\ & 5234.62 & 3.22 & -2.240 & — & — & —& —& 108 & — & —& —\ & 5425.25 & 3.20 & -3.210 & 60 & 70 & 74& 39& 44 & — & 75& 59\ & 5534.83 & 3.25 & -2.770 & 95 & — & —& —& 76 & — & —& —\ & 5991.37 & 3.15 & -3.560 & 66 & — & —& —& — & — & —& —\ & 6084.10 & 3.20 & -3.800 & 39 & — & —& —& 17 & 26 & —& —\ & 6149.25 & 3.89 & -2.720 & 53 & — & 49& 45& — & 42 & 70& —\ & 6247.55 & 3.89 & -2.340 & 82 & 86 & 56& —& — & 78 & 81& —\ & 6369.46 & 2.89 & -4.110 & —& — & —& —& — & 43 & —& —\ & 6416.92 & 3.89 & -2.680 & 63 & 67 & —& —& 43 & 41 & —& —\ & 6432.68 & 2.89 & -3.580 & 61 & — & —& 36& —& — & —& —\ \[tabellinesa\] ----------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- Element $\lambda$ $\chi$(eV) $\log gf$ Ref 11029 13540 13964 26606 27955 28064 31364 32782 Na[i]{} 6154.22 2.10 $-$1.51 PS 73 79 — — — 66 59 88 Na[i]{} 6160.75 2.10 $-$1.21 R03 — 99 89 — — — — — Mg[i]{} 4730.04 4.34 $-$2.39 R03 81 — — — — — — — Mg[i]{} 5711.10 4.34 $-$1.75 R99 146 — — — 127 — — — Mg[i]{} 7387.70 5.75 $-$0.87 MR94 — — 115 120 77 — 54 — Mg[i]{} 8717.83 5.91 $-$0.97 WSM — — — 88 — 70 — 129 Mg[i]{} 8736.04 5.94 $-$0.34 WSM — — — — — 112 91 — Al[i]{} 6698.67 3.14 $-$1.63 R03 — — — 74 — — — — Al[i]{} 7835.32 4.04 $-$0.58 R03 — 62 45 — — 32 — 82 Al[i]{} 7836.13 4.02 $-$0.40 R03 — 72 59 — — 54 — — Al[i]{} 8772.88 4.02 $-$0.25 R03 — — — — — 66 — — Al[i]{} 8773.91 4.02 $-$0.07 R03 — — — — — 65 — — Si[i]{} 5793.08 4.93 $-$2.06 R03 — 76 — — 51 — — — Si[i]{} 6125.03 5.61 $-$1.54 E93 55 56 — — — — 40 — Si[i]{} 6131.58 5.62 $-$1.69 E93 — — — — — — 45 — Si[i]{} 6145.02 5.61 $-$1.43 E93 58 — — — — — — — Si[i]{} 6155.14 5.62 $-$0.77 E93 — 95 — — 86 — 79 — Si[i]{} 8728.01 6.18 $-$0.36 E93 — — — 97 — — — — Si[i]{} 8742.45 5.87 $-$0.51 E93 — — — — — 86 — — Ca[i]{} 6161.30 2.52 $-$1.27 E93 — 107 125 — — — — — Ca[i]{} 6166.44 2.52 $-$1.14 R03 87 112 140 — 101 — 89 — Ca[i]{} 6169.04 2.52 $-$0.80 R03 129 — 154 — — — — — Ca[i]{} 6169.56 2.53 $-$0.48 DS91 142 — — — — — — — Ca[i]{} 6455.60 2.51 $-$1.29 R03 78 — 121 — 64 — — — Ca[i]{} 6471.66 2.51 $-$0.69 S86 — 132 — — 115 117 106 — Ti[i]{} 4758.12 2.25 0.420 MFK — 92 — 125 — — — — Ti[i]{} 5039.96 0.02 $-$1.130 MFK — — — — 148 — — — Ti[i]{} 5043.59 0.84 $-$1.733 MFK 63 — — — — — — — Ti[i]{} 5062.10 2.16 $-$0.464 MFK — — — — 50 — — — Ti[i]{} 5113.45 1.44 $-$0.880 E93 — — — — — 93 — — Ti[i]{} 5223.63 2.09 $-$0.559 MFK — — 50 — — — — — Ti[i]{} 5295.78 1.05 $-$1.633 MFK — — — — — 72 — — Ti[i]{} 5490.16 1.46 $-$0.937 MFK — 69 — — — — — — Ti[i]{} 5689.48 2.30 $-$0.469 MFK — — — — — 46 — 64 Ti[i]{} 5866.46 1.07 $-$0.871 E93 106 — — — 109 — 95 — Ti[i]{} 5922.12 1.05 $-$1.465 MFK — — 83 — — — 76 — Ti[i]{} 5978.55 1.87 $-$0.496 MFK 81 75 — — 75 — — — Ti[i]{} 6091.18 2.27 $-$0.370 R03 67 — — — — — 42 — Ti[i]{} 6126.22 1.07 $-$1.370 R03 84 — 103 128 — 81 — 101 Ti[i]{} 6258.11 1.44 $-$0.355 MFK — — 118 — — — — — Ti[i]{} 6261.11 1.43 $-$0.480 B86 — — 127 — 105 — — — Ti[i]{} 6554.24 1.44 $-$1.219 MFK — — 49 — — — — 100 Cr[i]{} 5193.50 3.42 $-$0.720 MFK 27 — — — — — — — Cr[i]{} 5214.13 3.37 $-$0.740 MFK — — — — 20 — — — Cr[i]{} 5296.70 0.98 $-$1.390 GS 154 — — — — — — — Cr[i]{} 5304.18 3.46 $-$0.692 MFK — — — 42 — — — — Cr[i]{} 5345.81 1.00 $-$0.980 MFK — — — — — — 151 — Cr[i]{} 5348.32 1.00 $-$1.290 GS 158 132 — — 144 — — — Cr[i]{} 5783.07 3.32 $-$0.500 MFK — — 64 — 47 73 — — Cr[i]{} 5787.93 3.32 $-$0.080 GS — 58 — — — 75 — — Cr[i]{} 6330.09 0.94 $-$2.920 R03 — 57 — — — — 65 85 Ni[i]{} 4904.42 3.54 $-$0.170 MFK — 125 — — 143 — — 136 Ni[i]{} 4935.83 3.94 $-$0.360 MFK — 83 — — 88 70 — — [ccccccccccccc]{}\ \ & & & & &\ &\ Element & $\lambda$ & $\chi$(eV) & $\log gf$ & Ref & 11029 & 13540 & 13964 & 26606 & 27955 & 28064 & 31364 & 32782\ Ni[i]{} & 4953.21 & 3.74 & $-$0.660 & MFK & — & — & — & — & 88 & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 5010.94 & 3.63 & $-$0.870 & MFK & — & — & 87 & — & — & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 5578.73 & 1.68 & $-$2.640 & MFK & 108 & — & — & — & — & 110 & 90 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 5593.75 & 3.90 & $-$0.840 & MFK & 60 & — & — & — & 73 & 45 & — & 85\ Ni[i]{} & 5643.09 & 4.17 & $-$1.250 & MFK & 24 & 40 & — & — & — & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 5748.36 & 1.68 & $-$3.260 & MFK & — & — & — & — & — & — & — & 73\ Ni[i]{} & 5805.23 & 4.17 & $-$0.640 & MFK & — & — & — & — & 72 & 43 & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6053.69 & 4.24 & $-$1.070 & MFK & — & 49 & — & — & — & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6086.29 & 4.27 & $-$0.510 & MFK & 62 & 81 & — & — & — & 50 & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6128.98 & 1.68 & $-$3.320 & MFK & — & 78 & — & — & 64 & 67 & 57 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6176.82 & 4.09 & $-$0.264 & R03 & — & — & — & — & 93 & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6186.72 & 4.11 & $-$0.960 & MFK & 56 & — & 47 & — & — & — & 50 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6204.61 & 4.09 & $-$1.150 & MFK & 42 & — & — & — & — & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6223.99 & 4.11 & $-$0.980 & MFK & — & — & 57 & — & — & — & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6230.10 & 4.11 & $-$1.260 & MFK & — & — & 44 & — & — & — & 33 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6327.60 & 1.68 & $-$3.150 & MFK & — & — & — & — & 85 & — & 63 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6482.81 & 1.94 & $-$2.630 & MFK & — & — & — & — & 83 & — & — & 100\ Ni[i]{} & 6532.88 & 1.94 & $-$3.390 & MFK & — & — & — & — & 57 & 44 & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6586.32 & 1.95 & $-$2.810 & MFK & — & 84 & — & — & — & — & — & 95\ Ni[i]{} & 6635.14 & 4.42 & $-$0.830 & MFK & — & 41 & — & — & — & — & 40 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6643.64 & 1.68 & $-$2.030 & MFK & 153 & 144 & — & — & — & — & 129 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6767.78 & 1.83 & $-$2.170 & MFK & 141 & — & — & — & — & — & 105 & —\ Ni[i]{} & 6772.32 & 3.66 & $-$0.970 & R03 & 73 & — & — & 83 & — & 84 & — & —\ Ni[i]{} & 7788.93 & 1.95 & $-$1.990 & E93 & 151 & 140 & — & — & — & — & 130 & —\ \ References: B86: @bla86; Ca07: @car07; D2002: @dep02; DS91: @dra91; E93: @edv93; GS: @gra88; MFK: @mar02; MR94: @mcw94; PS: @pre01; R03: @red03; R99: @red99; WSM: @wie69. 0.33truecm \[sun\] ---------------------- ------ --------------- ----------------- Element This Grevesse & Asplund $_{\rule{0pt}{8pt}}$ work Sauval (1998) *et al.* (2009) Fe 7.50 7.50 7.50 Na 6.26 6.33 6.24 Mg 7.55 7.58 7.60 Al 6.31 6.47 6.45 Si 7.61 7.55 7.51 Ca 6.37 6.36 6.34 Ti 4.93 5.02 4.95 Cr 5.65 5.67 5.64 Ni 6.29 6.25 6.22 ---------------------- ------ --------------- ----------------- : Adopted solar abundances. Box C and D: stellar parameters {#s_CDparams} ------------------------------- The temperature, gravity, and rotational velocity of Box C stars were measured by fitting the H$_\alpha$ and H$_\beta$ Balmer lines and the 4922 Å He I feature with synthetic spectra, as done in @Majaess13 for similar MS stars. To this aim, we employed the [*fitprof21*]{} code, developed by @Bergeron92 and @Saffer94, and subsequently modified by @Napiwotzki99. The routine was fed with a grid of solar-metallicity LTE model spectra (T$_\mathrm{eff}$=8000–30000 K, $\log{g}$=3.5–5.0 dex) generated from ATLAS9 [@kur93] model atmospheres through the Lemke’s version[^7] of the LINFOR program (developed originally by Holweger, Steffen, and Steenbock at Kiel University). In fact, deviations from LTE have negligible effects on the Balmer and He lines at the temperatures of program stars [@Nieva07]. The routine determines the best-fit parameters through a $\chi^2$ minimisation statistics. Extensive details about the synthetic spectra fitting procedure can be found in @moni12. While the method ideally works when the whole Balmer series can be simultaneously fit, a minimum of two features is required to avoid the degeneracy between temperature and gravity. In our case, the profile of the only He line could constrain the rotational velocity and, to a limited extent, the temperature, but the two Balmer lines were needed for a reliable determination of T$_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\log{g}$. This was not possible for three targets, where H$_\beta$ line did not fall in the spectral range. We could still obtain a good fit of the single H$_\alpha$ line for the stars \#6507 and \#8542, although the larger errors reflect the high uncertainty of the measurements. For star \#12018, on the contrary, we had to assume $\log{g}$=4.2, as typical of a MS star, and adopt only the temperature as fit parameter. The strength of Balmer lines has a maximum at $\approx$10000 K, and it declines both for hotter and cooler stars. The temperatures obtained by one Balmer line only could thus present two acceptable solutions, symmetric with respect to A0 spectral type. We therefore analysed the results of the three aforementioned stars in more detail. We indeed found a secondary solution for the star \#8542, with a local minimum of the $\chi^2$ statistics, on the other side of the Balmer minimum at 10100 K. However, this minimum of $\chi^2$ is shallower than the main solution at 8100 K, which is therefore more likely and should be preferred. We did not find such a secondary minimum for star \#12018, and the fitting routine converged to the same solution at 8700 K even if it was forced to start from a hot first guess at $T_\mathrm{Jeff}>12000$ K. On the other hand, a cooler solution for the star \#6507 is not acceptable, because $T_\mathrm{eff}<9000$ K would return $E(V-I)<0.37$ and a distance $d\approx 10$ kpc, clearly offset from the reddening-distance relation depicted by the other stars in box C and D (see below in Fig. 10). In addition, this object is of little interest because most likely not a genuine MS star (see later). In conclusion, our tests indicate that, despite fitting one Balmer line only, the solutions we find for these three stars are either the only one acceptable, or the most likely. To check the effects of the use of solar metallicity models, we repeated the measurements with models with \[Fe/H\]=$-0.5$, but we found that the results changed by less than 0.5$\sigma$ in all the cases. The results are given in Table \[t\_paramD\]. The resulting surface gravities indicate that all the targets are MS stars, with the exception of the star \#6507. The measurements for this star are affected by large errors, so that it could still be considered a MS object within the error bars, but the high $\log{g}$ value suggests that this could be a foreground sub-dwarf B-type (sdB) star. The temperature of Box D targets was determined by fitting the profile of temperature-sensitive lines with synthetic spectra drawn from the library of @Coelho05. We adopted the same routines of @moni10, where detailed information about the measurement procedure can be found. The main feature for our measurements was the H$_\alpha$ Balmer line, which is a good indicator of temperature in the range $T_\mathrm{eff}$=5000–6500 K, insensitive to metallicity and surface gravity [@Fuhrmann94]. Its wings were fitted with solar-metallicity templates in steps of 250 K, and the $\chi^2$ was minimised to find the best estimate of the target temperature. We verified that varying the metallicity of the synthetic templates had only negligible effects on the results. One gravity-sensitive feature was observable in the spectrum of some targets, either the MgIb triplet [@Kuijken89] or the Na I doublet at 5890–5893 Å. However, the low resolution of the data prevented an estimate of $\log{g}$, because only large mismatches ($>1$ dex) between the template and object line wings could be appreciated. Hence, the targets were assumed MS stars along the whole process, with a fixed surface gravity of $\log{g}$=4.1 dex, as strongly suggested by their position in the CMD. We nevertheless confirmed this hypothesis by checking that the profiles of available lines were compatible with it. On the other hand, this assumption was also confirmed by later distance estimates because, had one of these stars been either a faint sub-dwarf or a bright giant, its distance would have resulted extremely large or short, respectively, which is not the case (see Table \[t\_paramD\]). The MgIb triplet and the Na I doublet were instead used to derive independent estimates of $T_\mathrm{eff}$, with a procedure identical to that used for H$_\alpha$. The final results and their associated errors were obtained from the average and the error-of-the-mean of these measurements. Reddening and distances ----------------------- The reddening for the stars of box B were estimate using isochrones of @bert08 [@bert09] to obtain the $(V-I)$ intrinsic color of each star. In the Table \[t\_atmparamB\] we show $E(V-I)$ values obtained for the stars of box B. We also calculated the distances for each star of the box B using the equation: $$\begin{aligned} \log d\; ({\rm pc})\; & = & 1/2 [\log \frac{M_{\star}}{M_{\odot}} + 0.4\left(V-A_{ V}+BC\right) \nonumber \\ & & {{\,}\atop{\,}} + 4\log T_{\rm eff} - \log g_{\star} - 10.62].\end{aligned}$$ Where $T_{eff}$ and log $g_{\star}$ are the effective temperature and surface gravity, respectively, and $M$ is the mass obtained through the evolutionary tracks of @bert08 and @bert09. The photometric data of Table \[t\_specdata\] were combined with bolometric corrections ($BC$) defined by the relations of @alo99. The extinction in $V$ ($A_{V}$) for each star was calculated using the reddening $E(V-I)$ shown in the Table \[t\_atmparamB\], the non-standard absorption law valid for the third Galactic quadrant, where $R_V$=2.9 [@turner14] and $E(B-V)=0.7955\times E(V-I)$ [@turner11]. For the Sun we adopted $M_{bol \odot} = 4.74$ mag [@bes98], $T_{\rm eff \odot} = 5700$ K and $\log g_\odot = 4.3$ dex. We also performed a rough estimate of the age of the stars from box B using spectroscopic atmospheric parameters and isochrones of @bert08 and @bert09. We note that such a sample is composed of a great mix of stars with the age ranging from 1.2 Myr to 10 Gyr. This huge range is not unexpected when considering a sample containing both thin and thick disk stars. The reddening and distance of box C and D stars were derived similarly. The intrinsic colours and absolute magnitudes of box C stars were derived from comparison of their position in the temperature–gravity plane with the same solar-metallicity isochrones used for box B. The intrinsic color, compared with the observed one, returned the reddening $E(V-I)$, which was used to derive $A_{V}$ with the same equations given above. As we had no gravity information for box D stars, but we argued that they are all MS objects, we adopted for them the absolute magnitude of solar-metallicity ZAMS objects at the corresponding temperature. From the derived absolute magnitude, the observed $V$ magnitude, and $A_{V}$, the distances were straightforwardly computed. We chose to use $(V-I)$ as temperature indicator for consistency with what done in Box B. However, a bluer color could be a better choice for Box C, where the stars are noticeably hotter than in the other two groups. To test if our choice would alter the results, we repeated the procedure using $(B-V)$ instead of $(V-I)$ in Box C. The reddening values thus derived are compatible within errors with those previously obtained, with a mean difference and standard deviation of $-0.04\pm0.05$ mag, and no clear trend with temperature. --------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ID $T_{\rm eff}$ $\log{g}$ $v sin i$ $\langle$ RV $\rangle$ $E(V-I)$ $(V-Mv)_{0}$ d K dex km s$^{-1}$ km s$^{-1}$ (pc) 6507\* 14500$\pm$3200 5.5$\pm$1.0 20 112$\pm$3 0.68$\pm$0.05 15.68$\pm$0.79 14400$\pm$5200 8542\* 8100$\pm$4200 4.8$\pm$3.2 120 99$\pm$45 0.38$\pm$0.28 14.01$\pm$1.74 6400$\pm$5100 9227 9800$\pm$1800 4.2$\pm$0.8 210 75$\pm$13 0.47$\pm$0.20 14.21$\pm$0.78 7100$\pm$2800 12018\* 8700$\pm$800 4.2$\pm$0 0\* 97$\pm$6 0.41$\pm$0.09 13.52$\pm$0.39 5100$\pm$900 13279 13100$\pm$1100 4.4$\pm$0.3 10 63$\pm$5 0.78$\pm$0.03 14.63$\pm$0.30 9000$\pm$1200 16940 10800$\pm$2400 4.1$\pm$0.3 310 69$\pm$11 0.71$\pm$0.06 14.45$\pm$0.75 8200$\pm$2800 24772 12000$\pm$1400 4.4$\pm$0.5 60 88$\pm$2 0.56$\pm$0.05 14.71$\pm$0.41 9100$\pm$1700 28816 9700$\pm$900 3.6$\pm$0.5 70 96$\pm$2 0.50$\pm$0.08 13.87$\pm$0.38 6100$\pm$1000 30971 11400$\pm$800 4.6$\pm$0.3 90 78$\pm$9 0.77$\pm$0.03 14.33$\pm$0.25 7800$\pm$900 31183 14000$\pm$1600 4.4$\pm$0.5 40 62$\pm$2 0.82$\pm$0.03 15.22$\pm$0.41 11900$\pm$2200 32089 12200$\pm$700 4.3$\pm$0.3 230 84$\pm$1 0.75$\pm$0.03 13.98$\pm$0.22 6600$\pm$900 --------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------- ---------------- **Notes.** \*: no H$_\beta$ line. ------- --------------- ---------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- ID $T_{\rm eff}$ $\langle$RV$\rangle$ $E(V-I)$ $(V-Mv)_{0}$ d (K) (km s$^{-1}$) (pc) 7421 5850$\pm$40 76$\pm$8 0.35$\pm$0.03 13.78$\pm$0.09 5700$\pm$200 9011 6240$\pm$180 101$\pm$12 0.38$\pm$0.05 13.63$\pm$0.29 5300$\pm$700 9834 6210$\pm$150 74$\pm$3 0.43$\pm$0.04 14.20$\pm$0.24 6900$\pm$800 11923 — 106$\pm$8 — — — 19341 5990$\pm$200 88$\pm$13 0.38$\pm$0.05 13.94$\pm$0.34 6100$\pm$1000 22319 5885$\pm$20 125$\pm$6 0.31$\pm$0.02 13.43$\pm$0.05 4860$\pm$100 23667 6330$\pm$50 139$\pm$7 0.38$\pm$0.03 13.57$\pm$0.10 5200$\pm$200 31274 5910$\pm$125 135$\pm$2 0.37$\pm$0.04 13.84$\pm$0.22 5900$\pm$600 36132 — 91$\pm$2 — — — ------- --------------- ---------------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- Results of abundance analysis {#s_chemres} ============================= The chemical abundance is one of the main pillars in characterising stellar populations, and the spectral analysis is the most reliable technique for obtaining of the star’s chemistry. The chemical pattern in the stars allows one, for example, to distinguish which are the stars from the thick and from thin disk [e.g., @mas15], or even if a cluster (or star) has extragalactic origin [e.g., @sbo15]. In this Section we present the results of our chemical analysis for the red clump stars in order to characterise this stellar population. \[alField\] ![Abundance ratios \[X/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\]. Light green open circles: field dwarf of @ben14; Blue open circles: Cepheids of disk of @lem13; Blue filled circles: Cepheids of disk of @gen15; Red filled circles: our sample of red clump field stars; Orange filled circles: open clusters from literature (Tombaugh 1 of @sal16; NGC6192, NGC6404 and NGC6583 of @mag10; NGC3114 of @kat13; NGC2527, NGC2682, NGC2482, NGC2539, NGC2335, NGC2251 and NGC2266 of @red13; NGC4337 of @car14b; Trumpler 20 of @car14a; NGC4815 and NGC6705 of @mag14; Cr 110, Cr 261, NGC2477, NGC2506 and NGC5822 of @mis15.](Fig8.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} \[singlealphaField\] ![Abundance ratios \[X/Fe\] vs. \[Fe/H\]. Symbols have the same meaning as in Fig. 8.](Fig9.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} Metallicity and iron-peak elements ---------------------------------- Red clump stars have been widely used to characterise the structure of the Galaxy [e.g., @lee15; @rom15] mainly because they are bright enough and numerous [@bie14; @wan15]. In Galactic clusters, such stars are characterised by having a similar chemical abundance, unlike the field red clump stars, which present a larger dispersion. In Table \[t\_atmparamB\], we show the metallicity derived for eight red clump stars from box B. We found that our sample of field red clump stars covers the metallicity range of $-$0.68$\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq$0.03. Despite the wide dispersion in metallicity of our red clump stars, some of them have similar characteristics. Two of the targets stars with the lowest metallicity (stars $\#$13964 and $\#$28064) present high estimate for the distances (20 and 12 kpc, respectively), although our results for the star $\#$13964 are affected by a large uncertainty in atmospheric parameters and distance due to the low S/N of its spectrum (see Table \[t\_atmparamB\]). Despite its higher metallicity (\[Fe/H\]=$-$0.24), the target $\#$31364 also exhibits a very high distance, d$\approx$23 kpc. We also noted that these three very distant stars have slightly similar radial velocities (73.9, 68.0 and 65.6 km/s). For the stars $\#$11029, $\#$13540, $\#$27955, and $\#$32782, our results for the metallicity and distance indicate that they are located either near the closest edge of the outer disk or in the transition region between the outer and inner disk (9$\leq$R$_{GC}\leq$13 kpc), where a large scatter of metallicity is found [@mag09]. The Type Ia supernovae are the main sources of enrichment of the interstellar medium with Fe and iron-peak elements, like Cr and Ni. Therefore, the chemical study of iron-peak elements is important to analyse the type Ia supernovae production rate for the formation of the observed stellar population, being this rate, for example, a key parameter to set the Initial Mass Function (IMF). For our sample of the red clump stars, the ranges in abundance ratios of \[X/Fe\] for Cr and Ni are $-$0.09$\leq$\[Cr/Fe\]$\leq$+0.35 and $-$0.22$\leq$\[Ni/Fe\]$\leq$+0.24. In Fig. 8 and 9 we show the abundance ratio of \[X/Fe\] for our sample of red clump field star, for field dwarf from @ben14, for disk Cepheids from @lem13 and @gen15, and also for open clusters, as described in the Figure caption. The \[Cr/Fe\] and \[Ni/Fe\] ratios are close to solar for all our red clump targets, as observed among disk field dwarfs and open cluster from literature in the range $-1\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq0$ (see Fig. 8). The abundance ratio of Nickel in the Milky Way, in particular, is locked to solar value at any metallicity [e.g., @Sneden04]. This is usually assumed as evidence that Nickel is synthesised in the same astrophysical sites as iron, and in a constant proportion with respect to it. However, @sbo07 found that the Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy (Sgr dSph) is depleted in Nickel by $\approx$0.3 dex in the whole range $-1\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq0$, a behaviour that could extend even down to \[Fe/H\]=$-2$ [@sbo15]. This exotic chemical composition was, however, not observed among metal-poor (\[Fe/H\]$\leq-2$) globular clusters in Fornax [@Letarte06], so it is not clear if a lower \[Ni/Fe\] should be expected for all dwarf galaxies at any metallicity. In any case, we find no evidence of an exotic, potentially extragalactic abundance of Nickel in our sample. Na, Al and $\alpha$-elements ---------------------------- Chemical abundances of the $\alpha$-elements are constantly used to reveal the history of star formation and define the structure of the galactic disk. In the disk, stars with high abundance of $\alpha$-elements are associated with the thick disk while stars with solar ratios are usually classified as belonging to the thin disk [e.g., @Bensby05]. The separation of the disk into two components is usually interpreted as evidence that the stars of thick disk had a rapid star formation with Type-II supernovae contributing more to the chemical enrichment of the interstellar medium than in the thin disk. In Table \[abunda-NaB\] we present the abundance ratios for the alpha elements Mg, Si, Ca and Ti for the eight field red clump stars. We noted that the \[X/Fe\] ratios for Ti and Si are super-solar for our sample of red clump star. For Mg, the \[X/Fe\] ratios shows sub-solar or solar values for two stars ($\#$27955 and $\#$31364) while for the other red clump star we got super-solar values. And finally, the \[Ca/Fe\] ratio shows super-solar values for three red clump stars and sub-solar for another three stars ($\#$11029, $\#$27955, and $\#$2806, with values $-$0.20, $-$0.17 and $-$0.30, respectively). On average, the stars $\#$13540, $\#$13964, $\#$26606, and $\#$32782 have a high $\alpha$-element abundances, with values of \[$\alpha$/Fe\] ratios of 0.20$\pm$0.09, 0.45$\pm$0.23, 0.39$\pm$0.16 and 0.60$\pm$0.09, respectively. Then, this stars are probably members of the thick disk. The other red clump stars in our sample (ID 1102, 27955, 28064 and 31364) present \[$\alpha$/Fe\] between 0.05 and 0.10 dex, and therefore probably belong to the galactic thin disk population. @yon05, @car05, and @yon06 found that field and cluster stars in the outer galactic disk show enhancements for the alpha-elements, \[$\alpha$/Fe\]$\sim$0.2, and a metallicity of approximately $\sim$-0.5 dex. However, in a more recent study of giant stars in the field of outer disk, @ben11 detected thin disk of stars with \[$\alpha$/Fe\]$\sim$0.0 and a lack of stars with chemical pattern of the thick disk (\[$\alpha$/Fe\]$\geq$0.2), even for stars far above the Galactic plane. @ben11 concluded that this lack of thick disk stars was apparent, and was caused by the scale-length of the thick disk be significantly shorter than that of the thin disk. Our rough estimate of the distance for the red clump stars of the box B situate many of these stars in the outer disk (R$_{GC}\gtrsim$13 kpc). The two disk populations (thin and thick) were detected in our sample of stars of the outer disk. For the nearest red clump stars (1.2 $\leq$ d $\leq$ 5.3 kpc), we detected three stars with thick disk properties (stars 1$\#$3540, $\#$26606 and $\#$32782) and two belonging to the thin disk (stars $\#$11029 and $\#$27955). The second most distant star in our sample (star $\#$13964 with d$\sim$20 kpc) is also the star with lower metallicity (\[Fe/H\]=$-$0.68) and that has an average abundance of alpha elements of \[$\alpha$/Fe\]=0.45$\pm$0.23. This star by its chemical pattern can be classified as a star of the thick disk or of the Galactic disk-halo transition region. The region of Galactic disk-halo transition is characterised by stars with $-1.20\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq$0.55, and $\alpha$-poor and $\alpha$-rich stars [@haw15]. Our estimate for the distance of the star $\#$13964 (d$\sim$21 kpc), despite its significant uncertainty, may also indicate that this star is outside the Galaxy. In this case, the star 13964 may have been lost by the Milky Way or belongs to an extragalactic object in the vicinity of the Milky Way. The other two stars situated on the edge of outer disk (stars $\#$28064 and $\#$31364) have a chemical pattern typical of thin disk (\[$\alpha$/Fe\]$\sim$0.0). So our sample, although small, shows that the thin disk is probably dominant in the most extreme regions of the disk, in accordance with the conclusions of @ben11. Study of stars located in the extreme outer regions of the disk can quantify how warped and flared is the galactic disk, as well as, how the stellar populations in these regions evolve. Furthermore, the interesting finding of a significant amount of stars at the end of galactic disk with large estimates of distance from the galactic plane (like the stars $\#$13964, $\#$28064, and $\#$31364) can also reveal a significant mixing between stars from the disk and the halo caused by the warped and flared disk. But what this interaction between the warped and flared disk and the halo implies for the evolution of stellar populations in this extreme region of the Galaxy? In this region, do we have a stellar population predominantly $\alpha$-rich or $\alpha$-low? And what is the metallicity range? A major difficulty for a reliable study of the structure of extreme outer region of the disk is an estimated distance that often comes with large uncertainties (as our estimate for the star 13964). Incoming data from Gaia mission will surely enable more solid distance estimates for many stars and put us in a better position to answer to these questions. The production of the Na in the stellar interior is performed during the hydrostatic carbon burning in massive stars [@woo95], and also is affected by NeNa cycle in the H-burning envelope in intermediate-mass and massive stars [@den90]. In giant stars, the chemical abundance of Na is important to investigate the mixing processes occurring in the stellar interior, like the first dredge-up, [*thermohaline*]{} instability, and rotation-induced mixing [@cha10]. The effects of the non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE) are considerable in the abundance of Na [@gra99; @lin11] and should be taken into account. In our analysis, we used the corrections of @gra99 to estimate such effects. Table \[abunda-NaB\] show sthe \[Na/Fe\] ratios for six red clump stars. The abundance ratio \[Na/Fe\] for our field red clump stars presents an overabundance that goes from 0.19 to 0.42. In Fig. \[alField\] we see that the \[Na/Fe\] ratio for our sample are overabundant when compared to disk dwarfs from @ben14. The overabundance of \[Na/Fe\] ratio in giant stars with respect dwarf stars indicates the importance of the chemical mixing phenomena occurring in the stellar interior during the giant phase [@pas04]. Al is mainly produced during the hydrostatic carbon and neon burning in massive stars [@woo95], and can be affected by MgAl cycle in H-burning layers at high temperatures [@arn95]. We observed an overabundance of Al with respect to Fe for our red clump sample, with a range of 0.10$\leq$\[Al/Fe\]$\leq$0.59 (see Table \[abunda-NaB\]). The stars that present the highest values for the \[Al/Fe\] ratio ($\#$13964, $\#$26606, and $\#$32782) are also the stars that have a high overabundance of $\alpha$-elements. While $\alpha$-elements are overabundant in stellar populations characterised by a fast star formation history such as the Galactic thick disk, the stars in dwarf galaxies are usually $\alpha$-depleted. This is because the slow star formation rate in these low-density environments prevents the yields of Type-II supernovae from dominating the pollution of the interstellar medium. In fact, the average $\alpha$-elements abundance of Sgr dSph stars in the range $-1\leq$\[Fe/H\]$\leq0$ is \[$\alpha$/Fe\]$\approx-0.2$ [@sbo07]. Similar sub-solar $\alpha$-abundances were found by @sbo05 in three field stars, and they were the basis of their claim of an extragalactic origin for their targets. Na and Al also are depleted in intermediate-metallicity Sgr dSph stars by $\approx-0.3$ and $-0.5$ dex, likely because the astrophysical sites of their synthesis, massive and intermediate-mass stars, is the same where most of the $\alpha$-elements are produced. In this context, we note that none of our box B stars show abundances that differ from the Galactic trend. The $\alpha$-elements, Na, and Al abundances, along with Ni that we discussed in the previous Section, are either close to solar, or super-solar for the most metal-poor targets, in full agreement with the general trend of Galactic thin and thick disk stars. We therefore conclude that there is no evidence of an extragalactic origin for any of the studied object. In the discussion section we put the red clump stars together with the other stars of our sample in the context of the structure of the third Galactic quadrant and try to make connections between the different populations so far analysed . \[f\_reddist\] {width="\columnwidth"} Discussion and conclusions ========================== In the following we are going to discuss the results of our photometric and spectroscopic analysis and attempt to draw a coherent scenario out of them.\ The targets in box D (see Fig. 1) belong to a thick, faint MS in the background of the cluster Tombaugh 1. The observed objects (see Table \[t\_paramD\]) are all F8-G2 spectral type stars with similar reddening, spanning a narrow range in distance (5–7 kpc, 5.7 kpc on average). They trace a tight sequence in the CMD. MS stars with these spectral types must be younger than $\approx$9 Gyr, and the MS in the CMD continues blue-ward to even higher temperatures (group in box C, see below). Hence, this MS traces an intermediate-age stellar population, and it cannot be associated to the Galactic halo or thick disk. The distance spread is most likely physical and not only a product of measurement errors, because the stars follow a clear reddening-distance relation, as shown in Fig. 10. Two stars slightly depart from this relation, probably due to differential reddening in the field of view. The shape of this sequence and its width are comparable with the ones found in the background of NGC 2354 [@car16], or in the direction of the Canis Major over density [@car08], where these sequences are ascribed to the warped old thin disk, that the line of sight intersects, thus producing the effect of probing a structure confined in distance. The weighted average RV is $\sim$107 km s$^{-1}$, much higher than the expectation of a simple Galactic rotation model ($\approx$60 km s$^{-1}$) such as that presented by @mon14. However, the model could easily fail at these large distances from the Galactic center, and far away from the formal Galactic plane (at latitude 0$^o$ deg). The line-of-sight velocity at this Galactic longitude mostly reflects the Galactocentric $U$ component. The RV dispersion, after quadratic subtraction of the mean observational error, is $\sigma_{RV}=23$ km s$^{-1}$. This is very high, because $\sigma_U\approx10$ km s$^{-1}$ for the thin disk at the solar position, and the dispersion is expected to exponentially decline outwards. Hence, this intermediate-age and distant population presents peculiar kinematical properties. A possible explanation for this peculiarity is that this population belongs to the Galactic warp [@mom06], and it is also flared [see @car15 and references therein]. In this scenario the kinematics is not easily predictable (see Xu et al. 2015), since the outer disk exhibits several rings and waves, which alter the expected kinematics. We now continue discussing stars in box C. These stars form a sequence which lies along the prolongation of the thick MS we just described. In this case they can be interpreted as blue straggler stars of this intermediate-age population. Their color and magnitude can also be compatible with them being thick disk or halo foreground hot sdB’s, although we do not expect so many stars of this type in such a limited volume [@car15]. The spectroscopic data we have analysed in this work help us to understand better the nature of these stars. \[f\_cmdCD\] {width="\columnwidth"} Reading through Table \[t\_paramC\] one can infer that these C group stars are early type stars, confirming earlier findings [@car16 and references therein] based on photometry only. Therefore we remark that the [*blue plumes*]{} routinely found in many different lines of sight in the third quadrant of the Milky Way [@moi06] are indeed sequences of young stars. Only one of the observed targets is likely a sdB star, as commented in Sect. \[s\_CDparams\] and it will be excluded from further discussion. For this specific line of sight, a quick glance at the CMDs in Fig. 1, 4, and 11 reveals that the stars selected for, and observed with, spectroscopy are clearly separated in the CMD, where there are five stars with $(V-I)<0.57$ (hereafter C1 group) and five object at $(V-I)>0.65$ (hereafter C2). The two groups seem to trace two separated sequences. The same dichotomy is found in the spectroscopic results. All C2 objects have $T_{eff}>10\,000~K$, while four of the five C1 stars are cooler than 10000 K. Thus, C2 stars are on average hotter, despite they are redder in the CMD, and in fact they exhibit a much larger reddening ($\overline{E(V-I)}=0.46$ and 0.77, for C1 and C2 groups, respectively). The two groups also show a different behavior in the distance-reddening relation shown in Fig. 10. In fact, C1 stars are compatible with the distance-reddening relationship defined by box D targets, and they are distributed in a distance range that largely overlaps that of box D stars, with a mean value of $d=6.7$ kpc. C2 stars, on the other hand, are found at nearly constant reddening, and on average at a larger distance than box D and C1 stars ($d=8.2$ kpc on average). In addition, the kinematics of the two C-groups also seems different. C1 stars are are confined in a narrow range of RVs between 75 and 100 km s$^{-1}$, with a mean value of $91$ km s$^{-1}$, similar to that found in box D. The mean RV of C2 stars, on the other hand, is 70 km s$^{-1}$, matching within few km s$^{-1}$ the expectations of a simple Galactic rotation model at $d=8$ kpc. Their RV dispersion is also low, 8.2 km s$^{-1}$, as expected for a thin disk population. The observed differences between C1 and C2 stars could be partially due to differential reddening. In Fig. 12 we show the position of the targets in the @Schlegel98 reddening map. There is clearly a variation of reddening in the field, and the C1 (C2) stars tend to be found far from (close to) a local reddening maximum. However, a further inspection suggests that this cannot fully explain the observed dichotomy. First, there is a certain degree of mixing in the spatial distribution, with a C2 target found in a low-reddening area and the object closest to the reddening maximum being a C1 star. In addition, the reddening variations are small in the @Schlegel98 map, where it varies by no more than 0.1 mag in the field under investigation. This is only one third of the difference between the average reddening of C1 and C2 groups. The variation would be even reduced if corrections to the maps, such as that proposed by @Bonifacio00, were applied. The differential reddening also cannot explain the different kinematics of the two groups, nor the distance-reddening relation observed for C1 and D stars. Moreover, spatial reddening variations alone would cause that more reddened stars are closer, contrary to what observed, because the targets in each box were selected photometrically at approximately the same magnitude. We conclude that differential reddening may play a role, but it cannot alone explain the observed differences between C1 and C2 groups. \[f\_Schlegel\] {width="\columnwidth"} We have to take these differences with a lot of care, since they are derived from a handful of stars. From the photometric analysis in fact we see a continuum of reddening and distance properties, where these two groups, C1 and C2, are representing the extremes of these young population, as seen from the CMD in Fig. 11. This discrepancy between the photometric and spectroscopic distribution of reddening and distances in Box C can offer two alternative interpretations: $i$) the distribution is broad and continuum, as indicated by the photometric results, and the spectroscopic dichotomy is only an spurious effect due to the random selection a small sample of targets, or due to selection biases; $ii$) The underlying distribution is bimodal, as the spectroscopic results suggest, but its nature is lost in the photometric results due to large uncertainties, which blend the two groups into a wider single peak. To investigate this issue in more details, we compare in Fig. 13 the distribution of $E(V-I)$ obtained with the spectroscopic and photometric method, for the same ten targets of the spectroscopic study. The histogram shows that the bimodal distribution found with the first method is completely lost when the photometrically-derived reddening are studied. This results suggests that, if the C1 and C2 groups represent two distinct stellar populations with different distances and reddening in the same field of view, their presence would have likely been missed in the photometric results. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test indicates that the probability that the bimodal spectroscopic results are randomly drawn from the photometric broad distribution is only 8%. Hence, the hypothesis that this multi-modality is entirely due to the random selection of a small sample of stars cannot be dismissed, but it is very improbable. However, while these tests tend to exclude the hypothesis $i$) above, they are insufficient to claim the existence of two stellar sub-structures at different distances in this field, both because of the too small spectroscopic sample, and because selection effects unaccounted for in the analysis could have led to a observed sample unevenly distributed in the CMD, thus giving the wrong impression of a bimodal distribution. A more extensive spectroscopic study of a larger sample of stars is required to fix this issue. This young population is the very same that we found in several other direction in the third Galactic quadrant. It is confined in distance, being at heliocentric distances in the range 6 to 9 kpc. Within the uncertainties involved, these stars are most probably tracing a portion of the outer, or Norma-Cygnus, spiral arm. This arm is located well below the formal Galactic plane (at b =0$^o$), because of the warp, and the line of sight to Tombaugh 1 intersects it, in close similarity to the line of sight to the old open cluster Auner 1 (Carraro et al. 2007). Being the Norma-Cygnus arm the outermost arm known for the Milky Way, it is not unexpected to find stars at so very different distances, because outermost arms are typically wider than inner disk arms, whose width is typically about 1 kpc. Interestingly, the line of sight to Tombaugh 1 does not contain young stars closer to the Sun (at 1.5$-$2.5 kpc), that we would expect from the crossing of the Perseus arm, which would be located at about 2 kpc from the Sun [@church09]. The fact that we miss the Perseus arm means either that the warping of the disk starts to be significant beyond 2-3 kpc, or that the Perseus arm is not important in the third Galactic quadrant. \[f\_histoEVI\_C\] {width="\columnwidth"} Finally, we comment on the stars located in the Box B. This box samples red giant stars. According to our results (see Tables \[t\_atmparamB\] and \[abunda-NaB\]), these stars, which seem to somehow group together in the CMD, are located at different distances, and have different metallicities. Thus, the stars of box B have no close relation to the populations of the box C and D. As discussed in Sect. \[sec:intro\], the presence of a background MS and a [*blue plume*]{} of hot young stars in the third Galactic quadrant have been interpreted as evidence of the recent accretion of the Canis Major satellite. We argued in Sect. \[s\_chemres\] that we find no evidence of an extragalactic origin for any of our red clump targets. Unfortunately, the lack of a kinematical or spatial link of box B stars with the fainter box C and D groups, prevents us to extend the result to these features. However, red clump stars should be present in a complex stellar population as that postulated for the Canis Major satellite, and our sample included targets in a wide range of distance. Our results therefore favours the scenario where the peculiar features observed in the CMD are due to a complex mix of Galactic populations rather than the imprint of an extragalactic system. We can divide the stars of box B in two field populations. The first composed by older stars, with ages of 8 Myr and 10 Gyr, belonging to the thick and thin disk (with slight majority for the thick disk) and a distance between 1.2$\leq$d$\leq$5.3 kpc. The second population composed by young ($\lesssim$8 Myr) background field stars, with high values for distances (d$>$12 kpc) and slightly similar radial velocities, with mean RV of 69 km s$^{-1}$. It is mportant to note that the distances to these background stars of the box B have large uncertainties with average of $\sim$9 kpc being the important result for these stars that they are background stars relating the other stars of B box. It is worth mentioning that the detection of stars with large estimates of the distances, and consequently with large distance from the galactic plane, as the stars $\#$13964, $\#$28064, and $\#$31364 in box B, and also apparently young when compared to thick disk stars and halo, is not expected, and can reveal an interesting and complex galaxy evolution occurring in the pherifery of the warped and flared outer disk with a probable interaction with the Galactic halo. A contributing to this discussion comes from recent Galactic disk simulations reveal that younger populations have increasingly larger scale-lengths at larger distances from the galactic center @min15. Such featured reveals the need for further analysis with a large sample of stars in this extreme region of the disk. The Gaia-ESO survey can help us to answer these questions better, since this survey will enable a reliable determination of the distances of large samples of these stars. We express our deepest gratitude to Edgardo Costa, who acquired part of the data used for this work. Extensive use was made of the WEBDA database maintained by E. Paunzen at the University of Vienna, Austria (http://www.univie.ac.at/webda). J.V.S.S. acknowledges the support provided by CNPq/Brazil Science without Borders program (project No. 249122/2013-8). C.M.B. acknowledges support by the Fondo Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (Fondecyt), project No. 1150060. Alonso, A., Arribas, S., Martínez-Roger, C., 1999, A&AS, 140, 261 Arnould, M., & Mowlavi, N. 1995, Liege International Astrophysical Colloquia, 32, 17 Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R., Monaco, L., Martin, N., Irwin, M. J. & Lewis, G. F. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1263 Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Lundström, I., & Ilyin, I. 2005, , 433, 185 Bensby, T., Alves-Brito, A., Oey, M. S., Yong, D., & Mel[é]{}ndez, J. 2011, , 735, L46 Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., & Oey, M. S. 2014, , 562, A71 Bergeron, P., Saffer, R. A., & Liebert, J. 1992, ApJ, 394, 228 Bertelli, G., Girardi, L., Marigo, P., Nasi, E. 2008, A&A, 484, 815 Bertelli, G., Nasi, E., Girardi, L., Marigo, P. 2009, A&A, 508, 355 Bessell, M. S., Castelli, F., & Plez, B. 1998, , 333, 231 Bienaymé, O., Famaey, B., Siebert, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, 92 Blackwell, D. E., Booth, A. J., Menon, S. L. R., & Petford, A. D. 1986, MNRAS, 220, 289 Bonifacio, P., Monai, S., & Beers, T. C. 2000, AJ, 120, 2065 Carney, B. W., Yong, D., Teixera de Almeida, M. L., & Seitzer, P. 2005, , 130, 1111 Carraro, G., V[á]{}zquez, R. A., Moitinho, A., & Baume, G. 2005, , 630, L153 Carraro, G., Moitinho, A., Zoccali, M., Vazquez, R., Baume, G., 2007, , 133, 1058 Carraro, G., Moitinho, A., & V[á]{}zquez, R. A. 2008, , 385, 1597 Carraro, G., Vázquez, R. A., Costa, E., Perren, G., & Moitinho, A. 2010, ApJ, 718, 683 Carraro, G., Monaco, L., Villanova, S., 2014a, A&A, 568, 86 Carraro, G., Villanova, S., Monaco, L., Beccari, G., Ahumada, J., Boffin, H., 2014b, A&A, 562, 39 Carraro, G., V[á]{}zquez, R. A., Costa, E., Ahumada, J. A., & Giorgi, E. E. 2015, , 149, 12 Carraro, G., Seleznev, A. F., Baume, G., & Turner, D. G. 2016, , 455, 4031 Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., Gratton, R. G., & Tosi, M. 2004, A&A, 422, 951 Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., & Gratton, R. G. 2007, A&A, 473, 129 Castro, S., Rich, R. M., Grenon, M., Barbuy, B., & McCarthy, J. K. 1997, AJ, 114, 376 Charbonnel, C., & Lagarde, N. 2010, A&A, 522, A10 Churchwell, E., Babler, B. L., Meade, M. R., Whitney, B. A., Benjamin, R., et al., 2009, PASP, 121, 213 Coelho, P., Barbuy, B., Meléndez, J., Schiavon, R. P., & Castilho, B. V. 2005, A&A, 443, 735 Denisenkov, P. A., & Denisenkova, S. N. 1990, SvAL, 16, 275 Depagne, E., Hill, V., Spite, M., et al. 2002, A&A, 390, 187 Drake, J. J., & Smith, G. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 89 Dressler, A., Hare, T., Bigelow, B. C., & Osip, D. J. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6269, 62690 Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D. L., Nissen, P. E., & Tomkin, J. 1993, A&A, 275, 101 Fuhrmann, K., Axer, M., & Gehren, T. 1994, A&A, 285, 585 Genovali, K., Lemasle, B., da Silva, R., et al. 2015, , 580, A17 Gratton, R. G., & Sneden, C. 1988, A&A, 204, 193 Gratton, R. G., Carretta, E., Eriksson, K., & Gustafsson, B. 1999, A&A, 350, 955 Grevesse, N., & Sauval, A. J. 1998, SSRv, 85, 161 Hawkins, K., Jofr[é]{}, P., Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, , 453, 758 Horne, K. 1986, PASP, 98, 609 Katime Santrich, O. J., Pereira, C. B., & de Castro, D. B. 2013, , 146, 39 Keeping, E. S. 1962, Introduction to Statistical Inference (London: Van Nostrand) Kuijken, K., & Gilmore, G. 1989, MNRAS, 239, 605 Kurucz, R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993, 13 Lambert, D. L., Heath, J. E., Lemke, M., & Drake, J. 1996, ApJS, 103, 183 Landolt, A. U. 1992, AJ, 104, 372 Lee, Y.-W., Joo, S.-J., & Chung, C. 2015, , 453, 3906 Lemasle, B., François, P., Genovali, K., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, 31 Letarte, B., Hill, V., Jablonka, P., Tolstoy, E., François, P., & Meylan, G. 2006, A&A, 453, 547 Lind, K., Asplund, M., Barklem, P. S., & Belyaev, A. K. 2011, A&A, 528, A103 Magrini, L., Sestito, P., Randich, S., & Galli, D. 2009, A&A, 494, 95 Magrini, L., Randich, S., Zoccali, M., Jilková, L., Carraro, G., et al., 2010, A&A, 523, 11 Magrini, L., Randich, S., Romano, D., Friel, E.D., et al., 2014, A&A, 563, 44 Majaess, D., Carraro, G., Moni Bidin, C., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A22 Martin, W. C., Fuhr, J. R., Kelleher, D. E., et al. 2002, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (Version 2.0; Gaithersburg, MD: NIST) Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Bellazzini, M., et al. 2004, , 348, 12 Masseron, T., & Gilmore, G. 2015, , 453, 1855 McWilliam, A., & Rich, R. M. 1994, ApJS, 91, 749 Minchev, I., Martig, M., Streich, D., et al. 2015, , 804, L9 Mishenina, T., Pignatari, M., Carraro, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 446, 3651 , Moitinho, A., 2001, A&A, 370, 436 Moitinho, A., Vázquez, R. A.,Carraro, G., Baume, G., Giorgi, E. E.,& Lyra, W. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 77 Momany, Y., Zaggia, S., Gilmore, G., et al. 2006, , 451, 515 Moni Bidin, C., de la Fuente Marcos, R., de la Fuente Marcos, C., & Carraro, G. 2010, A&A, 510, A44 Moni Bidin, C., Villanova, S., Piotto, G., & Momany, Y. 2011b, A&A, 528, A127 Moni Bidin, C., Carraro, G., & Méndez, R.A. 2012, ApJ, 747, 101 Moni Bidin, C., Villanova, S., Piotto, G., Moehler, S.,Cassisi, S., & Momany, Y. 2012, A&A, 547, A109 Moni Bidin, C., Majaess, D., Bonatto, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, 119 Morse, J.A., Mathieu, R.D., & Levine, S.E. 1991, AJ, 101, 1495 Munari, U., Sordo, R., Castelli, F., & Zwitter, T. 2005, A&A, 442, 1127 Napiwotzki, R., Green, P. J., & Saffer, R. A. 1999, ApJ, 517, 399 Nieva, M. F., & Przybilla, N. 2007, A&A, 467, 295 Pasquini, L., Randich, S., Zoccali, M., et al. 2004, , 424, 951 Patat, F., & Carraro, G. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 1591 Pereira, C. B., Sales Silva, J. V., Chavero, C., Roig, F., & Jilinski, E. 2011, , 533, A51 Preston, G. W., & Sneden, C. 2001, , 122, 1545 Reddy, B. E., Bakker, E. J., & Hrivnak, B. J. 1999, ApJ, 524, 831 Reddy, B. E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D. L., & Allende Prieto, C. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 304 Reddy, A. B. S., Giridhar, S., & Lambert, D. L. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 3338 Romero-G[ó]{}mez, M., Figueras, F., Antoja, T., Abedi, H., & Aguilar, L. 2015, , 447, 218 Saffer, R. A., Bergeron, P., Koester, D., & Liebert, J. 1994, ApJ, 432, 351 Sales Silva, J.V., Carraro, G., Anthony-Twarog,B.J., Moni Bidin, C., Costa, E., & Twarog, B.A. 2016, AJ, 151, 6 Santrich, O. J. K., Pereira, C. B., & Drake, N. A. 2013, , 554, A2 Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Marconi, G., Zaggia, S., & Buonanno, R. 2005, A&A, 430, L13 Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Buonanno, R., Marconi, G., Monaco, L., & Zaggia, S. 2007, A&A, 465, 815 Sbordone, L., Monaco, L., Moni Bidin, C., et al. 2015, A&A, 579, 104 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ, 500, 525 Sneden, C. 1973, ApJ, 184, 839 Sneden, C., Ivans, I. I., & Fulbright, J. P. 2004, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, 17 Tonry, J., & Davis, M. 1979, AJ, 84, 1511 Turner, D. G., 1976, , 81, 97 Turner, D.G., 1979, , 91, 642 Turner, D. G., 1983, JRASC, 77, 31 Turner, D. G., MacLellan, R. F., Henden, A. A., & Bernikov, L. N. 2011, RMxAA, 47, 345 Turner, D. G., Majaess, D. J., & Balam, D. D. 2011, CJP, 92, 1696 van Dokkum, P. G. 2001, PASP, 113, 1420 Vazquez, R.A., May, J., Carraro, G., Bronfman, L., Moitinho, A., Baume, G., 2008, ApJ, 672, 930 Wan, J.-C., Liu, C., Deng, L.-C., et al. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1166 Wiese, W. L., Smith, M. W., & Miles, B. M. 1969, NSRDS-NBS, Washington, D.C.: US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, 1969 Woosley, S. E., & Weaver, T. A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181 Xu, Y., Newberg, H. J., Carlin, J. L., et al. 2015, , 801, 105 Yong, D., Carney, B. W., Teixera de Almeida, M. L., & Pohl, B. L. 2006, AJ, 131, 2256 Yong, D., Carney, B. W., Teixera de Almeida, M. L., & Pohl, B. L. 2006, AJ, 131, 2256 [^1]: Based on observations carried out at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile (program ID CN009B-042) and Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. [^2]: [http://http://www.astro.yale.edu/smarts]{} [^3]: QE and other detector characteristics can be found at: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/Y4KCam/detector.html [^4]: Transmission curves for these filters can be found at http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/Y4KCam/filters.html [^5]: IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation. [^6]: Space telescope Science Institute, 2001, The Guide Star Catalogue Version 2.2.02. [^7]: http://a400.sternwarte.uni-erlangen.de/ãi26/linfit/linfor.html

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The probabilistic structure of quantum mechanics is investigated in the frequency framework. By using rather complicated frequency calculations we reproduce the EPR-Bohm correlation function which is typically derived by using the calculus of probabilities in a Hilbert space. Our frequency probabilistic model of the EPR-Bohm experiment is a realist model – physical observables are considered as objective properties of physical systems. It is also local – a measurement over one part of a composite system does not disturb another part of this system. Nevertheless, our result does not contradict to the well known Bell’s “NO-GO” theorem. J. Bell used the conventional (Kolmogorov) measure-theoretical approach. We use the frequency approach. In the latter approach there are no reasons to assume that the simultaneous probability distribution exists: corresponding frequencies may fluctuate and not approach any definite limit (which Bell would like to use as the probability). The frequency probabilistic derivation demonstrated that incompatibility of observables under consideration plays the crucial role in producing of the EPR-Bohm correlations.' author: - | Andrei Khrennikov\ International Center for Mathematical Modeling\ in Physics and Cognitive Sciences,\ University of Växjö, S-35195, Sweden\ Email:[email protected] title: 'Frequency derivation of the EPR-Bohm correlations' --- Introduction ============ Since first years of quantum theory, unusual behaviour of probabilities in experiments with quantum systems attracted attention of physicists, mathematicians and even philosophers, see, e.g., \[1\]-\[12\] (see A. Holevo \[11\] for the recent reanalyzing of the statistical structure of quantum theory). The central problem was a rather strange (unconventional) behaviour of probabilities in the two slit experiment and other superposition-type experiments.[^1] The conventional rule for addition of probabilities of alternatives: $$\label{F1} P=P_1+P_2$$ does not work in experiments with elementary particles. Instead of this rule, we have to use quantum rule: $$\label{F2} P=P_1+P_2+2\sqrt{P_1P_2}\cos\theta.$$ This rule could be easily derived by using the method of Hilbert space. However, there is a rather common viewpoint that this rule could not be obtained in the conventional probabilistic framework. Typically it is said that quantum randomness is [*irreducible*]{} – in the opposite to classical randomness that can be (at least in principle) reduced to randomness of initial conditions and perturbations, see e.g. A. Zeilinger \[14\] for an extended discussion.[^2] Such a viewpoint to quantum randomness was strongly supported by investigations on the EPR-Bohm correlations. The crucial step was done by J. Bell \[15\] who by proving his inequality demonstrated that quantum correlations could not be reduced to (local) classical correlations. In \[12\] I performed the careful analysis of standard considerations on quantum probabilities. This analysis demonstrated that the main source of many quantum misunderstandings is vague manipulation with quantum probabilities. Typically physicists (including J. Bell and many others investigating the EPR-Bohm experiment) as well as mathematicians operate with the symbol ${\bf P}$ of an abstract probability measure. This symbol has no direct relation to a concrete experimental situation. However, already N. Bohr pointed out that in quantum theory the whole experimental arrangement should be taken into account. Unfortunately N. Bohr was concentrated merely on dependence of [**individual**]{} quantum events on experimental conditions. In particular, the fundamental notion of [*Bohr’s experimentalism*]{} is the notion of [*phenomenon,*]{} \[16\], \[17\]. Here a phenomenon is an individual event which is determined by the interaction of a quantum system with a measurement apparatus. He discussed the two slit experiment. Here a dot on the registration screen when both slits are open is one phenomenon. A dot when just one slit is open is another phenomenon. Of course, the introduction of the notion of phenomenon was of the greatest importance. However, quantum theory does not provide any description of individual events. This is a [*statistical theory.*]{} Therefore it was essentially more important to underline from the very beginning that quantum probabilities (and not only the results of individual measurements) depend on complexes of experimental physical conditions. Unfortunately it was not done neither by N. Bohr nor by any of his successors. In particular, this induced a rather mystical viewpoint to quantum probabilities as totally different from conventional (classical) probabilities. Starting with the (more or less) evident fact that in general probabilities should depend on complexes of experimental physical conditions – [**contexts**]{} – I developed \[18\] a [*contextual approach to quantum probabilities.*]{} It was demonstrated that the quantum interference rule (\[F2\]) can be easily derived in the contextual probabilistic framework.[^3] In the present paper I present a contextual (frequency) probabilistic derivation of expressions coinciding with the EPR-Bohm correlation functions. It is demonstrated that (in the opposite to a rather common opinion) those correlations can be obtained in the [*local realist*]{} (but contextual) approach if we carefully combine probabilities corresponding to different physical contexts. Our contextual derivation of the EPR-Bohm covariations does not contradict to Bell’s arguments and their generalizations, see e.g. \[21\]. The original Bell arguments were based on calculations with an abstract (context independent) probability distribution ${\bf P}$ on the space of hidden variables. Such calculations are impossible in our contextual probabilistic framework. Another way to obtain Bell’s type inequalities is to use [**counterfactuals**]{}, see, e.g., \[21\]. This way is also closed in the contextual probabilistic framework. As in our previous papers \[18\], we use the [*frequency*]{} contextual probabilistic framework. Probabilities are defined as limits of frequencies in long runs of experiments. Such frequency probabilities directly depend on experimental physical conditions. Our frequency framework is [**contextual**]{} and it is fundamentally different from the frequency framework which was used by many authors, see, e.g. Stapp and Eberhard \[21\], to derive Bell’s inequality. Stapp-like framework is noncontextual. In particular, people freely operated with counterfactual statistical data. The critical analysis of the use of counterfactual data in the EPR-Bohm model was performed by W. De Baere \[22\] who demonstrated that there was no physical justification of the use of counterfactuals. Contextual frequency viewpoint to statistical measurements over composite systems. ================================================================================== Let us consider a preparation procedure ${\cal E}$ that produces a statistical ensemble $S$ of physical (or biological, or social) systems, $\omega \in S.$ We suppose that each element $\omega \in S$ has two properties $a$ and $b$ represented by dichotomous variables $a(\omega)=a_1$ or $a_2$ and $b(\omega)=b_1$ or $b_2.$ We suppose that each of properties $a$ and $b$ is observable: values $a(\omega)$ and $b(\omega)$ can be measured by some measurement procedures ${\cal M}_a$ and ${\cal M}_b,$ respectively. [**Remark 2.1.**]{} (Realism) We use the [**realists approach to physical observables.**]{} They are considered as properties of an object (physical system). In the mathematical framework this means that values of physical observables can be represented as functions $$\label{FFF} a=a(\omega), b=b(\omega),....$$ of a parameter $\omega$ describing a physical system. Such a mathematical model can be called [*functional realists model.*]{} From the very beginning it is important to underline the fundamental difference between this mathematical model and the model which was proposed by J. Bell (and widely used in the EPR-Bohm framework). Bell’s model can be called [*measure-theoretical realists model.*]{} In Bell’s model it is also supposed that physical observables can be represented in the functional form (\[FFF\]). But it is not the end of the story. The second Bell’s fundamental assumption is that there exists a probability measure ${\bf P}$ on the space of parameters $\omega$ such that all physical observables can be mathematically represented as [*random variables*]{} on one fixed (Kolmogorov) probability space. So Bell’s realism is essentially stronger than our functional realism. We shall see that in our “weak-realists" model we can reproduce quantum mechanical expressions for the EPR-Bohm correlations. By Bell’s theorem it is impossible in his “strong-realists" model. In general we could not perform the measurement of the $a$-observable without to disturb the system $\omega.$ Mathematically such a disturbance can be described by some transformation $\omega \to \tilde \omega$ of a probability space. In general, for another observable $b,$ the probability distribution of $b(\omega)$ could differ from the probability distribution of $b(\tilde \omega).$ [^4] The same is valid for the $b$-measurement: it also disturbs the system $\omega, \omega \to \hat{\omega}.$ In general the $a$ and $b$ properties cannot be measured simultaneously. We cannot create such a measurement device ${\cal M}_{ab}$ that will give us the pair $(a(\omega), b(\omega))$ for the fixed element (e.g. a physical system) $\omega\in S.$ Let us now consider two preparation procedures, ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal E}^\prime.$ They produce statistical ensembles, $S$ and $S^\prime$ of physical (or biological, or social) systems, $\omega \in S$ and $\omega^\prime \in S^\prime.$ Elements of $S$ and $S^\prime$ have properties $a(\omega), b(\omega)$ and $a^\prime(\omega^\prime), b^\prime(\omega^\prime),$ respectively. For elements $\omega$ (respectively, $\omega^\prime),$ there are well defined two dichotomous observables $a=a_1, a_2$ and $b=b_1, b_2$ (respectively, $a^\prime=a_1^\prime, a_2^\prime$ and $b^\prime=b_1^\prime, b_2^\prime).$ However, in general $a(\omega)$ and $b(\omega)$ (or $a^\prime(\omega^\prime)$ and $b^\prime(\omega^\prime))$ cannot be measured simultaneously for fixed $\omega \in S$ (or $\omega^\prime \in S^\prime),$ see above considerations. We shall use following statistical ensembles: Ensembles $S_a(k), S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l)$ which are obtained from the ensembles $S$ and $S^\prime,$ respectively, by using selective procedures (filters) with respect to values $a=a_k$ and $a^\prime=a_l^\prime,$ respectively. We remark that the probability distributions of $b$ and $b^\prime$ for measurements performed over elements of ensembles $S_a(k)$ and $S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l)$ can essentially differ from distributions for corresponding sub-ensembles of ensembles $S$ and $S^\prime:$ $$S_{0;a}(k)= \{ \omega \in S: a(\omega)=a_k\}, \;\mbox{and}\; S_{0;a}^\prime(l)=\{ \omega^\prime \in S^\prime: a^\prime(\omega^\prime)=a_k^\prime\}.$$ According to W. Heisenberg in general the selections $a=a_k$ and $a^\prime=a_l^\prime$ can essentially change probability distributions of other observables (e.g., $b$ and $b^\prime).$ Probability distributions of the $b$ and $b^\prime$ for the “hidden sub-ensembles" $S_{0;a}(k),S_{0;a}^{\prime}(l)$ can essentially differ from probability distributions for the selected ensembles $S_a(k), S_a^{\prime}(l).$ [**Remark 2.2.**]{} (Bohr’s complementarity and Heisenberg’s uncertainty) It is well known that N. Bohr proposed the principle of complementarity on the basis of intensive discussions with W. Heisenberg, see, e.g., \[2\]. The derivation of uncertainty relations by W. Heisenberg was of the great importance for N. Bohr. It may be less known that (at least from the beginning) views of N. Bohr and W. Heisenberg were essentially different . Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says that a measurement of, e.g., the position $q$ causes an uncontrollable disturbance of the momentum $p$ and vice versa. Bohr’s complementarity principle says that it is totally meaningless even consider the momentum $p$ in the experimental arrangement for a $q$-measurement. From Bohr’s viewpoint, in this paper we are doing totally forbidden things. However, from Heisenberg’s viewpoint, our considerations look quite natural. For a finite set $O,$ the number of elements in $O$ is denoted by the symbol $\vert O \vert.$ We set $$n_a(k) =\vert S_a(k) \vert, \; n_{a^\prime}(l) =\vert S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l) \vert\;.$$ We shall also use numbers: $$n_{b/a}(i/k)\equiv n_b(i; S_a(k))=\vert \{ \omega \in S_a(k):b(\omega)=b_i\}\vert,$$ $$n_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/l)\equiv n_{b^\prime}(j; S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l))=\vert \{ \omega^\prime \in S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l)): b^\prime(\omega^\prime)=b_j^\prime\}\vert\;,$$ that are numbers of elements in the ensembles $S_a(k)$ and $S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l),$ respectively, for that $b=b_i$ and $b^\prime=b_j^\prime$, respectively. We now introduce following relative frequencies with respect to different ensembles: $$\nu_{b/a}(i/k)\equiv \nu_b(i; S_a(k))= \frac{n_b(i; S_a(k))}{n_a(k)},$$ the frequency to get $b=b_i$ in the ensemble $S_a(k).$ This frequency can be called the [**conditional frequency**]{} of $b=b_i$ under the condition $a=a_k.$ However, we prefer to call it the [**contextual frequency**]{} to distinguish conditioning with respect to a context (given by a new ensemble $S_a(k))$ and conventional conditioning (used, e.g., in the Kolmogorov measure-theoretical model) based on Bayes’ formula for the conditional probability. The conventional approach to conditioning is not contextual. In the conventional approach we should fix from the beginning one single Kolmogorov probability measure ${\bf P}$ and then operate with conditional probabilities with respect to this fixed measure. In the conventional approach: $${\bf P}(b=b_i/a=a_k)= {\bf P}(b=b_i,a=a_k)/ {\bf P}(a=a_k).$$ In the same way we define the contextual frequency for $a^\prime$ and $b^\prime,$ $ \nu_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/l) \equiv \nu_{b^\prime}(j; S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l)). $ In the case when we should underline ensemble dependence (i.e., context dependence) of frequencies we will use the symbols $\nu_b(i; S_a(k)), \nu_{b^\prime}(j; S_{a^\prime}^\prime(l))$ and so on. In technical calculations we will omit ensemble dependence and use symbols $\nu_{b/a}(i/k), \nu_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/l)$ and so on. Suppose that there exists a preparation procedure $G$ which produces pairs $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime)$ of systems, [*composite systems,*]{} such that for each fixed $\omega^\prime$ observations over $\omega$ produce the same statistics as observations over $\omega \in S$ and vice versa. The $G$ produces a statistical ensemble ${\cal S}$ of pairs $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime).$ [^5] In particular, we can choose as a $G$ some preparation procedure which is used for [**preparation of the EPR-pairs in the EPR-Bohm experiment.**]{} However, at the moment we consider a more general framework. We consider following properties of elements of ${\cal S}:{\bf a}(w)= (a(\omega), a^\prime (\omega^\prime))$ and ${\bf b}(w) =(b(\omega), b^\prime(\omega^\prime)).$ We shall use following sub-ensembles of ${\cal S}:$ $${\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}} (kl)= \{ w=(\omega,\omega^\prime) \in {\cal S}: a(\omega)= a_k, a^\prime(\omega^\prime)= a_l^\prime\}\;.$$ We suppose that properties ${\bf a}=(a, a^\prime)$ and ${\bf b}=(b, b^\prime)$ are observable: for any $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime) \in {\cal S}, $ we can measure both $a(\omega)$ and $a^\prime(\omega^\prime)$ (or $b(\omega)$ and $b^\prime(\omega^\prime)).$ Thus a measurement over the part $\omega$ of the system $w$ does not disturb the part $\omega^\prime$ of the system $w$ and vice versa. In particular, such a situation we have in the EPR experiment for correlated quantum particles. In the EPR experiment we can escape mutual disturbances by using [**spatial separation of the parts**]{} $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ of the composite system $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime).$ [^6] We shall also use the statistical ensembles ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl)$ that are obtained from the ensemble ${\cal S}$ by using selective procedures (filters) with respect to values ${\bf a}=(a=a_k, a^\prime= a_l^\prime).$ We remark that the distributions of ${\bf b}$ for elements of the ensemble ${\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}} (kl)$ and the ensemble ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl)$ can differ essentially. The preparation of the later ensemble disturbs composite systems. Nevertheless, we can assume that (at least for large ensembles) $$\label{EQR} n_{\bf a}^0(kl) \equiv \vert {\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}} (kl) \vert= \vert {\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl) \vert \equiv n_{\bf a}(kl),$$ since we create the ensemble ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl)$ by selecting from the ensemble ${\cal S}$ elements belonging to the ensemble ${\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl).$ In our present model the only disturbing feature of this procedure is the change of the ${\bf b}$-distribution.[^7] In the same way we introduce ensembles ${\cal S}_{\bf b}(ij)$ and numbers $n_{\bf b}(ij).$ Finally, we consider $$n_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}^0(ij/kl),\; \mbox{and} \; n_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}(ij/kl)$$ numbers of elements in the ensemble ${\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl)$ and the ensemble ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl)$, respectively, for which ${\bf b}=(b_i, b_j^\prime).$ We now introduce following relative frequencies with respect to different ensembles: $$\nu_{\bf a}(kl) =\frac{n_{\bf a}(kl)}{M}, M=|{\cal S}|,$$ – the frequency to get ${\bf a} =(a_k, a_l^\prime)$ in the ensemble ${\cal S}$ and $$\nu_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}^0(ij/kl)= \frac{n_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}^0(ij/kl)}{n_{\bf a}(kl)},\; \mbox{and}\; \nu_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}(ij/kl)= \frac{n_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}(ij/kl)}{n_{\bf a}(kl)},$$ – the frequencies to get ${\bf b}=(b_i, b_j^\prime)$ in the ensemble ${\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl)$ and the ensemble ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl),$ respectively. These are contextual frequencies – to observe the ${\bf b}=(b_i, b_j^\prime)$ in the contexts ${\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl)$ and ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl),$ respectively. We remark that $\nu_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}^0(ij/kl)$ are “hidden frequencies". We could find them only if it was possible to eliminate the perturbation effect of the ${\bf a}$-selection. This can be done for classical systems, i.e., physical systems which are not sensitive to perturbations corresponding to selections. However, in the general case (in particular, for quantum systems) we cannot eliminate effects of perturbations. We also use frequencies: $\nu_{\bf b}(ij)=\frac{n_{\bf b}(ij)}{M},$ the frequency to get ${\bf b}=(b_i, b_j^\prime)$ in the original ensemble ${\cal S}.$ Finally, we consider frequencies $$\nu_{\bf ba}(ijkl) =\frac{n_{\bf ba}(ijkl)}{M},$$ where $n_{\bf ba}(ijkl)$ is the number of elements in the ensemble ${\cal S}$ for that $$b=b_i, b^\prime=b_j^\prime, a=a_k, a^\prime=a_l^\prime.$$ We notice that the quadruple $({\bf b, a})=(b, b^\prime, a, a^\prime)$ need not be an observable, compare to \[22\]. For example, we could not observe $(\bf b, a)$ if $(b, a)$ or $(b^\prime, a^\prime)$ are not observable. Thus frequencies $\nu_{\bf ba}(ijkl; {\cal S})$ are not observable (they are “hidden"). Since $a, b, {\bf a, b}$ are observables, we can use the principle of [*statistical stabilization for corresponding frequencies.*]{} These frequencies should converge to corresponding probabilities (when we repeat preparation and measurement procedures many times): $$p_{b/a}(i/k)=\lim \nu_{b/a}(i/k)$$ and analogous for $b^\prime;$ and also: $$p_{{\bf a}}(kl) =\lim \nu_{\bf a}(kl);\; p_{{\bf b}}(ij) =\lim \nu_{\bf b}(ij).$$ $$p_{{\bf b/a}}(ij/kl) =\lim \nu_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}} (ij/kl).$$ It should be noticed that in general we can not assume that frequencies $\nu_{{\bf ba}}(ijkl)$ stabilize! So probabilities ${\bf P}(b=b_i, b^\prime=b_j^\prime, a=a_k, a^\prime=a_l^\prime)$ may be not exist at all! In my former probabilistic investigations on foundations of quantum mechanics \[12\] there were modeled situations when the absence of the simultaneous probability distribution (chaotic fluctuations of corresponding frequencies) did not contradict to the existence of probability distribution (i.e., stabilization of frequencies to some limits) for observable quantities. As we have already mentioned, to underline the ensemble dependence we will often use symbols $$\nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}) [\equiv \nu_{{\bf b}}(ij)], \; \; \nu_{\bf a}(kl; {\cal S}) [\equiv \nu_{{\bf a}}(kl)]$$ $$\nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl)) [\equiv \nu_{\bf b}^0(ij;kl)],\;\; \nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl))) [\equiv \nu_{\bf b}(ij;kl)]$$ and so on. We understood that the reader is already tired by considering a large number of various frequencies. This is one of disadvantages of the frequency approach (see R. von Mises \[23\] and my book \[12\] for detail). However, the detailed frequency analysis is the only possible way to provide correct understanding of the experimental situation. By using Bayes-framework (see von Mises for corresponding frequency considerations \[23\]) we can represent frequencies for ${\bf b}=(b_i, b^\prime_j)$ in the ensemble ${\cal S}$ in the following way $$\nu_{{\bf b}}(ij)=\frac{n_{{\bf b}}(ij)}{M}= \frac{1}{M}\sum_{k,l=1}^2 n_{{\bf b a}}(ijkl)= \sum_{k,l=1}^2 \nu_{{\bf ba}}(ijkl)$$ $$=\sum_{k,l=1}^2 \nu_{{\bf a}}(kl) \nu_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}^0 (ij/kl).$$ However, in general we could not proceed in classical-like way, namely to take the limits of all frequencies on both sides of this equality. Here the frequencies $\nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}), \nu_{\bf a}(kl; {\cal S})$ have limits (since quantities ${\bf b}$ and ${\bf a}$ are observable), but the frequencies $\nu_{\bf b} (ij; {\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl))$ need not. This is a consequence of the fact that the frequencies $\nu_{\bf ba}(ijkl; {\cal S})$ need not stabilize. But even if they stabilize the corresponding probabilities are not observable. Therefore such probabilities should be eliminated from considerations. On the other hand, we know that the frequencies $\nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl))$ definitely stabilize. So we can modify the Bayesian framework by using latter frequencies. Taking into account the ensemble dependence, we write: $$\nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S})=\sum_{k, l=1}^2 \nu_{\bf a} (kl; {\cal S}) \nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S_{\bf a}}(kl))+ \delta(ij; {\cal S, {\cal S}_{\bf a}}),$$ where $${\delta}(ij; {\cal S, \cal S}_{\bf a}) =\sum_{k,l=1}^2 \nu_{\bf a}(kl; {\cal S}) [\nu_{\bf b}(ij, {\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(kl))-\nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl))]$$ is an [*disturbance term*]{} which is induced by the transition from the ensemble ${\cal S}$ to selected ensembles ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl).$ We remark that $\delta=\delta^{(M)},$ where $M$ is the number of particles in the ensemble ${\cal S}.$ By taking the limit when $M \to \infty$ we get: $$\label{TRD} p_{\bf b}(ij)=\sum_{k,l=1}^2 p_{\bf a}(kl) p_{\bf b/a}(ij/kl)+\bar{\delta}_{{\bf b/a}}(ij),$$ where $$\label{TRDL} \bar{\delta}_{\bf b/a}(ij) = \lim_{M\to \infty} \delta^{(M)}.$$ Probabilities $p_{\bf b/a}(ij/kl)= \lim_{M\to \infty} \nu_{\bf b}(ij; {\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl))$ can be considered as frequency conditional probabilities. However, we prefer to call them [*contextual probabilities,*]{} see the previous discussion on relative frequencies. [**Remark 2.3.**]{} (Bell-Kolmogorov realism) By using Bell’s approach to realism we would obtain the conventional formula of total probability: $$\label{TRDT} p_{\bf b}(ij)=\sum_{k,l=1}^2 p_{\bf a}(kl) p_{\bf b/a}(ij/kl).$$ It would be the end of the story: we would not be able to proceed and to obtain the EPR-Bohm type correlation functions. [**Remark 2.4.**]{} (Entanglement) The presence of a nontrivial disturbance term $\bar{\delta}_{\bf b/a}(ij)\not =0$ for composite systems is related to the phenomenon which is known in the conventional quantum formalism as entanglement. We can say that if $\bar{\delta}_{\bf b/a}(ij)\not =0$ for a composite system $w=(\omega,\omega^\prime)$ then the parts $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ of such a system are entangled. If $\bar{\delta}_{\bf b/a}(ij)=0$ then they are disentangled. We now formulate the above result – representation (\[TRD\]) – as the mathematical proposition. Let $\{ {\cal S}^{(M)}\}$ be a sequence of ensembles such that $\vert {\cal S}^{(M)}\vert =M.$ Let $\{ {\cal S}_{\bf a}^{(M)}\}$ be a family (depending on the parameter ${\bf a} =(a_k, a_l^\prime))$ of sequences of ensembles such that $a(\omega)=a_k$ and $a^\prime(\omega^\prime)=a_l^\prime$ for any $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime) \in {\cal S}_{\bf a}^{(M)}$ and the equality (\[EQR\]) holds true. In general ensembles ${\cal S}_{\bf a}^{(M)}$ have no special relation to ensembles ${\cal S}^{(M)}.$ The equation (\[EQR\]) connecting numbers of elements in the corresponding ensembles is the unique constraint coupling those ensembles. [**Proposition 2.1.**]{} [*Suupose that the marginal (frequency) probabilities $p_a,..., p_{b^\prime}, p_{\bf a}, p_{\bf b}$ with respect to $\{ {\cal S}^{(M)}\}$ are well defined [^8] and the probabilities $p_{\bf b}$ with respect to $\{ {\cal S}_{\bf a}^{(M)}\}$ are well defined [^9] for each value of the parameter ${\bf a}.$ Then there exists the limit (\[TRDL\]) of the entanglement terms $\delta^{(M)}\equiv {\delta}(ij; {\cal S}^{(M)} , {\cal S}_{\bf a}^{(M)})$ and the (frequency) probability $p_{\bf b}(ij)$ can be represented in the form (\[TRD\]).*]{} We are looking for a transformation of probabilities which would give the possibility for representing the probabilities $$p_{{\bf b}}(ij)={\bf P}_{\cal S}(b=b_i, b^\prime=b_j^\prime)$$ by using probabilities $p_{{\bf b/a}}(ij/kl).$ We underline that the latter probabilities can be found experimentally. We shall study the case, when the probability $p_{\bf b/a}$ can be factorized: $$\label{F} p_{\bf b/a}(ij/kl)=p_{b/a}(i;k)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j;l) .$$ Of course, the reader understand that (\[F\]) is a kind of [*independence condition.*]{} We remark that in the frequency framework (see R. von Mises \[23\]) independence is not independence of events, but independence of experiments (independence of collectives). The physical meaning of condition (\[F\]) is the standard one: independence of choices of settings of measurement devices for measurements over parts $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ of the composite system $w= (\omega,\omega^\prime).$ [**Remark 2.5.**]{} (Locality and outcome independence) In principle, by analogy with Bell’s measure-theoretical probabilistic approach to locality we can interpret the independence condition (\[F\]) as a [**locality**]{} condition. Of course, the reader can be unsatisfied by such an approach to locality, since space-variables are not at all involved into our considerations. But the same critique can be directed against the original Bell’s approach to locality: he neither considered space-variables, see \[24\], \[25\] for detail. In principle we can call our model [**frequency probabilistic local**]{} model. On the other hand, it seems more natural to speak just about [*outcome independence*]{} (as many authors do in the EPR-Bohm framework). Under the outcome independence condition (\[F\]) we have $$\label{TRD1} p_{\bf b}(ij)=\sum_{k,l=1}^2 p_{{\bf a}}(kl) p_{b/a}(i/k) p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/l)+ \bar{{\delta}}_{{\bf b}/{\bf a}}(ij).$$ We now consider one very special case, namely an ensemble ${\cal S}$ of[*anticorrelated systems.*]{} Here: $$\label{a} p_{\bf a}(kk)={\bf P}(a=a_k, a^\prime=a_k^\prime)=0.$$ In such a case the probability to obtain the result $(a=a_1, a^\prime=a_1^\prime)$ or $(a=a_2, a^\prime=a_2^\prime)$ is equal to zero (for example, we can consider values $a_1,a_1^\prime =+1$ and $a_2,a_2^\prime= -1).$ In this case the entanglement term $\delta(ij;{\cal S}, {\cal S}_{\bf a})$ contains only [**nondiagonal**]{} nontrivial terms: $${\delta}(ij;{\cal S}, {\cal S}_{\bf a}) \approx \nu_{{\bf a}}(12; {\cal S}) [\nu_{\bf b}(ij;{\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(12))-\nu_{\bf b}(ij;{\cal S}_{\bf a}(12))]$$ $$+ \nu_{\bf a}(21;{\cal S})[\nu_{\bf b}(ij;{\cal S}_{0;{\bf a}}(21))- \nu_{\bf b}(ij;{\cal S}_{\bf a}(21))].$$ We renormalize $\bar{{\delta}}_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)= \lim_{M\to \infty}{\delta}^{(M)}(ij; {\cal S}, {\cal S}_{\bf a})$ by introducing a new entanglement coefficient $$\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)= \frac{\bar{{\delta}}_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)}{2\sqrt{p_{\bf a}(12) p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b/a}(i/2) p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)}}\;.$$ Thus we get the general probabilistic transformation for anti-correlated systems (under the outcome independence condition (\[F\])) : $$p_{\bf b}(ij)=p_{\bf a}(12)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)+ p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/2)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)$$ $$\label{TRD2} + 2\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij) \sqrt{p_{\bf a}(12)p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b/a}(i/2) p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)}$$ Entanglement coefficients $\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)$ can have various magnitudes (depending on perturbation effects induced by the transitions from ${\cal S}$ to ${\cal S}_{\bf a}(kl)).$ We consider various possibilities: 1\. [**The case of relatively small statistical perturbations.**]{} Let all entanglement coefficients $|\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)|\leq 1$. We can represent these coefficients in the form $\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)=\cos \theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)$ where $\theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij) \in [0,2\pi)$ are some “phases".[^10] Thus we get the following [*trigonometric entanglement of probabilities*]{} (compare to \[18\], \[19\] for noncomposite systems): $$p_{\bf b}(ij)=p_{\bf a}(12)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)+ p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/2)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)+$$ $$\label{TRb} 2\cos \theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij) \sqrt{p_{\bf a}(12)p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b/a}(i/2)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)}$$ This is quantum-like case. In the conventional quantum formalism this equation can be obtained by using a linear transformation in the tensor product of two ${\bf C}$-linear spaces $H_1$ and $H_2.$ We now formulate the above result – representation (\[TRb\]) – as the mathematical theorem: [**Theorem 1.**]{} [*Let conditions of proposition 1, the outcome independence condition (\[F\]), and the anticorrelation condition (\[a\]) hold true. If all entanglement coefficients $\vert \lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)\vert \leq 1$ then the (frequency) probabilities $p_{\bf b}(ij)$ can be represented in the form (\[TRb\]).*]{} By using the frequency probabilistic version of Bell’s (measure-theoretical) terminology, see Remark 2.5., we can formulate this result in the following way: [**Theorem 1a.**]{} [*In the local realists (frequency) framework for anticorrelated systems with entanglement coefficients $\vert \lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)\vert \leq 1$ we have the representation (\[TRb\]) of the (frequency) probabilities for measurements on the parts $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ of the composite system $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime).$*]{} 2\. [**Relatively large statistical perturbations.**]{} Let all entanglement coefficients $|\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)|> 1.$ We can represent these coefficients in the form $\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)=\pm \cosh \theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij),$ where $\theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij) \in (0, + \infty)$ are “hyperbolic phases". Thus we get the following [*hyperbolic entanglement of probabilities*]{}: $$p_{\bf b}(ij)=p_{\bf a}(12)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)+ p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/2)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)$$ $$\label{TRCC} \pm 2 \cosh \theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij) \sqrt{p_{\bf a}(12) p_{\bf a}(21)p_{b/a}(i/1)p_{b/a}(i/2)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(j/2)}$$ This equation can be induced by a linear transformation in the tensor product of two hyperbolic spaces $H_1$ and $H_2$ \[18\] (modules over a two dimensional Clifford algebra). 3\. [**Mixed behaviour.**]{} Let some $|\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)|\leq 1$ and some $|\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)| > 1.$ Here we get a mixture of trigonometric and hyperbolic entanglements. We do not know anything about the possibility to represent such mixed probabilistic transformations in linear spaces (or modules). “Polarization probabilities" ============================ Let us consider in more detail the case of relatively small perturbation effects, namely $\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)=\cos \theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij).$ Let us consider an ensemble of anti-correlated with respect to the ${\bf a}$-observable systems. We make the following simple remark: $$\label{SS1} p_{b/a}(1/1)+p_{b/a}(2/1)={\bf P}(b=b_1; S_a(1))+{\bf P}(b=b_2; S_a(1))=1 ,$$ $$\label{SS2} p_{b/a}(1/2)+p_{b/a}(2/2)={\bf P}(b=b_1; S_a(2))+{\bf P}(b=b_2; S_a(2))=1 .$$ Here the probabilities $p_{b/a}(i/k)\equiv {\bf P}(b=b_i; S_a(k))$ are the probabilities to find $b=b_i$ for an element $\omega \in S_a(k).$ Condition (\[SS1\]), (\[SS2\]) is well known condition of [*stochasticity*]{} of the matrix of transition probabilities ${\bf P}(b/a)$. We remark that this condition is always satisfied automatically. This is the conventional condition of additivity of probability of alternatives for one fixed context (in the mathematical formalism – one fixed Kolmogorov probability space). The same condition we have for $b^\prime$ and $a^\prime$. Thus we can always set: $$p_{b/a}(1/1)=\cos^2 \xi_1, p_{b/a}(2/1)(b/a)=\sin^2 \xi_1;$$ $$p_{b/a}(1/2)=\sin^2 \xi_2, p_{b/a}(2/2)=\cos^2 \xi_2$$ with some (probabilistic) “phases" $\xi_1, \xi_2 \in [0,\pi/2];$ we can also use a similar trigonometric representation for $b^\prime/a^\prime$ probabilities. We study only the [*symmetric case*]{} in our further investigations: $$\label{S} p_{\bf a}(12)=p_{\bf a}(21)=1/2,$$ so ${\bf P}(a=a_1, a^\prime=a_2^\prime; {\cal S})={\bf P}(a=a_2, a^\prime=a_1^\prime)=1/2.$ In the symmetric case we have, for example, that $$p_{{\bf b}}(11)= \frac{1}{2} [p_{b/a}(1/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(1/2)+ p_{b/a}(1/2) p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(1/1)]$$ $$+ 2 \cos \theta_{11} \sqrt{p_{b/a}(1/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(1/2)p_{b/a}(1/2) p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(1/1)} .$$ Thus: $$p_{\bf b}(11)=\frac{1}{2} [\cos^2 \xi_1 \sin^2 \xi_2^\prime + \sin^2 \xi_2 \cos^2 \xi_2^\prime]$$ $$\label{PR} +\cos \theta_{11} \cos \xi_1 \cos \xi_1^\prime \sin \xi_2 \sin \xi_2^\prime \;.$$ This is the general expression for the trigonometric transformation of probabilities when the matrixes ${\bf P}(b/a)=(p_{b/a}(i/j)), {\bf P}(b^\prime/a^\prime)=(p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(i/j))$ are [*stochastic.*]{} We now consider more special case: matrixes ${\bf P}(b/a)$ and ${\bf P}(b^\prime/a^\prime)$ are [*double stochastic.*]{}[^11] Here, not only $p_{b/a}(1/j)+p_{b/a}(2/j)=1, j=1,2,$ but also $p_{b/a}(i/1) + p_{b/a}(i/2) =1, i=1,2.$ Thus we can set $\alpha \equiv \xi_1= \xi_2$ and $\beta\equiv \xi_1^\prime=\xi_2^\prime.$ We get: $$p_{\bf b}(11)=\frac{1}{2}(\cos^2{\alpha}\sin^2 \beta + \sin^2 {\alpha}\cos^2\beta)+ \cos \theta_{11} \cos {\alpha}\cos \beta \sin {\alpha}\sin \beta$$ $$= \frac{1}{2} (\cos {\alpha}\sin \beta - \sin {\alpha}\cos \beta)^2+ (1+\cos \theta_{11}) \cos {\alpha}\cos \beta \sin {\alpha}\sin \beta$$ $$= \frac{1}{2} \sin^2 ({\alpha}-\beta)+(1+\cos \theta_{11}) \cos {\alpha}\cos \beta \sin {\alpha}\sin \beta .$$ In the same way we get that, for example, $$p_{{\bf b}}(12)=\frac{1}{2} [ p_{b/a}(1/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(2/2)+ p_{b/a}(1/2) p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(2/1)]$$ $$+2 \cos \theta_{12} \sqrt{p_{b/a}(1/1)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(2/2)p_{b/a}(1/2)p_{b^\prime/a^\prime}(2/1)}\;.$$ Thus, for stochastic matrixes ${\bf P}_{b/a}$ and ${\bf P}_{b^\prime/a^\prime},$ we get: $$p_{\bf b}(12)=\frac{1}{2}(\cos^2 \xi_1 \cos^2 \xi_2^\prime + \sin^2 \xi_2 \sin^2 \xi_1^\prime)$$ $$\label{EU} +\cos \theta_{12} \cos \xi_1 \cos \xi_2^\prime \sin \xi_2 \sin \xi_1^\prime$$ For double stochastic matrices ${\bf P}_{b/a}$ and ${\bf P}_{b^\prime/a^\prime}$, we get: $$\label{EUY} p_{\bf b}(12)=\frac{1}{2}(\cos^2{\alpha}\cos^2\beta + \sin^2 {\alpha}\sin^2 \beta) + \cos \theta_{12} \cos {\alpha}\cos \beta \sin {\alpha}\sin \beta$$ $$= \frac{1}{2} (\cos {\alpha}\cos \beta - \sin {\alpha}\sin \beta)^2 - (1-\cos \theta_{12})\cos {\alpha}\cos \beta \sin {\alpha}\sin \beta,$$ $$...............$$ We can formulate this result as the mathematical proposition: [**Proposition 3.1.**]{} [*Let conditions of theorem 1 hold true, probabilities are symmetric, (\[S\]), and the matrices of transition probabilities are double stochastic. Then we have the representations (\[EUY\]),..., of the (frequency) probabilities $p_{\bf b}(ij).$*]{} Suppose now that in experiments under consideration perturbation effects are such that $$\cos\theta_{11}=-1 \; \mbox{and}\; \cos \theta_{12}=1.$$ Here all entanglement coefficients $\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)$ have their maximal magnitudes: $$\label{MG} |\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)|=1.$$ Thus [*perturbations of probability distributions are very strong – as strong as possible in the case of trigonometric probabilistic behaviour.*]{} In such a case we get, for $\gamma = 2 \alpha$ and $\gamma^\prime = 2 \beta,$ $$\label{TP} p_{\bf b}(ii)={\bf P}(b=b_i, b^\prime=b_i^\prime; {\cal S})= \frac{1}{2}\sin^2 \frac{\gamma^\prime-\gamma}{2}$$ $$\label{TP1} p_{\bf b}(ij)={\bf P}(b=b_i, b^\prime=b_j; {\cal S})= \frac{1}{2}\cos^2 \frac{\gamma^\prime-\gamma}{2}, i \not = j.$$ Finally, we formulate the following theorem: [**Theorem 3.1.**]{} [*Let conditions of proposition 3.1 hold true and let all entanglement coefficients have the maximal magnitude, $\vert \lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)\vert=1.$ Then the (frequency) probabilities $p_{\bf b}(ij)$ can be represented in the form, (\[TP\]), (\[TP1\]), of the EPR-Bohm probabilities.*]{} By using the frequency probabilistic version of Bell’s (measure-theoretical) terminology, see Remark 2.5., we can formulate this result in the following way: [**Theorem 3.1a.**]{} [*In the local realists (frequency) probabilistic framework for anticorrelated systems with symmetric probability distributions, double stochastic matrices of transition probabilities, and entanglement terms $\vert\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)\vert=1,$ the (frequency) probabilities for measurements on the parts $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ of the composite system $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime)$ can be represented in the form of the EPR-Bohm probabilities.*]{} Thus we have obtained probabilities corresponding to experiments of the EPR-Bohm type on polarization measurements for correlated pairs of photons or spin measurements for electrons. To be closer to such experimental situation, we can also assume, that $a, a^\prime, b, b^\prime=\pm 1.$ The condition of anti-correlation for the observable $a$ in this case is the following one: $${\bf P}(a=+1, a^\prime=+1;{\cal S})={\bf P}(a=-1, a^\prime=-1; {\cal S})=0 .$$ Thus we have $$a(\omega)a^\prime (\omega^\prime)=-1$$ for almost all pairs $w=(\omega, \omega^\prime)\in {\cal S}.$ This is precisely the situation that we have in the EPR-Bohm experiments. We now fix the direction $x$ and choose the ${\bf a} =(a, a^\prime)$ measurement as the measurement of projections of spins of correlated particles on the same axis $x.$ Here $${\bf P}(a=+1,a^\prime=+1)={\bf P}(a =-1, a^\prime=-1) = 0 ,$$ $${\bf P}(a =+1, a^\prime=-1)= {\bf P}(a=-1, a^\prime =+1) = \frac{1}{2}.$$ We now choose in our general scheme $b=M_{\gamma}$ and $b^\prime=M_{\gamma^\prime}^\prime,$ where $M_{\gamma}, M_{\gamma^\prime}^\prime$ are spin projections to directions having angles $\gamma, \gamma^\prime$, with the $x$-direction. In this case our general result (\[TP\]), (\[TP1\]) gives correct quantum mechanical probabilities ${\bf P}(M_{\gamma}=\pm 1, M_{\gamma^\prime}^\prime=\pm 1).$ An important consequence of our derivation is that EPR-Bohm probabilities might be in principle obtained in experiments with (classical) [*macroscopic systems.*]{} We cannot present the concrete experimental framework. But in the contextual (frequency) model there are no “NO-GO" theorems which would imply the impossibility of obtaining probabilities of the EPR-Bohm form in experiments with classical systems. We note that phases $\theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)$ are not independent. We have in the case of general stochastic transition matrixes: $$1=p_{{\bf b}}(11)+p_{{\bf b}}(22)+p_{{\bf b}}(12)+p_{{\bf b}}(21)$$ $$=\frac{1}{2}(\cos^2 \xi_1 \sin^2 \xi_2^\prime + \sin^2 \xi_2 \cos^2 \xi_1^\prime + \cos^2 \xi_2 \sin^2 \xi_1^\prime$$ $$+ \sin^2 \xi_1 \cos^2 \xi_2^\prime + \cos^2 \xi_1 \cos^2 \xi_2^\prime + \sin^2 \xi_2 \sin^2 \xi_1^\prime +\cos^2 \xi_2 \cos^2 \xi_1^\prime + \sin^2 \xi_1 \sin^2 \xi_2^\prime)$$ $$+\cos \theta_{11} \cos \xi_1 \cos \xi_1^\prime \sin \xi_2 \sin \xi_2^\prime + \ldots + \cos \theta_{21} \cos \xi_2 \cos \xi_1^\prime \sin \xi_1 \sin \xi_2^\prime$$ Thus we get $$\cos \theta_{11} \cos \xi_1 \cos \xi_1^\prime \sin \xi_2 \sin \xi_2^\prime + \ldots + + \cos \theta_{21} \cos \xi_2 \cos \xi_2^\prime \sin \xi_1 \sin \xi_2^\prime =0 .$$ In the case of double stochastic transition matrixes, we get: $$\cos {\alpha}\sin {\alpha}\cos \beta \sin \beta (\cos \theta_{11} + \cos \theta_{22} + \cos \theta_{12}+\cos \theta_{21})=0.$$ If ${\alpha}, \beta \not = \frac{\pi}{2} k, k = 1, 2, \ldots,$ then we get $$\cos \theta_{11} + \cos \theta_{12} + \cos\theta_{22} + \cos \theta_{21}=0.$$ We recall that phases in the derivation of “polarization probabilities" were the following ones: $$\cos \theta_{11}=-1, \cos \theta_{12}=1, \cos \theta_{22}=-1, \cos \theta_{21}=1 .$$ Contextuality, incompatibility, nonexistence of the simultaneous probability distribution ========================================================================================= Of course, our general statistical description of measurements over composite systems does not provide a description of physical processes that could induce such probabilistic phases. However, we demonstrated that only by taking into account [**incompatibility**]{} of some physical observables for composite systems we can derive probabilities having the EPR-Bohm form in the local realist (frequency) framework, compare to \[22\]. We remark that in our probabilistic framework incompatibility of physical observables is equivalent to [**contextuality of probabilities**]{}, i.e., statistically nontrivial dependence of probabilities on complexes of experimental physical conditions. We have seen that to get the EPR-Bohm probabilities the coefficients of entanglement (which give the measure of disturbance of probability distributions by measurements) should be of the maximal magnitude.[^12] Here the crucial role is played by [*incompatibility*]{} of observables ${\bf a}= (a, a^\prime)$ and ${\bf b}= (b, b^\prime)$ on composite systems. By measuring of ${\bf a}$ (on a composite system) we disturb very strongly the probability distribution of ${\bf b}.$ We emphasize again that we do not speak about the influence of a measurement on one part of a composite system onto another part of this system. There is discussed disturbance of a composite system. For example, if we perform the measurements of the polarization in the $x$-direction on both photons (in a EPR-Bohm pair), then by this act the probability distribution of polarizations in other directions would be changes very strongly. In fact, as was remarked, we need the coefficient of statistical entanglement of the maximal magnitude. Finally, we remark that in our approach the coefficient of entanglement has merely the meaning of the coefficient of interference between incompatible observables. The Bell theorem tells us that incompatible observables with so strong statistical disturbances cannot be realized on a space with a single probability measure. However, in the frequency probabilistic approach there are no reasons for the existence of such a measure for incompatible observables.[^13] [**Conclusion:**]{} [*In fact, in this paper I did with Bell’s approach more or less the same thing as J. Bell did with approaches of von Neumann, Kohen and Specker,... Both J. Bell and I speak about mathematical models of local realism. As J. Bell underlined there can be proposed various mathematical models of realism (and local realism). In particular, J. Bell denied approaches of von Neumann and Kohen and Specker and presented his own mathematical model. Many things which were impossible in previous mathematical models became possible in Bell’s model. I use a mathematical model of realism which is essentially “weaker” than Bell’s model, see Remark 2.1. Therefore some things which were forbidden in Bell’s model are possible in my model. In particular, we can obtain the EPR-Bohm probabilities in spite of Bell’s theorem.*]{} I would like to thank L. Ballentine, S. Gudder, W. De Muynck, A. Holevo, K. Gustafsson, I. Volovich for fruitful (and rather critical) discussions. [**References**]{} \[1\] P. A. M. Dirac, [*The Principles of Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Oxford Univ. Press, 1930). \[2\] W. Heisenberg, [*Physical principles of quantum theory.*]{} (Chicago Univ. Press, 1930). \[3\] N. Bohr, [*Phys. Rev.,*]{} [**48**]{}, 696-702 (1935). \[4\] J. von Neumann, [*Mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics*]{} (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1955). \[5\] R. Feynman and A. Hibbs, [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New-York, 1965). \[6\] A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory. (Nauka, Moscow, 1980; North Holland, 1982). \[7\] A. Peres, [*Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods*]{} (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994). \[8\] G. Ludwig, [*Foundations of quantum mechanics,*]{} v.1. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1983). \[9\] P. Busch, M. Grabowski, P. Lahti, [*Operational Quantum Physics*]{} (Springer Verlag, 1995). \[10\] E. Beltrametti and G. Cassinelli, [*The logic of Quantum mechanics.*]{} (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1981). \[11\] Holevo, A.S.. Statistical structure of quantum theory. (Lect. Notes Phys., 67, Berlin, 2001). \[12\] A.Yu. Khrennikov, [*Interpretations of probability*]{} (VSP Int. Publ., Utrecht, 1999). \[13\] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. Sands, [*The Feynman lectures on physics.*]{} [**3**]{}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusets (1965). \[14\] A. Zeilinger, On the interpretation and philosophical foundations of quantum mechanics. in [*Vastakohtien todellisuus.*]{} Festschrift for K.V. Laurikainen. U. Ketvel et al. (eds). (Helsinki Univ. Press, 1996). \[15\] J. S. Bell, [*Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics.*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). \[16\] N. Bohr, [*Niels Bohr: Collected works.*]{} [**1-10**]{} (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1972-1996). \[17\] A. Plotnitsky, [*Quantum atomicity and quantum information: Bohr, Heisenber, and quantum mechanics as an information theory.*]{} Proc. Int. Conf. “Quantum Theory: Reconsideration of Foundations”. Ser. Math. Modelling in Phys., Engin., and Cogn. Sc., ed.: A. Khrennikov, 309-342, Växjö Univ. Press, 2002. \[18\] A. Yu. Khrennikov, [*J. Phys.A: Math. Gen.,*]{} [**34**]{}, 9965-9981 (2001); [*Il Nuovo Cimento,*]{} [**B 117,**]{} 267-281 (2002); [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**43**]{}, 789-802 (2002). \[19\] L. Accardi, The probabilistic roots of the quantum mechanical paradoxes. [*The wave–particle dualism. A tribute to Louis de Broglie on his 90th Birthday,*]{} ed. S. Diner, D. Fargue, G. Lochak and F. Selleri (D. Reidel Publ. Company, Dordrecht, 297–330, 1984); L. Accardi, [*Urne e Camaleoni: Dialogo sulla realta, le leggi del caso e la teoria quantistica.*]{} (Il Saggiatore, Rome, 1997). L. Accardi and M. Regoli, Locality and Bell’s inequality. [*Foundations of Probability and Physics,*]{} [*Q. Prob. White Noise Anal.*]{}, [**13**]{}, 1-28 (WSP, Singapore, 2001). \[20\] S. P. Gudder, Trans. AMS 119, 428 (1965); [*J. Math Phys.,*]{} [**25**]{}, 2397- 2401 (1984). S. P. Gudder, [*Axiomatic quantum mechanics and generalized probability theory*]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1970). S. P. Gudder, An approach to quantum probability, in: A. Yu. Khrennikov (Ed.), [*Foundations of Probability and Physics, Q. Prob. White Noise Anal.*]{}, [**13,**]{} 147-156, WSP, Singapore, 2001. \[21\] J.F. Clauser , M.A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Letters, [**49**]{}, 1804-1806 (1969); J.F. Clauser , A. Shimony, Rep. Progr.Phys., [**41**]{} 1881-1901 (1978). D. Home, F. Selleri, Nuovo Cim. Rivista, [**14**]{}, 2–176 (1991). H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev., D, [**3**]{}, 1303-1320 (1971); P.H. Eberhard, Il Nuovo Cimento, B, [**38**]{}, N.1, 75-80(1977); Phys. Rev. Letters, [**49**]{}, 1474-1477 (1982); A. Peres, Am. J. of Physics, [**46**]{}, 745-750 (1978). P. H. Eberhard, Il Nuovo Cimento, B, [**46**]{}, N.2, 392-419 (1978); J. Jarrett, Noûs, [**18**]{}, 569 (1984). \[22\] W. De Baere, [*Lett. Nuovo Cimento,*]{} [**39**]{}, 234 (1984); [**40**]{}, 448 (1984). W. De Muynck and W. De Baere W., Ann. Israel Phys. Soc., [**12**]{}, 1-22 (1996); W. De Muynck, W. De Baere, H. Marten, Found. of Physics, [**24**]{}, 1589–1663 (1994); W. De Muynck, J.T. Stekelenborg, Annalen der Physik, [**45**]{}, N.7, 222-234 (1988). \[23\] R. von Mises, [*The mathematical theory of probability and statistics*]{} (Academic, London, 1964). \[24\] A. Khrennikov, I. Volovich, A. Yu. Khrennikov, I. Volovich, Local Realism, Contextualism and Loopholes in Bell‘s Experiments. quant-ph/0212127. \[25\] A.Yu. Khrennikov, I.V. Volovich, [*Quantum Nonlocality, EPR Model, and Bell‘s Theorem*]{}, Proceedings of the 3nd Sakharov conference on physics, Moscow, 2002, World Sci., vol.2, pp.269-276 (2003). \[26\] A. Fine, Phys. Rev. Letters, [**48**]{}, 291–295 (1982); P. Rastal, Found. Phys., [**13**]{}, 555 (1983). [^1]: According to Feynman et al. \[13\] this is “... a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. It really contains the [*only*]{} mystery." [^2]: However, compare with, e.g., A. Holevo \[11\]. [^3]: My investigations were not the first contextual investigations on quantum probabilities, see, e.g., L. Accardi \[19\] – camelion effect (and the corresponding applications to the EPR-experiment), or S. Gudder \[20\] – the theory of probability manifolds. [^4]: Thus we continue by using Heisenberg’s viewpoint that mutual perturbations should be taken into account in theory of measurement. W. Heisenberg discussed this problem in the context of quantum measurements. However, there are no reasons that such disturbance effects could be important only in experiments with quantum systems. [^5]: So the restriction to the preparation procedure $G$ is that marginal distributions with respect to $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ systems coincide with distributions with respect to ensembles $S$ and $S^\prime$ produced by preparation procedures ${\cal E}$ and ${\cal E}^\prime.$ [^6]: However, spatial separation is only the sufficient condition under that the ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ are observable. In general spatial separation need not be involved in our considerations (at least for macroscopic systems). [^7]: In principle, we could study more general models in that $n_{\bf a}^0(kl) \not= n_{\bf a}(kl)$ (even approximately). [^8]: Here, e.g., $p_{\bf a}(kl)= \lim_{M\to \infty} \nu( a=a_k, a^\prime= a^\prime_l; {\cal S}^{(M)}).$ [^9]: Here $p_{\bf b}(ij/kl)= \lim_{M\to \infty} \nu( b=b_i, b^\prime= b^\prime_j; {\cal S}_{\bf a}^{(M)}),$ where ${\bf a} =(a_k, a_l^\prime).$ [^10]: In our framework “phases" $\theta_{{\bf b/a}}(ij)$ are purely probabilistic parameters. This is just a new representation for the entanglement coefficients $\lambda_{{\bf b/a}}(ij).$ Of course, as it often occurs in probability theory, in some cases those probabilistic “phases" could have a geometric meaning. [^11]: We remark that matrices in the EPR-Bohm experiment are double stochastic. [^12]: It would be interesting to investigate the relation between the magnitude of our frequency coefficient of entanglement and violation of Bell’s inequality. [^13]: May be our frequency probabilistic investigation can clarify the well known results of A. Fine and P. Rastal \[26\].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Effects of correlated disorder on wave localization have attracted considerable interest. Motivated by the importance of studies of quantum transport in rough nanowires, here we examine how colored surface roughness impacts the conductance of two-dimensional quantum waveguides, using direct scattering calculations based on the reaction matrix approach. The computational results are analyzed in connection with a theoretical relation between the localization length and the structure factor of correlated disorder. We also examine and discuss several cases that have not been treated theoretically or are beyond the validity regime of available theories. Results indicate that conductance properties of quantum wires are controllable via colored surface disorder.' author: - 'Gursoy B. Akguc' - Jiangbin Gong title: Conductance properties of rough quantum wires with colored surface disorder --- Introduction ============ Ever since Anderson’s model of electron transport in disordered crystals [@Anderson], wave localization in disordered media has attracted great interests due to their universality. For example, two recent experiments directly observed matter-wave localization in disordered optical potentials using Bose-Einstein condensates [@BECexp1; @BECexp2]. One of the most known results from Anderson’s model is that in one-dimensional (1D) disordered systems, the electron wavefunction is always exponentially localized and hence does not contribute to conductance for any given strength of disorder. Note however, this seminal result is based on the strong assumption that the disorder is of the white noise type. If the disorder is colored due to long-range correlations, then a mobility edge may occur in one-dimensional systems as well [@izprl]. Quantum transport in nanowires is of great interest due to their potential applications in nanotechnology. In addition to the possibility of ballistic electron transport, quantum nanowires are found to show many other important properties. In particular, silicon nanowires can have better electronic response time [@Ramayya] as well as desirable thermoelectric properties [@thermo]. It is hence important to ask how the nature of surface disorder of quantum wires, modeled by quantum waveguides in this study, affects their conductance properties. Remarkably, if the surface scattering contribution is weak, then it is possible to map the conduction problem of a long two-dimensional (2D) rough waveguide to that of a 1D Anderson model of localization, with the disorder potential determined by the surface roughness [@firsttime; @freilikher]. Initially this mapping was established for one-mode scattering but later it was generalized for any number of modes in the transverse direction [@izoptic]. As such, a quantum wire with white-noise surface disorder will have zero conductance if the localization length is much smaller than the wire length. However, in reality the surface disorder of a rough quantum wire always contains correlations. As a result it becomes interesting and necessary to understand the conductance properties in rough quantum wires with their surface disorder modeled by colored noise. This has motivated several pioneering theoretical studies [@firsttime; @freilikher; @izoptic; @izprl; @Alberto; @Bagci]. Under certain approximations the theoretical studies predicted localization-delocalization transitions of electrons in 2D waveguides with colored surface disorder. Some theoretical details were tested by examining the eigenstates of a closed system with rough boundaries [@iznum]. Moreover, the predicted mobility edge due to colored disorder was recently confirmed in a microwave experiment [@Kuhl]. Using a reaction matrix formalism for direct scattering calculations, here we computationally study the conductance properties of rough quantum wires with colored surface disorder. The motivation is threefold. First, though the dependence of the localization length upon the correlation function of surface roughness is now available from theory, how the more measurable quantity, namely, the conductance of the waveguide, depends on colored surface roughness has not been directly examined. This issue can be quite complicated when the localization length becomes comparable to the waveguide length. Second, computationally speaking it is possible to consider any kind of colored surface disorder, thus realizing interesting circumstances that are not readily testable in today’s experiments. Indeed, in our computational study we can create rather arbitrary structures in the surface disorder correlation function and then examine the associated conductance properties. Third, direct computational studies allow us to predict some interesting conductance properties that have not been treated theoretically or go beyond the validity regime of available theories [@firsttime; @freilikher; @izoptic; @izprl; @izprb]. For example, we shall study the conductance properties for very strong surface roughness, for rough bended waveguides, and for scattering energies that are close to a shifted threshold value for transmission. The long-term goal of our computational efforts would be to explore the usefulness of colored surface disorder in controlling the conductance properties. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we describe the scattering model of a quantum wire with colored surface disorder. Therein we shall also briefly introduce the methodology we adopt for the scattering calculations. In Sec. III we present detailed conductance results in a variety of one-mode scattering cases and discuss these results in connection with theory. Concluding remarks are made in Sec. IV. Quantum scattering in waveguides with colored surface disorder ============================================================== Modeling waveguides with colored surface disorder ------------------------------------------------- {width="10cm"} We treat quantum wires as a long 2D waveguide as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). The scattering coordinate is denoted $x$ and the transverse coordinate is denoted $y$. The width of the waveguide is denoted $w$ and the length is denoted $L$. In all the calculations $L=100w$ and $w$ is set to be unity. That is, we scale all length by the waveguide width. The upper and lower boundaries of the waveguide are described by $y=P(x)$ and $y=Q(x)$. The case in Fig. 1(b) represents a situation where the upper boundary is a straight line ($P(x)=1$) and the lower boundary is rough. As in our other studies of rough waveguides [@akgucprb06; @akgucprb08], we form a rough waveguide boundary in three steps. First, we divide a rectangular waveguide into $M$ pieces of equal length $L/M$. Second, the end of each piece is shifted in $y$ randomly, with the random $y$-displacement, denoted $\eta$, satisfying a Gaussian distribution. Third, we use spline interpolation to combine those sharp edges to generate a smooth curve $\eta(x)$ for either the upper or the lower waveguide boundary. For the sake of clarity, Fig. 1(a) depicts this procedure with the number of random shifts being as small as $M=4$. In all our calculations below we set $M=100$. In Fig. 2(a) we show one realization of the surface roughness function $\eta(x)$. The function $\eta(x)$ may be characterized by its ensemble-averaged mean $\overline{\eta}$ and its self-correlation function $C_{\eta}(x-x')$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned} \overline{\eta}=\langle\eta(x)\rangle&=&0, \nonumber \\ \langle\eta(x)\eta(x')\rangle&=&\sigma^2 C_{\eta}(x-x'),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ is the variance of $\eta(x)$. In the limit of white noise roughness, $C_{\eta}(x-x')$ is proportional to $\delta(x-x')$. But more typically, $C_{\eta}(x-x')$ decays at a characteristic length scale, called the correlation radius $R_c$. For our case here, because the randomness is introduced after dividing the waveguide into $M=100$ pieces, the correlation length $R_c$ of the $\eta(x)$ we construct here is of the order of $L/M \sim w$. This length scale is comparable to the wavelength of the scattering electrons in the one-mode regime. One tends to characterize the strength of the surface roughness by the variance $\sigma$ defined above. However, in practice it is better to use the maximal absolute value of $\eta(x)$, denoted $|\eta_{\text{max}}|$, to characterize the roughness strength. This is because for strong roughness with a given variance, there is a possibility that some of the random displacements become too large such that the waveguide may be completely blocked. Recognizing this issue, we first set a value of $|\eta_{\text{max}}|$ and then, after having generated a roughness function $\eta(x)$ based on spline interpolation, rescale $\eta(x)$ such that its maximal absolute value is given by $|\eta_{\text{max}}|$ . The roughness function $\eta(x)$ obtained above does not have any peculiar features. There are a number of ways to introduce some structure to the correlation function $C_\eta(x-x')$. In Ref.  [@generator] a filtering function method was proposed to produce a power-law decay of $C_\eta(x-x')$ from white noise. Here we adopt the approach [**used in Ref. [@oldexp],**]{} which is based on the convolution theorem of Fourier transformations. In particular, the discrete form of autocorrelation function of $\eta(x)$ is defined as $$C'_\eta(\frac{mL}{N})=\sum_{n=1}^{N-m-1}\eta\left(\frac{(n+m)L}{N}\right)\eta\left(\frac{nL}{N}\right) \label{chim}$$ where $m=-N+1,\cdots,-1,0,1,\cdots,N-1$, $N$ is the total number of grid points along $x$, and $c$ is a normalization constant such that $C_{\eta}(0)=1$ [@corr-note]. In Fig. 2(b) we show the autocorrelation function for the surface roughness function depicted in Fig. 2(a). The autocorrelation drops from its peak value to near zero at a scale of $R_c\sim 0.7 w$, which is much smaller than the waveguide length. {width="18cm"} As will be made clear in what follows, it is important to consider the Fourier transform of $C_{\eta}(x)$, i.e., the autocorrelation function in the Fourier space. This important quantity is denoted $\chi_{\eta}(k)$, where $k$ is the wavevector conjugate to $x$. Using the Fast Fourier transform of $C_\eta(x)$, $\chi_{\eta}(k)$ can be evaluated as follows: $$\chi_{\eta}(k)=\sum_{j=1}^{2N}C_\eta(\frac{jL}{2N})\exp\left[\frac{-i2\pi (j-1)(m-1)}{2N}\right],$$ where the value of $k$ on the left side is determined by the value of $m$ on the right side via $k=(2(m/2N)-1) (2 \pi N/2L)$. In our calculations we choose $N=1024$. Note that $\chi_{\eta}(k)$ is a real function due to the evenness of $C_{\eta}(x)$. The real function $\chi_{\eta}(k)$ is called below the structure factor of the surface roughness. Figure 2(c) shows the structure factor $\chi_{\eta}(k)$ obtained from the correlation function shown in Fig. 2(b). Additional correlations in the surface disorder can now be generated by modulating the structure factor $\chi_{\eta}(k)$. Because the structure factor $\chi_{\eta}(k)$ for a single realization is equivalent to the square of the Fourier transform of $\eta(x)$, we may imprint interesting structures onto $\chi_{\eta}(k)$ by convoluting $\eta(x)$ with some filtering function. Consider then the function $\rho'(x)=\sin(ax)/ax$ with $a>0$. Its Fourier transform is a step function of $|k|$, [@izoptic] with a height $\pi/a$ and the step edge located at $|k|=a$. Consider then a combination of $n$ such functions, i.e., $$\rho(x)=\sum_n A_n\frac{\sin(|a^r_n| x)-\sin(|a^l_n| x)}{|a^r_n| x},$$ where $A_n$, $a^r_n$, $a^l_n$ are predefined parameters. Then the Fourier transform will be $\pi/A_n$ if $a_n^r>|k|> a_n^l$ or $a_n^r<|k|< a_n^l$; and zero otherwise. If we now consider the following roughness function [@maxnote], $$\tilde{\eta}\left(\frac{mL}{N}\right)=\sum_{n} \rho\left(\frac{nL}{N}\right)\eta\left(\frac{(m-n)L}{N}\right),$$ then according to the convolution theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned} |\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(k)|^{1/2} \sim |\chi_{\rho}(k)| |\chi_{\eta}(k)|^{1/2}, \label{chitilde}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(k)$ is the structure factor for the new surface roughness function $\tilde{\eta}(x)$. As such, the structure of $\chi_{\rho}(k)$ is directly imprinted on $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(k)$. That is, computationally speaking, arbitrary modulation can be imposed on the structure factor by filtering out the unwanted components and magnifying other desired structure components. Below we apply this simple technique to create different kinds of surface roughness correlation windows and then examine the conductance properties. In Fig. 2(d) we show one example of $\rho(x)$. Its Fourier transform amplitude, as shown in Fig. 2(e), displays two windows. As shown in Fig. 2(f), this double-window structure is passed to $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(k)$ due to Eq. (\[chitilde\]). Finally, in Fig. 2(g) we show the surface roughness function $\tilde{\eta}(x)$, which obviously contains more correlations than the old surface roughness function $\eta(x)$ shown in Fig. 2(a). Reaction matrix and scattering matrix -------------------------------------- Here we briefly describe how we calculate the electron conductance of a rough 2D waveguide as described above. The Hamiltonian for the quantum transport problem is given by $$\widehat{H}=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2m^*}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}\right) +V_c(x,y), \label{eq:se}$$ where $m^*$ is the electron effective mass and $V_c(x,y)$ represents a hard wall confinement potential. That is, $V_c(x,y)$ is zero in $Q(x)<y<P(x)$ and becomes infinite otherwise. In our early work [@akgucprb06; @akgucprb08] we formulated such a waveguide scattering problem in detail in terms of the so-called reaction matrix method. In the reaction matrix method we first expand scattering state in the scattering region (region I, gray area in Fig. 1(b)) in terms of a complete set of basis states. The basis states are obtained by transforming the rough waveguide into a rectangular one, with the expense of a transformed Hamiltonian with extra surface dependent terms. The solutions in the leads (region II, Fig. 1(b)) are given by $$\begin{aligned} \Psi_{\emph{l}} = \left (A_n \frac{e^{ik_n x}}{\sqrt{k_n}} -B_n\frac{e^{-ik_n x}}{\sqrt{k_n}}\right) \sin(\frac{n\pi y}{w}); \nonumber \\ \Psi_{\emph{r}} = \left (C_n \frac{e^{ik_n x}}{\sqrt{k_n}} -D_n\frac{e^{-ik_n x}}{\sqrt{k_n}}\right) \sin(\frac{n\pi y}{w}) \label{sca}\end{aligned}$$ for the left and right leads, respectively. Here $n$ is the index for the modes in the transverse direction, and the wavevector $k_n$ is given by $$k_n=\sqrt{\frac{2mE}{\hbar^2}-\left(\frac{n\pi}{w}\right)^2}, \label{kf}$$ where $E$ is the initial electron energy. The scattering coefficients $A_n$, $B_n$, $C_n$ and $D_n$ in Eq. (\[sca\]) are determined by the scattering matrix $S$, which relates the outgoing states to the incoming states. Specifically, $$\left(\begin{array}{c} B_n \\C_n\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc} r& t \\t'& r'\end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c}A_n \\D_n\end{array}\right),$$ where the submatrices $r$ and $r'$ denote the reflection matrix and $t$ and $t'$ denote the transmission matrix. In the case of one-mode scattering ($n=1$) considered below, $k_{1}$ will be simply denoted as $k$, with $0<kw/\pi<\sqrt{3}$. The $S$ matrix is related to the so-called $R$-matrix in the reaction matrix method as follows, $$S=\frac{I_{2m} -i K R K}{ I_{2m} + i K R K}.$$ where $m$ is maximal number of propagating modes and $I_{2m}$ is a $2m\times 2m$ unit matrix, and $K$ is $2m\times 2m$ diagonal matrix with diagonal elements determined by the wavevector associated with each scattering channel [@akgucprb06; @akgucprb08]. Once the $S$ matrix is obtained from the $R$ matrix, the conductance is calculated by $G=G_0 \text{Trace}(tt')$, where $G_0=e^2/(2\hbar)$ is the conductance quanta. Note that in our calculations we include about 10 evanescent modes though we focus on the energy regime where only one mode in the $y$-direction admits propagation along $x$. As to the number of basis states we use in describing the transformed rectangular waveguide, we use 1000 basis states for the $x$ degree of freedom and $4$ basis states for the $y$ degree of freedom. Such a large number of basis states is for a good description of the scattering wave function inside the waveguide, and this number should not be confused with the number of propagating modes or evanescent. Good convergence is obtained in our calculations. Note also that due to the large number of basis states used in the scattering direction, the Fourier transform techniques developed in Ref. [@akgucprb06] is especially helpful. Effects of Colored Surface Disorder On Conductance ================================================== With the mapping between the scattering problem in 2D waveguide and 1D Anderson’s model [@firsttime; @freilikher], early theoretical work [@firsttime; @izoptic] established that the localization length $L_{\text{loc}}$ of the 2D waveguide problem is given by $$L_{\text{loc}}^{-1}=\frac{\sigma^2 \pi^4}{w^6}\frac{\chi(2k)}{(2k)^2}, \label{eq:loc}$$ where $\chi(2k)$ is either the structure factor $\chi_{\eta}(2k)$ or the new structure factor $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ after a convolution procedure. If $L_{\text{loc}}>L$, a transmitting state is expected and if $L_{\text{loc}}<<L$, then the electron can only make an exponentially small contribution to the conductance. As such, one expects transmitting states when the structure factor $\chi(2k)$ is essentially zero; and negligible conductance if $\chi(2k)$ is significant and if $\sigma$ is not too small. This suggests that the conductance properties can be manipulated by realizing different surface roughness functions. Equation (\[eq:loc\]) is obtained under a weak electron scattering approximation (Born approximation). As such, the theoretical result of Eq. (\[eq:loc\]) may not be valid if $\sigma$ is not small as compared with $w$ or if the scattering electron is close to the threshold value of channel opening. Another assumption in the theory is that $L_{\text{loc}}$ should be much greater than $R_{c}$, the radius of the surface correlation function $C_{\eta}(x)$. Straight Rough Waveguides ------------------------- However, in our computational studies we will examine some interesting cases that are evidently beyond the validity regime of the theory. For example, the strength of the surface disorder may not be small and the scattering energy may be placed in the vicinity of a shifted channel opening energy. {width="16cm"} In Fig. 3(a) we show conductance results averaged over three realizations of a rough waveguide, with a flat upper boundary $P(x)=1$ and a rough lower boundary $Q(x)=\eta(x)$. The strength of the surface disorder is characterized by $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.2w$. Due to our procedure in generating a fixed $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.2w$, the variance $\sigma$ of the surface function in each single realization of the surface function will change slightly. For the three realizations used in Fig. 3(a), $\sigma=0.0779w$, $0.0802w$ and $0.0773w$. As is clear from Fig. 3(a), there exists a threshold $k\sim 0.6 \pi/w$ beyond which the system becomes transmitting (this threshold will be explained below). In the transmission regime the conductance shows a systematic trend of increase as the wavevector $k$ increases. The inset of Fig. 3(a) shows $\chi_{\eta}(2k)$, one key term in Eq. (\[eq:loc\]). The characteristic magnitude of $\chi_{\eta}(2k)$ for the shown regime of $k$ is $\sim 0.3$. Using Eq. (\[eq:loc\]), one obtains that the localization length $L_{\text{loc}}$ is comparable to $L=100w$. This prediction is hence consistent with our computational results that demonstrate considerable transmission. Next we exploit the convolution technique described above to form new rough surfaces described by $\tilde{\eta}(x)$. In particular, the inset of Fig. 3(b) shows two sample cases with distinctively different surface structure factors. In one case (dotted line) $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ has significant values in the interval $0.67<kw/\pi<0.8$. Indeed, during that regime the value of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ is many times larger than the mean value of $\chi_{\eta}(2k)$ in the case of Fig. 3(a). In the other case (solid line) $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ is large only in the regime of $0.75<kw/\pi<0.9$. For these regimes, the theory predicts that the localization length to be much smaller than the waveguide length and hence vanishing conductance. This is indeed what we observe in our computational study. As shown in Fig. 3(b), either the dotted or the solid conductance curve display a sharp dip in a regime that matches the main profile of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$. In addition, similar to what is observed in Fig. 3(a), Fig. 3(b) also displays a transmission threshold. Take the dotted line in Fig. 3(b) as an example. For $kw/\pi<0.55$, there is no transmission at all, even though $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ in that regime is essentially zero. This suggests that this threshold behavior is unrelated to surface roughness details. Rather, it can be considered as a non-perturbative result that is not captured by Eq. (\[eq:loc\]). To qualitatively explain the observed threshold, we realize that due to the relatively strong surface roughness, the effective width of the waveguide decreases and as a result, the effective mode opening energy increases [@akgucprb06]. For $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.2w$, we estimate that the effective width of the waveguide is given by $w_{\text{eff}}= w-|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.8w$. Hence, the corrected mode opening energy $E$ is now given by $(\hbar^2/2m^{*})(\pi/0.8w)^2$. Using Eq. (\[kf\]), this estimate gives that, regardless of the surface roughness details, the threshold $k$ value for transmission is $\sim 0.75\pi/w$, which is close to what is observed in Fig. 3. Such an explanation is further confirmed below. This also demonstrates that the maximal value of $|\eta(x)|$ is an important quantity to characterize the surface roughness strength. Of course, the exact dependence of the effective waveguide width upon $\eta_{max}$ is beyond the scope of this work [@kro]. The results in Fig. 3 show that even when the surface roughness is strong enough to significantly shift the threshold energy for transmission, the surface structure factor may still be well imprinted on the conductance curve. Moreover, the resultant windows of the conductance curves in Fig. 3 are seen to match the location of the structure factor peak. Nevertheless, one wonders how such an agreement might change if we tune the strength of the surface roughness. {width="16cm"} To that end we examine in Fig. 4 four scattering cases with increasing roughness strength, with $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.01w$ and $\sigma=0.0046w$ in Fig. 4(a) (representing a case with quite weak surface roughness), $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.1w$ and $\sigma=0.0400w$ in Fig. 4(b), $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.2w$ and $\sigma=0.0779w$ in Fig. 4(c), and $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.3w$ and $\sigma=0.1255w$ in Fig. 4(d) (representing a case with very strong surface roughness). The main profile of the structure factor is also shifted closer to the threshold regime observed in Fig. 3. For the case with $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.3w$, the theory based on the weak roughness assumption is not expected to hold. Indeed, In Fig. 4(d) the transmission threshold is right shifted further to the high energy regime as compared with those seen in Fig. 3 or other panels in Fig. 4. Nevertheless, we still observe a clear window of almost zero conductance, but now with its location also significantly shifted as compared with the profile of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$. For the case of $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.2w$ in Fig. 4(c), it is somewhat similar to the dotted line in Fig. 3(b), consistent with the fact that they have the same roughness strength. However, because here the location of the peak of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ is close to the threshold $k$ value, the zero conductance window is also near this threshold: the conductance curve rises when $k$ exceeds the threshold and then it quickly drops to zero again. For the case of $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.1w$, its zero conductance window shown in Fig. 4(b) is narrower than those in Fig. 4(c) and Fig. 4(d), consistent with our intuition. Somewhat surprising is the case shown in Fig. 4(a), where the roughness strength is weak and the energy threshold for transmission is almost unaffected. But still, a narrow window for very small conductance is clearly seen in Fig. 4(a). This result is unexpected, because if one applies Eq. (\[eq:loc\]) directly, one would predict that no such conductance window should occur for $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.01$. Further, the conductance window in Fig. 4(a) is much left-shifted as compared with the profile of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ (inset of Fig. 4(a)). Similar results are obtained in other realizations of the surface roughness function $\eta(x)$ that have similar profile of the structure factor [@smallknote]. Such a remarkable deviation from the theory, we believe, is due to a breakdown of the Born approximation in deriving Eq. (\[eq:loc\]). Indeed, the conductance window for $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.01$ is located in a regime of very low scattering energy, and is hence not describable by a theory based on the Born approximation. Certainly, it should be of considerable interest to experimentally study the conductance windows in these cases of weak surface roughness. To further confirm that the conductance windows observed here are due to the colored surface disorder, we note that if we consider a surface function as that shown in the inset of Fig. 3(a), then all the conductance windows shown here indeed disappear and the results will become similar to what is shown in Fig. 3(a). Bended Rough Waveguides ----------------------- {width="16cm"} In Fig. 5 we examine the conductance properties of a bended rough waveguide (Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 5(c)) as compared with those of a straight rough waveguide (Fig. 5(a)). In all the three cases shown in Fig. 5, the upper boundary is given by $P(x)=1$; and the lower boundary is a parabolic curve plus random fluctuations, i.e., $Q(x)=4a(x-L/2)^2/L^2+\tilde{\eta}(x)$; with $a=0$ in Fig. 5(a), $a=0.5$ in Fig. 5(b), and $a=1.0$ in Fig. 5(c). As to the structure factor of $\tilde{\eta}(x)$, it is assumed to be of a double-window form as shown in the inset of Fig. 5(a), with $|\eta_{\text{max}}|$ the same as in Fig. 3. In the case of a straight rough waveguide, this double-window structure factor creates an analogous double-window structure in the conductance curve (Fig. 5(a)), with its location matching the profile of the structure factor. Interestingly, as we introduce a curvature in the lower boundary in Fig. 5(b), the double-window structure survives but shifts considerably toward higher $k$ values. In Fig. 5(c), the curvature of the rough waveguide further increases, the transmission threshold value of $k$ also increases (as expected), and the fingerprints of the double-window structure factor can still be seen in the conductance curve. We have also checked if we create three windows in the structure factor, then three windows in the conductance curves can be induced as well, with their locations controllable by tuning the curvature of the bended waveguide. {width="16cm"} Finally we consider waveguides with both upper and lower boundaries being rough. Interestingly, in this case a more sophisticated theory [@izprb] shows that the scattering can be regarded as the scattering in a smooth waveguide plus an additional effective potential. The theoretical electron mean free path, calculated using a Green function averaged over different surfaces, is shown to be contributed by different terms, due to different mechanisms called amplitude scattering, gradient scattering, and square gradient scattering [@izprb]. The importance of these terms depends on whether the upper and lower boundaries are symmetric, uncorrelated or anti-symmetric. Motivated by this interesting prediction, here we show in Fig. 6 three computational results, for symmetric (Fig. 6(a)), uncorrelated (Fig. 6(b)), and anti-symmetric boundaries (Fig. 6(c)), all with the same roughness strength as in Fig. 3. For the symmetric case, the effective waveguide width is not affected by the roughness. By contrast, for the antisymmetric case of Fig. 3(c), the effective waveguide width is most affected. These two simple observations explain why the threshold $k$ value for transmission is the smallest in Fig. 6(a) and the largest in Fig. 6(c). Even more noteworthy is how the structure factor of surface roughness generates a conductance window for these three cases. In particular, the window of the conductance drop in the symmetric case (Fig. 6(a)) is narrower than that seen in Fig. 6(b) and Fig. 6(c). Moreover, the conductance window in the anti-symmetric case is the widest one, and is much shifted towards high $k$ values as compared with the structure factor. This large mismatch between the conductance window and the peak location of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ hence reflects clearly an effect from the correlation between the two rough boundaries. Though our results cannot be easily explained by the theoretical result of Eq. (\[eq:loc\]), they are consistent with the theoretical prediction in Ref. [@izprb] that among the three cases of symmetric, uncorrelated and anti-symmetric waveguides, the electron mean free path in anti-symmetric waveguides should be the shortest. Discussion and Conclusion ========================= In this computational study we have focused on how the structure of surface roughness impacts the conductance properties of electrons propagating in a quantum wire modeled by a 2D waveguide. Our conductance results are directly computed from a reaction matrix approach. An early theoretical result is hence confirmed by detailed behavior of the conductance, a quantity that should be measurable in experiments. In addition, our results for symmetric, uncorrelated, and anti-symmetric rough waveguides are consistent with a very recent theory [@izprb]. Unlike in the bulk case, for quantum wires of limited length the sensitive dependence of the localization length upon the structure factor of surface roughness can be easily manifested in conductance properties. Our direct scattering calculations show that this is true, even for those interesting cases that are beyond the domain of today’s theory or have not been treated theoretically. We conclude that conductance properties are easily controllable by engineering the surface roughness of quantum wires. Though we have focused on the transport behavior of electrons, we believe that our methodology might be also useful for studies of other types of wave propagation in disordered systems. In particular, there is now a keen interest in understanding phonon transport in rough quantum wires. Recent computational work [@Murphy] and experiment work [@Li] showed the importance of surface disorder in the heat transport of thin silicon nanowires with a radius of $w=22$ nm. It was also demonstrated experimentally that surface roughness can be used to dramatically suppress heat conductivity [@thermo] and hence enhance thermoelectric efficiency for thin silicon nanowires with a radius about $w=50$ nm. Our computational tools, together with the guidance from the theory [@firsttime; @freilikher; @izoptic; @izprl; @izprb], might help answer some important questions regarding to phonon transport in rough nanowires. Indeed, we conjecture that it should be possible to design some colored surface to create conductance windows for phonons, but not for electrons. If this is indeed realized, then electron conductance is not much affected and phonon conductance will be greatly reduced. This will be of vast importance to thermoelectric applications. Finally, we note that spin accumulation in quantum waveguides with rough boundaries was recently studied in Ref. [@akgucprb08]. It should be interesting to see how colored surface disorder might have some useful impact on spin accumulation effects or spin transport. We thank Prof. Li Baowen for interesting discussions. This work was supported by the start-up fund (WBS grant No. R-144-050-193-101/133), National University of Singapore, and the NUS “YIA" fund (WBS grant No. R-144-000-195-123), from the office of Deputy President (Research & Technology), National University of Singapore. One of the authors, G.B. Akguc, thank F. M. Izrailev for fruitful discussions. We also thank the Supercomputing and Visualization Unit (SVU), the National University of Singapore Computer Center, for use of their computer facilities. [10]{} P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. [**109**]{}, No. 5, 1492 (1957). G. Roati, C. D’Errico, L. Fallani, M. Fattori, C. Fort, M. Zaccanti, G. Modugno, M. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, Nature [**453**]{}, 895 (2008). J. Billy, V. Josse, Z. C. Zuo, A. Bernard, B. Hambrecht, P. Lugan, D. Clement, L. Sanchez-Palencia, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect, Nature [**453**]{}, 891 (2008). F. M. Izrailev and A. A. Krokhin, Phy. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4062 (1999). E. B. Ramayya, D. Vasileska, S. M. Goodnick, and I. Knezevic, IEEE Transactions On Nanotechnology [**6**]{}, 1 (2008). A. I. Hochbaum, R. K. Chen, R. D. Delgado, W. J. Liang, E. C. Garnett, M. Najarian, A. Majumdar, and P. D. Yang, Nature [**451**]{}, 163 (2008). V. D. Freilikher, N. M. Makarov and I. V. Yurkevich, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 8033 (1989). V. D. Freilikher, S.A. Gredeskul, J. Opt. Soc. Am. [**7**]{}, 868 (1990). F. M. Izrailev and N. M. Makarov, Optics. Lett. [**26**]{}, 1604 (2001); F. M. Izrailev and N. M. Makarov, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5150 (2004). A. Rodriguez and J. M. Cervero, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 104201 (2006). V. M. K. Bagci and A. A. Krokhin, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 134202 (2007). F. M. Izrailev, J. A. Méndez-Bermúdez, and G. A. Luna-Acosta, Phys. Rev. E [**68**]{}, 066201 (2003). U. Kuhl, F. M. Izrailev, and A. A. Krokhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 126402 (2008). F. M. Izrailev, N. M. Makarov, M. Rendon, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 155421 (2006); M. Rendon, F. M. Izrailev, N. M. Makarov, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 205404 (2007). G. B. Akguc and T. H. Seligman, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 245317 (2006). G. B. Akguc and J. B. Gong, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 205302 (2008). F. M. Izrailev, A. A. Krokhin, N. M. Makarov, and O. V. Usatenko, Phys. Rev. E [**76**]{}, 027701 (2007). U. Kuhl, F. M. Izrailev and A. A. Krokhin, and H.-J. Stockmann, App. Phys. Lett. [**77**]{}, 633 (2000). Note that to be more precise, one should compensate the discretized correlation function defined in Eq. (2) by a factor of $1/(N-m-1)$. However, this compensation has little effect here because $N$, i.e., the total number of grid points, is large enough and the correlation function itself decays fast (correlation radius much smaller than the waveguide length). After the convolution, we will rescale the new surface roughness function $\tilde{\eta}(x)$ such as its maximal value is still given by $|\eta_{\text{max}}|$. See, for example, G. A. Luna-Acosta, Kyungsun Na, and L. E. Reichl and A. Krokhin, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 3271 (1996). Interestingly, for $|\eta_{\text{max}}|=0.01$, if the location of the peak of $\chi_{\tilde{\eta}}(2k)$ is too close to the channel opening energy, e.g., $\sim kw/\pi = 0.25$, then it will be hard to identify a conductance window similar to that shown in Fig. 4(a) as it will be buried in the channel opening regime. P. G. Murphy and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 155313 (2007). D. Y. Li, Y. Y. Wu, P. Kim, P. D. Yang, and A. Majumdar, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2934 (2003).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The proposed method aims to approximate a solution of a fluid-fluid interaction problem in case of low viscosities. The nonlinear interface condition on the joint boundary allows for this problem to be viewed as a simplified version of the atmosphere-ocean coupling. Thus, the proposed method should be viewed as potentially applicable to air-sea coupled flows in turbulent regime. The method consists of two key ingredients. The geometric averaging approach is used for efficient and stable decoupling of the problem, which would allow for the usage of preexisting codes for the air and sea domain separately, as “black boxes”. This is combined with the variational multiscale stabilization technique for treating flows at high Reynolds numbers. We prove the stability and accuracy of the method, and provide several numerical tests to assess both the quantitative and qualitative features of the computed solution.' author: - 'Mustafa Aggul Fatma G. Eroglu Songül Kaya Alexander E. Labovsky' bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'A projection based Variational Multiscale Method for Atmosphere-Ocean Interaction' --- Introduction ============ The study of solving coupled Navier-Stokes equations with special interface conditions is of considerable interest, for instance in the simulation of atmosphere-ocean (AO) interaction or two layers of a stratified fluid. In this paper, we investigate a low-viscosity fluid-fluid interaction problem, aiming at modeling AO flow in a turbulent regime. Consider the $d$-dimensional ($d=2,3$) polygonal or polyhedral domain $\Omega$ in space that consists of two subdomains $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$, coupled across an interface $I$, for times $t\in [0,T]$. Coupling problem is: given $ \nu_{i}>0 $, $f_{i}:[0,T]\rightarrow H^{1}(\Omega_{i})^d,u_{i}(0)\in H^{1}(\Omega_{i})^d $ and $\kappa \in \mathbb{R} $, find (for $i=1,2$) $u_{i}:\Omega_{i}\times [0,T]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ and $p_{i}: \Omega_{i}\times [0,T]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying (for $0<t\leq T$) $$\begin{aligned} \partial_{t}u_i -\nu_i\Delta u_i+u_i \cdot \nabla u_i + \nabla p_i &=& f_i \qquad \mathrm{in}\ \Omega_i, \label{eq:atmo} \\ -\nu_i \hat{n}_i \cdot \nabla u_i \cdot \tau &=& \kappa |u_i - u_j|( u_i - u_j )\cdot \tau \quad \mathrm{on} \ I \ \mathrm{for} \ i,j = 1,2, \ i \neq j \, , \label{eq:atmoI}\\ u_i \cdot \hat{n}_i &=&0 \qquad \mathrm{on} \ I \ \mathrm{for} \ i,j = 1,2, \label{eq:atmoNONLINEAR}\\ \nabla \cdot u_i &=&0 \qquad \mathrm{ in } \ \Omega_i, \label{eq:atmoNONLINEAR1}\\ u_i(x,0)&=&u_i^0(x) \qquad\mathrm{ in }\ \Omega_i , \label{eq:atmoIC}\\ u_i&=&0 \qquad\mathrm{ on } \ \Gamma_i = \partial\Omega_i\setminus I , \label{eq:atmoBC}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\cdot|$ represents the Euclidean norm and the vectors $\hat{n}_i$ are the unit normals on $\partial \Omega_i$, and $\tau$ is any vector such that $\tau\cdot\hat{n}_i=0$. Here $u_i$, and $p_i$ denote the unknown velocity fields and pressure. The parameters are $\nu_i$ kinematic viscosities, $f_i$ the body forcing on the velocity, $\kappa$ the friction parameter (frictional drag force is assumed to be proportional to the square of the jump of the velocities across the interface). Numerical methods for solving this type of coupled problems in laminar flow regime have been investigated [@BK06; @CHL12; @ZHS16; @ACEL18]. In [@CHL12], IMEX and geometric averaging (GA) time stepping methods have been proposed (and further developed in [@ACEL18]) for the Navier-Stokes equations with nonlinear interface condition. The study of AO interaction has received considerable interest in the last thirty years, starting with the seminal paper of Lions, Temam and Wang, [@LTW1; @LTW2], on the analysis of full equations for AO flow. Today, many models exist and an abundance of software code is available for climate models (both global and regional), hurricane propagation, coastal weather prediction, etc. see, e.g., [@BWCK00; @BKLG96; @PSSB07] and references therein. The reasoning behind most of these models is as follows: the boundary condition on the joint AO interface must be chosen in such a way, that fluxes of conserved quantities are allowed to pass from one domain to the other. In particular, the nonlinear interface condition (\[eq:atmoI\]), together with (\[eq:atmoNONLINEAR\]) ensures that the energy is being passed between the two domains in the model above, with the global energy still being conserved. The AO coupling problem (as well as its modest version, the fluid-fluid interaction with nonlinear coupling, considered in this report) provides many challenges. In addition to the usual issues one has to overcome when solving the Navier-Stokes equations, the AO models should allow to use different spacial and temporal scales for the atmosphere and ocean domains, as the energy in the atmosphere remains significant at smaller time scales and larger spatial scales, than the energy of the ocean. In order to do so, as well as make use of the existing codes written separately for the fluid flows in the air or the ocean domains, one needs to create partitioned methods, that allow for a stable and accurate decoupling of the AO system. The literature on numerical analysis of time-dependent coupling problem - is somewhat scarse; some approaches to creating a stable, accurate, computationally attractive decoupling method can be found in [@BK06; @CHL12; @CG11; @LBD15; @ZHS16; @ACEL18]. The methods in [@LBD15; @ACEL18] provide second order accuracy in temporal discretization. However, the authors could not find any reports on methods for approximating the solution of - in a turbulent regime. This problem is magnified over the usual issues in turbulence modeling, because of several extra obstacles: the size of the problem, the necessity to treat the atmosphere and ocean codes as “black boxes” - therefore utilizing one of only a few existing decoupling methods; and, finally, the lack of benchmark problems for turbulent AO coupling. We propose to start working in this direction by using a stabilization technique for low-viscosity problem -. Various stabilizations have proven to be essential computational tools for the numerical simulations.The general idea of two level stabilization is pioneered by Marion and Xu in [@MJ94] and the analysis for Navier-Stokes is presented in seminal papers [@G01; @LG01]. This idea has been strongly connected with variational multiscale (VMS) methods were introduced in [@Hu95; @Gue99]. VMS methods have proven to be an accurate and systematic approach to the numerical simulation of multiphysics flows and different realizations of VMS in the literature exist, e.g., see[@G04; @RC04; @jokaya1; @jokaya3]. In particular, we consider a projection-based VMS in this paper which has been proposed in [@L02]. According to VMS concept, global stabilization is introduced in all scales, then removes the effective stabilization on the large scales of the solution. In this way, stabilization is effective only on the smallest scales, where the non-physical oscillations occur. For more details, we refer the reader to [@jokaya1; @jokaya3]. We also refer to [@V17] for the derivation of the different VMS methods for turbulent flow simulations. Due to the success of VMS method, there is a natural desire to introduce this accurate and systematic approach to the simulation of atmosphere-ocean interaction. We consider an extension of VMS method with GA of the nonlinear interface condition. As first contribution of this paper, we first show the conservation of GA-VMS method’s discrete kinetic energy, frequently evaluated quantity of interest in AO flow simulations along with stability and long-time stability properties of GA-VMS method. We show both stability bounds are unconditional, i.e., without any restriction on time step size. Secondly, we provide a precise analysis of the stability, convergence and accuracy of the GA-VMS method. Lastly, we present numerical studies in case of different viscosities compared with monolithically coupled algorithms. The paper is organized as follows. The GA-VMS method for solving - in the case of high Reynolds number(s) is presented in Section 2, along with a short discussion on an alternative formulation of the method. After mathematical preliminaries are introduced in Section 3, a complete numerical analysis is then done on the proposed method in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 provides the numerical tests that validate the theoretical findings, and conclusions are given in Section 6. GA-VMS method for atmosphere-ocean interaction problem ======================================================= In this paper, standard notations of Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces are used. The space $(L^2(\Omega))^d$ is equipped with the inner product, $(\cdot,\cdot)$ and the norm $\|\cdot\|$. In particular, the norm $L^3(I)$ at the interface will be denoted by $\|\cdot\|_I$. The Hilbert space $(H^k(\Omega))^d$ is equipped with the norm $\|\cdot\|_k$. The norm of the dual space of $(H^{-1}(\Omega))$ of $(H_0^1(\Omega))$ is denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{-1,\Omega}$. The other norms are labeled with subscripts. For the weak formulation of problem -, we use the function spaces for $i=1,2$ $$\begin{aligned} &X_{i}& :=\{v\in (L^2(\Omega_{i}))^d:\nabla v \in L^2(\Omega_{i})^{d\times d}, \, v= 0\,\mbox{ on }\,\partial \Omega{_{i} \backslash I, \hspace{0.1in} v\cdot \hat{n}_i = 0 \mbox{ on } I}\}, \nonumber \\ &Q_{i}& = L_0^2(\Omega_{i}) := \{q \in L^2(\Omega_{i}): \int_{\Omega_{i}} q \ dx = 0\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Herein, define $X=X_1\times X_2$ and $Q=Q_1\times Q_2$. For $u_i\in X_i$ and $q_i\in Q_i$, we denote ${\bf u}=(u_1,u_2)$ and ${\bf q}=(q_1,q_2)$, respectively. Using these function spaces, the weak formulation of - is as follows: Find $(u_i,p_i)\in (X_i,Q_i)$ for $ i,j = 1,2, \ i \neq j$ such that for all $(v_{i},q_i) \in (X_i,Q_i)$ $$\begin{aligned} (\partial_{t}u_i ,v_{i})_{\Omega_i} +\nu_i(\nabla {u}_{i},\nabla v_{i})_{\Omega_i} + { c_i({u}_{i};{u}_{i},v_{i})} -(p_i,\nabla\cdot v_i)_{\Omega_i}+(\nabla \cdot u_i,q_i)_{\Omega_i} \nonumber \\ +\kappa \int_{I}|u_i-u_j |(u_i-u_j)v_{i}ds=({{ f}}_i,v_{i})_{\Omega_i}. \label{weak1}\end{aligned}$$ Here and in the rest of the paper, $c_i(\cdot; \cdot,\cdot)$ denotes the usual, explicitly skew symmetrized trilinear form $$c_i(u;v,w)=\frac{1}{2}(u \cdot \nabla v,w)_{\Omega_i}-\frac{1}{2}(u \cdot \nabla w,v)_{\Omega_i}$$ for functions $u,v,w \in X_i$, $i=1,2 $ on $\Omega_i$. Notice the well known property $$c_i(u;v,w)_{\Omega_i}=-c_i(u;w,v)_{\Omega_i}$$ for all $u,v,w \in X_i$ such that in particular $c_i(u;v,v)=0$ for all $u,v\in X_i$. The standard monolithic weak formulation of - is obtained by summing over for $ i,j = 1,2, \ i \neq j$ and is to find $({\bf u},p)\in (X,Q)$ such that for all $({\bf v},{\bf q}) \in (X,Q)$ $$\begin{aligned} (\partial_{t}{\bf u} ,{\bf v}) +\nu(\nabla {\bf u},\nabla {\bf v}) + { c({\bf u};{\bf u},{\bf v})} -({\bf p},\nabla\cdot {\bf v})+(\nabla \cdot {\bf u},{\bf q})+\kappa \int_{I}[{\bf u}][{\bf u}]{\bf v}ds =({\bf f},{\bf v})_{\Omega_i}, \label{weak2}\end{aligned}$$ where $[\cdot]$ denotes the jump across the interface $I$ and ${\bf f}=f_i$, $\nu=\nu_i$ on $\Omega_i$. For finite element discretization, let $T_{i}^h$ and $T_i^H$ be admissible triangulations of $\Omega_i$, where $T_{i}^h$ refers to fine mesh and $T_i^H$ denotes the coarse mesh. Let $(X_{i}^h, { Q^h_{i}}) \subset (X_i,Q_i)$ be conforming finite element spaces satisfying the so-called discrete inf-sup condition [@GR79; @G89]. In our tests, we have used the velocity-pressure pairs of spaces $(P_k,P_{k-1}),\,k\geq 2$. Let $V_{i}^h$ be the space of the discretely divergence-free functions $$\begin{aligned} V_{i}^h=\{v_{h,i}\in X_i^h: (q_{h,i},\nabla \cdot v_{h,i})=0, \, for \,\, all \,\, q_{h,i} \in Q_{i}^h\},\end{aligned}$$ which is a closed subspace of $X_i^h$. The dual space of $V_i^h$ is given by $V_i^{h*}$ with norm $\|\cdot\|_{V_i^{h*}}$.We also need to introduce the space $$\begin{aligned} L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+,V_i^{h*})&=&\{f_i:\Omega_{i}^d\times\mathbb{R}^+\to \mathbb{R}, \exists M<\infty \, with \,\, \|f_i(t)\|_{V_i^{h*}}<M \, a.e.\, t>0\}\end{aligned}$$ To solve two decoupled systems (atmosphere and ocean separately) through GA on the interface with the projection-based VMS formulation, let $L_i^H \subset (L^2(\Omega))^{d\times d} $ be a finite dimensional space of functions defined on $\Omega_i$ representing a coarse or large scale space and let $\nu_T$ be eddy viscosity term assumed herein a non-negative function depending on the mesh size $h$. We now present the projection-based VMS discretization of by using the Euler method in time. For this purpose, consider a partition $0=t_0<t_1<\dots<t_M=T$ of the time interval $[0,T]$ and define $\Delta t=T/M$, $t_n=n\Delta t$. GA-VMS formulation applied to the problem reads as follows: Find $(u_{h,i}^{n+1},p_{h,i}^{n+1},\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},{n+1}})\in (X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h,L_i^H)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} (\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,i}}-u_{h,i}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +(\nu_i+\nu_T)(\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +c_i(u_{h,i}^{n+1}; u_{h,i}^{n+1},v_{h,i}) -(p_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla \cdot v_{h,i}) \nonumber \\ + (\nabla\cdot u_{h,i}^{n+1},q_{h,i})_{\Omega_i}+\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|u_{h,i}^{n+1}v_{h,i}ds -\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,j}^n|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}v_{h,i}ds \nonumber \\ =({{ f}}_i^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla v_{h,i}) \label{BE7}\\ (\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_{h,i}^n, \mathbb{L}_i^H)_{\Omega_i}=0,\label{alg4}\end{aligned}$$ for all $(v_{h,i},q_{h,i},\mathbb{L}_i^H) \in (X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h,L_i^H)$. In , the tensor $\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}$ represents the large scales of $\nabla u_{h,i}$, defined by $L^2$-projection of $\nabla u_{h,i}^n$ on $\Omega_i$ into the large scale space $L_i^H$ (see Definition \[defpro\]). Hence, the difference $\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_{h,i}^n$ represents the resolved small scales. This way, the GA-VMS method - introduces the additional viscous term into the momentum equation acting only on the resolved small scales. We note that the $L^2$- projection terms for $\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}$ can be discretized implicitly or explicitly in time. We will consider here the computationally attractive explicit discretization, and refer the reader to [@jokaya3; @JK08] for further discussions on explicit vs. implicit discretizations of $\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}$. In GA-VMS formulation of -, the large scale spaces $ L_i^H$ and $\nu_T$ parameters must be chosen. The first approach is to define $L_i^H$ using in lower order finite element spaces on the same mesh, provided that finite element spaces $(X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h)$ are high enough order. Second approach is to define $L_i^H$ on a coarser grid than $(X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h)$, see, e.g., [@jokaya3; @JK08]. Herein, we will use the first way which is the most common choice in geophysical problems. Thus, we choose $ L_i^H$ to be piecewise polynomials of degree $k-1$. The choice of the parameter is $\nu_T=h$ is typical for various artificial viscosity-type models. With the discrete inf-sup condition, GA-VMS formulation (\[BE7\])-(\[alg4\]) can be computed equivalently solving: Find $(u_{h,1}^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1},\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},{n+1}},\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},{n+1}}) \in (V_1^h,V_2^h,L_1^H,L_2^H)$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1} +(\nu_1+\nu_T)(\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}+ c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1}; u_{h,1}^{n+1},v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|u_{h,1}^{n+1}v_{h,1}ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}v_{h,1}ds\nonumber\\ &=&({{ f}}_1^{n+1},v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla v_{h,1}), \label{alg1} \\ \lefteqn{(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_{h,1}^n, \mathbb{L}_1^H)_{\Omega_i}=0, }\label{alg101}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2} +(\nu_2+\nu_T)(\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,2}^h)_{\Omega_2} + c_2({u}_{h,2}^{n+1};{u}_{h,2}^{n+1},v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}} \nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|u_{h,2}^{n+1}v_{h,2}ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,1}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}v_{h,2}ds\nonumber\\ &=&({{ f}}_2^{n+1},v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla v_{h,2}), \label{alg2} \\[5pt] \lefteqn{(\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_{h,2}^n, \mathbb{L}_2^H)_{\Omega_i}=0, }\label{alg100}\end{aligned}$$ for all $(v_{h,1},v_{h,2},\mathbb{L}_1^H,\mathbb{L}_2^H ) \in (V_1^h, V_2^h,L_1^H,L_2^H)$. \[remark:alternative\_approach\] Notice that the GA-VMS method (\[alg1\])-(\[alg100\]) is derived, based on the variational formulation (\[weak1\]) - or, equivalently, one could derive (\[alg1\])-(\[alg100\]) from -, but the coefficients $\nu_i$ would need to be replaced with $\nu_i+\nu_T$ in (\[eq:atmoI\]). If, however, one tried to create a GA-VMS method from -, all the interface integrals in (\[alg1\])-(\[alg100\]) would be multiplied by $\frac{\nu_i+\nu_T}{\nu_i}$. Numerical tests show that this alternative approach fails to provide good quality approximations when $\nu_i$ are small. Mathematical Preliminaries ========================== In this section, some inequalities and definitions are introduced. The following lemmas are required for the analysis. \[Standard\_ineqs\] Let $\alpha, \beta, \theta \in H^1(\Omega_i)$ for $i=1,2$, then there exists constants $ C(\Omega_i)>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned} c_i({\alpha};{\beta},\theta)_{\Omega_i}&\leq& C (\Omega_i) \|\alpha\|^{1/2}_{\Omega_i}\|\nabla \alpha\|_{\Omega_i}^{1/2}\|\nabla \beta\|_{\Omega_i}\|\nabla \theta\|_{\Omega_i},\nonumber\\ \int_{I}\alpha |[\beta]| \theta &\leq& C(\Omega_i) \|\alpha \|_I ||[\beta]||_I \|\theta \|_I, \nonumber\\ \|\alpha\|_I &\leq& C(\Omega_i) \left({\color{red} } \|\alpha\|^{1/4}_{\Omega_i}\|\nabla \alpha\|^{3/4}_{\Omega_i} { + \|\alpha\|^{1/6}_{\Omega_i}\|\nabla \alpha\|^{5/6}_{\Omega_i} }\right). \end{aligned}$$ The first two bounds are standard - see, e.g., Lemma 2.1 on p. 1301 of [@CHL12]. The third bound can be found in [@Galdi94], see Theorem II.4.1, p. 63. \[lem:nnl\]Let $\alpha_i \in X_i$, $\theta_j \in X_j$, $\boldsymbol{\beta} \in H^1(\Omega_i)$ and $\epsilon_i,\epsilon_j,\varepsilon_i,\varepsilon_j$ ($i,j=1,2$) be positive constants, then one $$\begin{aligned} \kappa \int_{I} |\alpha_i| |[ \boldsymbol{\beta}]||\theta_j|&\leq& \frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|\alpha_i\|^2_I ||[ \boldsymbol{\beta}]||_I^2+\frac{\epsilon_j}{\nu_j^5}\|\theta_j\|^2_{\Omega_j}+\frac{\nu_j}{2\epsilon_j}\|\nabla \theta_j\|^2_{\Omega_j},\\ \kappa \int_{I} |\alpha_i| |[ \boldsymbol{\beta}]||\theta_j|&\leq& C\kappa^6\Big(\frac{\epsilon_i^5}{\nu_i^5}||[ \boldsymbol{\beta}]||_I^6\|\alpha_i\|^2_{\Omega_i}+\frac{\varepsilon_j^5}{\nu_j^5}||[ \boldsymbol{\beta}]||_I^6\|\theta_j\|^2_{\Omega_j}\Big) \nonumber\\&&+\frac{\nu_i}{4\epsilon_i}\|\nabla \alpha_i\|^2+\frac{\nu_j}{4\varepsilon_j} \|\nabla \theta_j\|^2,\\ \kappa \int_{I} |\alpha_i| |[ \boldsymbol{\beta}]||\theta_j|&\leq&C\kappa^6\|\alpha_i\|^6_I\Big(\frac{\epsilon_1^5}{\nu_1^5}\|\beta_1\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\frac{\epsilon_2^5}{\nu_2^5}\|\beta_2\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\frac{2\varepsilon_j^5}{\nu_j^5}\|\theta_j\|_{\Omega_j}^2\Big)\nonumber\\&&+\frac{\nu_1}{4\epsilon_1}\|\nabla \beta_1\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\frac{\nu_2}{4\epsilon_2}\|\nabla \beta_2\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\frac{\nu_j}{2\beta_j}\|\nabla \theta_j\|_{\Omega_j}^2.\end{aligned}$$ [ Use Lemma \[Standard\_ineqs\] and Young’s inequality (see Lemma 2.2 on p. 1302 of [@CHL12]).]{} Denoting the corresponding Galerkin approximations of $(u_i,p_i)$ in $(X_i^h,Q_i)$ by $(v_{h,i},q_{h,i})$, one can assume that the following approximation assumptions (see [@GR79]): $$\begin{aligned} \inf_{v_{h,i} \in X_i^h} \Big(\|u_i-v_{h,i}\|+\|\nabla(u_i-v_{h,i})\|\Big)&\leq& Ch^{k+1} \|u_i\|_{k+1},\label{inp2}\\\inf_{q_{h,i} \in Q_i^h} \|p_i-q_{h,i}\|&\leq& Ch^{k} \|p_i\|_{k}. \label{inp}\end{aligned}$$ The $L^2$ projection is defined in the usual way. \[defpro\] The $L^2$ projection ${P}^H $of a given function $\mathbb{L}$ onto the finite element space $L_i^H$ is the solution of the following : find $\hat{\mathbb{L}}_i= {P}^H \mathbb{L}_i\in L_i^H$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \label{pro} (\mathbb{L}_i-{P}^H \mathbb{L}_i, S_H)=0,\end{aligned}$$ for all $S_H \in L_i^H$. Hence, we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{pro2} \|\mathbb{L}_i-{P}^H \mathbb{L}_i\| \leq CH^k\|\mathbb{L}_i\|_{k+1},\end{aligned}$$ for all $\mathbb{L} \in (L(\Omega_i))^{d\times d}\cap (H^{k+1}(\Omega_i))^{d\times d}$. We note that while the larger choice of the coarse mesh size $H$ provides more efficient projections into large scale spaces $L_i^H$ and reduces storage, the accuracy of the solutions decreases. For $k=2$, the typical choice is $H=O(h^{1/2})$ for the projection-based VMS. This choice is obtained from balancing terms in the convergence analysis. In our numerical studies, we will use single mesh, that is $H=h$. Although, it is expensive (particularly in $3d$) because of storing the velocity gradient will be the same as storing three additional velocities, it is also good way of programming since there will be less bookkeeping. As we will show later this choice also provides good accuracy. We also use Poincaré-Friedrichs inequality as: There exists a constant $C_p$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \|u_{h,i}\|_{\Omega_i}\leq C_p\|\nabla u_{h,i}\|_{\Omega_i},\quad \forall u_{h,i} \in X_i^h\end{aligned}$$ holds. Along the paper, we use the following inequality whose proof can be found in [@HR86]. \[gron\]\[Discrete Gronwall Lemma\] Let $\gamma_i,\theta_i,\beta_i,\alpha_i$ (for $i\geq 0$), and $\Delta t$, C be a non-negative numbers such that $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_M +\Delta t \sum_{i=0}^{M} \theta_i \leq \Delta t \sum_{i=0}^{M} \alpha_i\gamma_i +\Delta t \sum_{i=0}^{M} \beta_i + C,\, \, \forall M\geq 0. \end{aligned}$$ Assume $\alpha_i\Delta t <1$ for all $i$, then, $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_M +\Delta t \sum_{i=0}^{M} \theta_i \leq \exp\Bigg(\Delta t \sum_{i=0}^{M}\theta_i \frac{\alpha_i}{1-\alpha_i\Delta t }\Bigg) \Bigg(\Delta t \sum_{i=0}^{M} \beta_i + C\Bigg),\, \, \forall M\geq 0. \end{aligned}$$ Energy conservation and stability properties of GA-VMS method ============================================================== This section considers the energy balance and the stability for the GA-VMS scheme. We first show that the scheme admits an energy balance which is analogous to balances for the continuous AO. Next, we prove its unconditional stability and long-time $L^2$ stability of velocity. (Global energy conservation) The scheme - admits the following energy conservation law: $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{M+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|{u^{M+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 + \nu_T\Delta t\big(\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{M+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{M+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\big)} \nonumber \\ &&+\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M(\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2)\nonumber\\ &&+\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M \Big(2\nu_1\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1} + \nu_T\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1} - \mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\nu_T \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n} - \mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_1} \Big)\nonumber\\ &&+\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M \Big(2\nu_2\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} + \nu_T\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1} - \mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\nu_T \|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n} - \mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_2} \Big)\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^M]| (|u_{h,1}^{M+1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{M+1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds \nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\ &=&\|{u^{1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{u^{1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 + \nu_T\Delta t\big(\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\big) +\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[u_h^{0}]| (|u_{h,1}^{1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{1}|^2)ds\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+2\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M({{ f}}_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+2\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}.\label{enrgy} \end{aligned}$$ Letting $v_{h,1} =u_{h,1}^{n+1}$ in and $v_{h,2} =u_{h,2}^{n+1}$ in and using the skew-symmetry of nonlinear terms, we get $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1} +(\nu_1+\nu_T)\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber \\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]||u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}ds \nonumber\\ &=&({{ f}}_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1},\label{stb1} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2} +(\nu_{2}+\nu_T)\|\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}} \nonumber \\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]||u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,1}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}ds \nonumber\\ &=&({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}.\label{stab2} \end{aligned}$$ Utilizing $$\begin{aligned} (a-b)\cdot a=\dfrac{1}{2}(|a|^2+|a-b|^2-|b|^2),\label{eq} \end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\dfrac{1}{2\Delta t}(\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2)}\nonumber\\ &&+(\nu_1+\nu_T)\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}-\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| \, \,|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds -\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &=&({{ f}}_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1},\label{stb33} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\dfrac{1}{2\Delta t}(\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2)}\nonumber\\ &&+(\nu_2+\nu_T)\|\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} - \nu_T(\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]||u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,1}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &=&({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2},\label{stb43} \end{aligned}$$ Adding to and multiplying by $2\Delta t$ yields $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2} \nonumber\\ &&+2\Delta t\big((\nu_1+\nu_T)\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}-\nu_T (\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+(\nu_2+\nu_T) \|\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_2}-\nu_T (\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}\Big) \nonumber\\ &&+2\kappa\Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]||u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds+2\kappa\Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]||u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2ds \nonumber\\&&-2\kappa\Delta t \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}ds-2\kappa\Delta t \int_{I}u_{h,1}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &=&2\Delta t({{ f}}_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+2\Delta t({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}.\label{stb5} \end{aligned}$$ The interface terms on the left hand side of can be expressed as (see [@CHL12]) $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| \, \,|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}ds}\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]||u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,1}^n|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &=&\dfrac{\kappa}{2} \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds- \dfrac{\kappa}{2}\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,1}^{n}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{n}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\dfrac{\kappa}{2} \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds\nonumber\\ &&+\dfrac{\kappa}{2} \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds. \label{stb6} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting into gives $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2}\nonumber\\ &&+2\Delta t\big((\nu_1+\nu_T)\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}-\nu_T (\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+(\nu_2+\nu_T) \|\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_2}-\nu_T (\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}\Big) \nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds - \kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,1}^{n}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{n}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds +\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds \nonumber\\ &=&2\Delta t({{ f}}_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+2\Delta t({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2},\label{stb7} \end{aligned}$$ Also considering the fact that $(\nabla u_{h,i}^n - \mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}, \mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n})_{\Omega_i}=0,$ one can easily show $$\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n} - \mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_i}= \|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_i}-\|\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_i}. \nonumber$$ The last equality and some algebraic manipulations give $$\begin{aligned} (\nu_i+\nu_T)\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_i} - \nu_T(\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1})_{\Omega_i} \nonumber\\ = \nu_i\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_i} + \frac{\nu_T}{2}\big(\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1} - \mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_i} + 2(\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1})_{\Omega_i} - \|\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_i} \big) \nonumber \\ -\nu_T (\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1})_{\Omega_i} +\frac{\nu_T}{2}\big(\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_i} - \|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_i}\big) +\frac{\nu_T}{2} \|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_i} \nonumber \\ = \nu_i\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_i} + \frac{\nu_T}{2}\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1} - \mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_i} +\frac{\nu_T}{2} \|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n} - \mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_i} \nonumber \\ +\frac{\nu_T}{2}\big(\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_i} -\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_i}\big). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the last equation in (\[stb7\]), $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}-u_{h,1}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\|{{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}-u_{h,2}^{n}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2-\|{u^{n}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2}\nonumber\\ &&+\Delta t\Big( 2\nu_1\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1} + \nu_T\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1} - \mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_1} \nonumber \\ &&+\nu_T \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n} - \mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\nu_T\big(\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1} -\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\big) \Big) \nonumber\\ &&+\Delta t\Big( 2\nu_2\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} + \nu_T\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1} - \mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_2} \nonumber \\ &&+\nu_T \|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n} - \mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n}\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\nu_T\big(\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} -\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\big) \Big) \nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds - \kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,1}^{n}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{n}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds +\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds \nonumber\\ &=&2\Delta t({{ f}}_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}+2\Delta t({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2},\label{stb8} \end{aligned}$$ Summing over the time levels completes the proof. We now provide the stability of -. \[l:stab\] Let $f_i\in L^2(0,T; H^{-1}(\Omega_i))$ for $i=1,2$. [The]{} scheme (\[alg1\])- is unconditionally stable and provides the following bound at time step $t=M+1$ $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{M+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|{u^{M+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\nu_T\Delta t( \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{M+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{M+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2})}\nonumber\\ &&+\nu_1\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\nu_2\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla {u}_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\&&+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^M]| (|u_{h,1}^{M+1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{M+1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M \int_{I}\Big{|}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|^{1/2}u_{h,2}^{n+1}-|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}u_{h,1}^{n}\Big{|}^2ds \nonumber\\ &\leq&\|{u^{1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{u^{1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[u^{0}]| (|u_{h,1}^{1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{1}|^2)ds+\nu_T\Delta t( \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{1}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 )\nonumber\\&&+{\Delta t }\sum_{n=1}^M(\nu_1^{-1}\|f_1^{n+1}\|_{-1,\Omega_1}^2+\nu_2^{-1}\|f_2^{n+1}\|_{-1,\Omega_2}^2)\label{stb} \end{aligned}$$ Performing Cauchy-Schwarz and Young’s inequalities for the right side of energy conservation equation (\[enrgy\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} 2\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^M(f_1^{n+1},u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}&\leq& {\nu_1^{-1} \Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|f_1^{n+1}\|_{-1,\Omega_1}^2+{\nu_1\Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2, \label{f1}\\2\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^M({{ f}}_2^{n+1},u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2}&\leq&{\nu_2^{-1} \Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|f_2^{n+1}\|_{-1,\Omega_2}^2+{\nu_2\Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_2}^2.\label{f2} \end{aligned}$$ Letting $\mathbb{L}_i^H=\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}$ in and and utilizing Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $$\begin{aligned} \|\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}\|_{\Omega_i}&\leq &\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n}\|_{\Omega_i}. \label{g4} \end{aligned}$$ Thus, using , the last two terms on the right hand side of can be bounded as $$\begin{aligned} 2\nu_T\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^M(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1} &\leq& {\nu_T\Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,1}^n\|_{\Omega_1}^2+{\nu_T\Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2, \label{g1}\\ [7pt]2\nu_T\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^M(\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1})_{\Omega_2} &\leq& {\nu_T \Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,2}^n\|_{\Omega_2}^2+{\nu_T\Delta t}\sum_{n=1}^M\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_2}^2. \label{g2} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting (\[f1\])- and -(\[g2\]) in (\[enrgy\]) produces the required result. We next prove that (\[alg1\])- is unconditionally long-time stable. To perform the long-time stability, in view of Lemma \[l:stab\], the right-hand side of is denoted by $S_M$, $$\begin{gathered} S_M:=\|{u^{1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|{u^{1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\kappa \Delta t \int_{I}|[u^{0}]| (|u_{h,1}^{1}|^2+|u_{h,2}^{1}|^2)ds+\nu_T\Delta t( \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{1}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 ) \nonumber \\ +{\Delta t }\sum_{n=1}^M(\nu_1^{-1}\|f_1^{n+1}\|_{-1,\Omega_1}^2+\nu_2^{-1}\|f_2^{n+1}\|_{-1,\Omega_2}^2). \label{stab}\end{gathered}$$ \[lll1\]Let $f_i \in L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+,V_i^{h*})$ for $i=1,2$ be given, then solutions of the scheme (\[alg1\])- are long-time stable in the following sense: for any time step $\Delta t >0$ and for any $n> 0$ $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{N+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2)ds}\nonumber\\&&+\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} +{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &\leq&(1+\alpha)^{-n}\Big(\|{u^{1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\nu_T\Delta t \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{0}]| (|u_{h,1}^{1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\|{u^{1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\nu_T\Delta t \|\nabla u_{h,2}^{1}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{0}]| (|u_{h,2}^{1}|^2)ds\Big)\nonumber \\&& +\alpha^{-1}\Delta t(\nu_1^{-1}\|f_1\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+,V_1^{h*})}^2+\nu_2^{-1}\|f_2\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^+,V_2^{h*})}^2),\label{lstb} \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha:=\min\Big\{\dfrac{\nu_i\Delta t}{3C_p^2},\dfrac{\nu_i}{3\nu_T},\dfrac{\nu_i}{3}(\dfrac{C\kappa^2S_n}{4}+\dfrac{2C_p^2}{\nu_i^5}+\dfrac{\nu_i}{4})^{-1}\Big\}$, for $i=1,2$. Adding to , applying Cauchy-Schwarz and Young’s inequalities, using , , and dropping the non-negative terms, we have $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2)ds}\nonumber\\&&+\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} +{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+{\nu_1}\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{\nu_2}\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\ &\leq&\|{u^{n}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\nu_T\Delta t \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,1}^{n}|^2)ds \nonumber\\ &&+\|{u^{n}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\nu_T\Delta t \|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,2}^{n}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\Delta t\nu_1^{-1}\|f_1^{n+1}\|_{V_1^{h*}}^2+\Delta t\nu_2^{-1}\|f_2^{n+1}\|_{V_1^{h*}}^2.\label{lstb1} \end{aligned}$$ Using the Lemma \[lem:nnl\] with $\varepsilon=2$, Poincaré inequality and Lemma \[l:stab\] produce $$\begin{aligned} \kappa \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| |u_{h,i}^{n+1}|^2\nonumber&\leq&\dfrac{C\kappa^2}{4} |[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|_I^2 |u_{h,i}^{n+1}|_I^2+(\dfrac{2C_p^2}{\nu_i^5}+\dfrac{\nu_i}{4})\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|^2\nonumber\\ &\leq&\dfrac{C\kappa^2}{4} |[{{\bf u}}_h^n]|_I^2 \|u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_i}^{1/3}\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_i}^{5/3}+(\dfrac{2C_p^2}{\nu_i^5}+\dfrac{\nu_i}{4})\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_i}^2\nonumber\\ &\leq&(\dfrac{C\kappa^2S_n}{4}+\dfrac{2C_p^2}{\nu_i^5}+\dfrac{\nu_i}{4})\|\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_i}^2, \quad \text{for} \, \, \, i=1,2, \label{lstb2} \end{aligned}$$ where $S_n$ has been defined in . Thus, the last two terms on the left hand side of can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{{\nu_1}\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{\nu_2}\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}}\nonumber\\ &\geq&\alpha\Big(\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1} +{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\&&+\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} +{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds\Big),\label{lstb3} \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha:=\min\Big\{\dfrac{\nu_i\Delta t}{3C_p^2},\dfrac{\nu_i}{3\nu_T},\dfrac{\nu_i}{3}(\dfrac{C\kappa^2S_n}{4}+\dfrac{2C_p^2}{\nu_i^5}+\dfrac{\nu_i}{4})^{-1}\Big\}$, for $i=1,2$. Inserting in and multiplying by $(1+\alpha)^{-1}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{u^{n+1}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2)ds}\nonumber\\&&+\|{u^{n+1}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2 +\nu_T\Delta t\|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2} +{\kappa} \Delta t \int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^n]| (|u_{h,2}^{n+1}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &\leq&(1+\alpha)^{-1}\Big(\|{u^{n}_{h,1}}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\nu_T\Delta t \|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,1}^{n}|^2)ds\nonumber\\ &&+\|{u^{n}_{h,2}}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\nu_T\Delta t \|\nabla u_{h,2}^{n}\|_{\Omega_2}^2+\kappa \Delta t\int_{I}|[{{\bf u}}_h^{n-1}]| (|u_{h,2}^{n}|^2)ds\Big)\nonumber \\&& +\Delta t\nu_1^{-1}(1+\alpha)^{-1}\|f_1^{n+1}\|_{V_1^{h*}}^2+\Delta t\nu_2^{-1}(1+\alpha)^{-1}\|f_2^{n+1}\|_{V_1^{h*}}^2.\label{lstb4}\end{aligned}$$ Utilizing induction produces the stated result . Lemma \[lll1\] proves that the long-time velocity solutions are bounded by the problem data and it is independent of the initial conditions when n is sufficiently large. Convergence Analysis ===================== This section presents convergence analysis of (\[alg1\])-(\[alg2\]). It is assumed that all functions are sufficiently regular, i.e. the solution of - satisfies $$\begin{aligned} u \in{L^\infty(0,T;H^{k+1}(\Omega) \cap H^3(\Omega) )}, \quad \partial_t u \in{L^\infty(0,T;H^{k+1}(\Omega)^d)}\label{reg},\quad \partial_{tt} u\in{L^\infty(0,T;H^{1}(\Omega)^d)} \label{r}.\end{aligned}$$ We need to define the following discrete norms to use in the convergence analysis. $$\begin{aligned} |||u|||_{\infty,p}=\max\limits_{0\leq j \leq N}||u(t^j)||_p, \, \, |||u|||_{s,p}=\Big(\Delta t \sum\limits_{j=1}^{M}||u(t^j)||_p^s \Big)^{\frac{1}{s}}.\end{aligned}$$ [Following the notation of [@CHL12], let $D^{n+1} = \tilde{\nu}^5(1+\kappa^6E^{n+1}+|||\nabla u|||_{\infty,\Omega}^4)$, where $\tilde{\nu} = \max\{\nu^{-1}_1,\nu^{-1}_2\}$ and $E^{n+1} = \max_{j=0,1,...,n+1}\{\max\{\|u(t^j)\|^6_I,\|u_h^j\|^6_I\}\}$.]{} \[The:conv\] [ Let the time step be chosen so that $\Delta t \le 1/D^{n+1}$. Then the following bound on the error holds under the regularity assumptions :]{} $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|{\bf u}(t^{{M}+1})-{\bf u}^{{M}+1}\|^2 +{ \frac{3}{4}(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla (u_1(t^{n+1})-u_{h,1}^{n+1})\|^2}}\nonumber\\&&+2\kappa\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^{M}\int_{I}|[{\bf u}^n]| |{\bf u}(t^{n+1})-{\bf u}^{n+1}|^2ds +{ \frac{3}{4}(\nu_2+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla (u_2(t^{n+1})-u_{h,2}^{n+1})\|^2} \nonumber\\&\leq& \|{\bf u}(t^{1})-{\bf u}_h^{1}\|^2+\frac{(\nu_1{ +\nu_T})\Delta t}{8}(2\|\nabla({ u_1}(t^{1})-u_{h,1}^{1})\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla ({ u_1}(t^{0})-u_{h,1}^{0})\|^2_{\Omega_1})\nonumber\\[3pt]&&+\frac{(\nu_2{ +\nu_T})\Delta t}{8}(2\|\nabla({ u_{2}}(t^{1})-{u_{h,2}^{1}})\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\|\nabla ({ u_2}(t^{0})-u_{h,2}^{0})\|^2_{\Omega_2})\nonumber\\&&+C(\Delta t^2+h^{2k}+H^{2k}),\label{thm} \end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a generic constant depending only on ${f_i},{\nu_i+\nu_T},\Omega$. The finite element error analysis starts by deriving error equations for GA-VMS finite element method (\[alg1\])-(\[alg2\]) by subtracting the scheme from weak formulation of - . To do this, first note that the true solution of - at time $t^{n+1}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1} +(\nu_1+\nu_T)(\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\nabla v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}-(p_1(t^{n+1}),\nabla\cdot v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}(u_1(t^{n+1})-u_{2}(t^{n+1}))|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|v_{h,1}ds+ {c_1(u_{1}(t^{n+1});u_{1}(t^{n+1}),v_{h,1})}\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&=&(\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t}-\partial_{t}u_1(t^{n+1}) ,v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}+\nu_T(\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\nabla v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\&&+({{ f}}_1^{n+1},v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1} \label{err1} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{{u_{2}(t^{n+1})}-u_{2}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2} +(\nu_2+\nu_T)(\nabla {u}_{2}(t^{n+1}),\nabla v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}-(p_2(t^{n+1}),\nabla\cdot v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}} \nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}(u_{2}(t^{n+1})-u_1(t^{n+1}))|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|v_{h,2}ds+ {c_2(u_{2}(t^{n+1});u_{2}(t^{n+1}),v_{h,2})}\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&=&(\frac{{u_{2}(t^{n+1})}-u_{2}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} -\partial_{t}u_2(t^{n+1}),v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}+\nu_T(\nabla {u}_{2}(t^{n+1}),\nabla v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\&&+({{ f}}_2^{n+1},v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}, \label{err2} \end{aligned}$$ for all $(v_{h,1}, v_{h,2}) \in (V_1^h,V_2^h)$. For arbitrary $\tilde{u}_1^{n+1}\in V_1^h$ and $\tilde{u}_2^{n+1}\in V_2^h$, the error is decomposed into $$\begin{aligned} e_1^{n+1}&=&u_1(t^{n+1})-u_{h,1}^{n+1}=(u_1(t^{n+1})-\tilde{u_1}^{n+1})-(u_{h,1}^{n+1}-\tilde{u_1}^{n+1})=:\eta_1^{n+1}-\phi_{h,1}^{n+1},\nonumber\\ e_2^{n+1}&=&u_{2}(t^{n+1})-u_{h,2}^{n+1}=(u_{2}(t^{n+1})-\tilde{u_{2}}^{n+1})-(u_{h,2}^{n+1}-\tilde{u_{2}}^{n+1}=:\eta_2^{n+1}-\phi_{h,2}^{n+1}. \end{aligned}$$ The interpolation error can be estimated with . Thus, subtracting - from - gives $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}-\phi_{h,1}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1} +(\nu_1+\nu_T)(\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}+\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|u_{h,1}^{n+1}v_{h,1}ds} \nonumber\\ &&-\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|u_1(t^{n+1})v_{h,1}ds+\kappa \int_{I}u_{2}(t^{n+1})|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|v_{h,1}ds\nonumber \\&&-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}v_{h,1}ds \nonumber\\&=&(\frac{\eta_{1}^{n+1}-\eta_{1}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}+(\nu_1+\nu_T)(\nabla \eta_{1}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}-(p_1(t^{n+1})-q_1^{n+1},\nabla\cdot v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\&&+(\partial_{t}u_1(t^{n+1})-\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,1})_{\Omega_1}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_1(t^{n+1}),\nabla v_{h,1})\nonumber\\&&+{c_1(u_{1}(t^{n+1});u_{1}(t^{n+1}),v_{h,1})}-{c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1};u_{h,1}^{n+1},v_{h,1})}, \label{err3} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{(\frac{\phi_{h,2}^{n+1}-\phi_{h,2}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2} +(\nu_2+\nu_T)(\nabla \phi_{h,2}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}+\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|u_{h,2}^{n+1}v_{h,2}ds} \nonumber\\ &&-\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|u_{2}(t^{n+1})v_{h,2}ds+\kappa \int_{I}u_1(t^{n+1})|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|v_{h,2}ds\nonumber\\&&-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,1}^n|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}v_{h,2}ds\nonumber \nonumber\\&=&(\frac{\eta_{2}^{n+1}-\eta_{2}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}+(\nu_2+\nu_T)(\nabla \eta_{2}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}-(p_2(t^{n+1})-q_2^{n+1},\nabla\cdot v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\&&+(\partial_{t}u_2(t^{n+1})-\frac{{u_{2}(t^{n+1})}-u_{2}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,2})_{\Omega_2}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_2^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_{2}(t^{n+1}),\nabla v_{h,2})\nonumber\\&&+{c_2(u_{2}(t^{n+1});u_{2}(t^{n+1}),v_{h,2})}-{c_2(u_{h,2}^{n+1};u_{h,2}^{n+1},v_{h,2})}. \label{err4} \end{aligned}$$ Then choosing $v_{h,1}=\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}$ in and using the polarization identity provides $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\frac{1}{2\Delta t}\Big(\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}-\|\phi_{h,1}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}-\phi_{h,1}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\Big) +(\nu_1+\nu_T)\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|u_{h,1}^{n+1}\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds- \kappa\int_{I}|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|u_1(t^{n+1})\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\&&+\kappa \int_{I}u_{2}(t^{n+1})|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds- \kappa\int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds \nonumber\\&\leq&{\left\vert(\frac{\eta_{1}^{n+1}-\eta_{1}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}+(\nu_1+\nu_T){\left\vert(\nabla \eta_{1}^{n+1},\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}+{\left\vert(p_1(t^{n+1})-q_1^{n+1},\nabla\cdot \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}\nonumber\\&&+{\left\vert(\partial_{t}u_1(t^{n+1})-\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} ,\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}+\nu_T{\left\vert(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_1(t^{n+1}),\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})\right\vert}\nonumber\\&&+{c_1(u_{1}(t^{n+1});u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}-{c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1};u_{h,1}^{n+1},\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}. \label{er3} \end{aligned}$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz, Young’s, and Poincaré inequalities along with Taylor theorem, we get $$\begin{aligned} {\left\vert(\frac{\eta_{1}^{n+1}-\eta_{1}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}&\leq&C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}^{-1}{\Delta t}^{-1}\int_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}}\|\partial_t\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2, \label{err0}\\ (\nu_1+\nu_T){\left\vert(\nabla \eta_{1}^{n+1},\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}&\leq&C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}\|\nabla \eta_1^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\\ {\left\vert(p_1(t^{n+1})-q_1^{n+1},\nabla\cdot \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}&\leq&C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}^{-1}\|p_1(t^{n+1})-q_1^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\\ {\left\vert(\partial_{t}u_1(t^{n+1})-\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} ,\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{\Omega_1}\right\vert}&\leq&C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}^{-1}\|\partial_t u_1(t^{n+1})-\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2. \label{err5} \end{aligned}$$ The equations (\[alg101\]) and (\[alg100\]) state that $\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}=P^H \nabla u_{h,i}^n$ where $P^H$ is the $L^2(\Omega_i)$-orthogonal projection defined by (\[pro\]). Hence, utilizing Cauchy–Schwarz and Young’s inequality to the fifth term on the right hand side of yields $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\nu_T{\left\vert(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_1(t^{n+1}),\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{{\Omega_1}}\right\vert}}\nonumber\\&\leq&(P^H \nabla (u_{h,1}^n-u_{1}(t^n)),\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{{\Omega_1}}-((I-P^H )\nabla u_{1}(t^n),\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{{\Omega_1}}\nonumber\\&&-(\nabla ( u_1(t^{n+1})-u_{1}(t^n)),\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{{\Omega_1}}\nonumber\\&\leq&C\nu_T^2(\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-1}\Big(\|P^H \nabla\eta_1^n\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|P^H\nabla\phi_{h,1}^n\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\|(I-P^H )\nabla u_{1}(t^n)\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|\nabla ( u_1(t^{n+1})-u_{1}(t^n))\|_{\Omega_1}^2\Big)\nonumber\\ &&+{\frac{\nu_1+\nu_T}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2}. \label{er1} \end{aligned}$$ Taylor remainder formula is used along with , and inverse inequality to get $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{ \nu_T{\left\vert(\mathbb{G}_1^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_1(t^{n+1}),\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1})_{{\Omega_1}}\right\vert}}\nonumber\\&\leq&C\nu_T^2(\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-1}\Big(\|\nabla \eta_1^n\|^2+h^{-2}\|\phi_{h,1}^n\|^2+H^{2k}\|u_1(t^n)\|_{k+1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\Delta t^2\|\partial_t u_1\|_{L^{\infty}(t^n,t^{n+1};H^1(\Omega))}^2\Big) +{\frac{\nu_1+\nu_T}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2}.\label{er2} \end{aligned}$$ The nonlinear terms can be rearranged by adding and subtracting terms and using\ ${c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1};\phi_{h,1}^{n+1},\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}=0$ as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{ {c_1(u_{1}(t^{n+1});u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}-{c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1};u_{h,1}^{n+1},\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}}\nonumber\\&=&{c_1(\eta_{1}^{n+1};u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}-{c_1(\phi_{h,1}^{n+1};u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}\nonumber\\&&+{c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1};\eta_{1}^{n+1},\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}. \label{nnl} \end{aligned}$$ Bounds for the terms on the right hand side of are given as $$\begin{aligned} {c_1(\eta_{1}^{n+1};u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}&\leq&C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}^{-1}\|\nabla\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\|\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1})\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\nonumber\\[5pt] {c_1(\phi_{h,1}^{n+1};u_{1}(t^{n+1}),\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})}&\leq&C\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^{1/2}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^{1/2}\|\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1})\|_{\Omega_1}\|\nabla\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\ &\leq&C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}^{-3}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\|\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1})\|_{\Omega_1}^4\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\nonumber\\[5pt] {c_1(u_{h,1}^{n+1};\eta_{1}^{n+1},\phi_{h,1}^{n+1})} &\leq& C{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}^{-1}\|\nabla\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2. \label{err7} \end{aligned}$$ The interface integrals can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|u_{h,1}^{n+1}\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds-\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|u_1(t^{n+1})\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds}\nonumber\\&=&-\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]| |\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds+\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^{n}]|\eta_{1}^{n+1}\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\&&+\kappa \int_{I}(|[{\bf u}_h^n]|-|[\tilde{\bf u}^n]|)u_1(t^{n+1})\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\&& +\kappa \int_{I}(|[\tilde{\bf u}^n]|-|[{\bf u}(t^n)]|)u_1(t^{n+1})\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}(|[{\bf u}(t^n)]|-|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|)u_1(t^{n+1})\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds,\label{err8} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}u_{2}(t^{n+1})|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds-\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n|[{\bf u}^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}^{n-1}]|^{1/2}\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds}\nonumber\\&=&\kappa \int_{I}(u_{2}(t^{n+1})-u_{2}(t^{n}))|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds+\kappa \int_{I}(\phi_{h,2}^{n}-\eta_{2}^n)|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\&&+\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n\Big(|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|-\frac{1}{2}(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|)\Big)\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n\Big(\frac{1}{2}(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|-\frac{1}{2}(|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|))\Big)\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n\Big(\frac{1}{2}(|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|)-\frac{1}{2}(|[{\bf u}_h^{n}]|+|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|)\Big)\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds\nonumber\\ &&+\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,2}^n\Big(\frac{1}{2}(|[{\bf u}_h^{n}]|+|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|)-|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}\Big)\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}ds. \label{err9} \end{aligned}$$ With the use of Lemma \[lem:nnl\] and the following inequalities $$\begin{aligned} \Big| |[{\bf u}(t^n)]|-|[\tilde{\bf u}^n]|\Big|&\leq&|[\boldsymbol{ \eta}^n]|,\nonumber\\ \Big| |[{\bf u}_h^n]|-|[\tilde{\bf u}^n]|\Big|&\leq&|[\boldsymbol{ \phi}_h^n]|, \end{aligned}$$ we bound the terms on the right hand side of as $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|\eta_{1}^{n+1}||[{\bf u}_h^{n}]||\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_I^2||[{\bf u}_h^{n}]||^2_I+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\allowdisplaybreaks+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\label{err11}\\[7pt] \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|u_1(t^{n+1})|(|[{\bf u}_h^n]|-|[\tilde{\bf u}^n]|)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber \\ &\leq&C\kappa^{6}\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|^{6}_I\Big({{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)^{-5}}\|\phi_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\Big)+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{32}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)}}{48}\|\nabla \phi_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1},\label{err12}\allowdisplaybreaks\\[7pt] \lefteqn{ \kappa \int_{I}|u_1(t^{n+1})|(|[\tilde{\bf u}^n]|-|[{\bf u}(t^n)]|)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|_I^2||[{\boldsymbol{\eta}}^n]||^2_I+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\label{err13}\allowdisplaybreaks\\[7pt] \lefteqn{ \kappa \int_{I}|u_1(t^{n+1})||[{\bf u}(t^n)-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|_I^2||[{\bf u}(t^n)-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^2_I+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 \label{err14}. \end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the first six terms on the right hand side of become $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|u_{2}(t^{n+1})-u_{2}(t^{n})||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|u_{2}(t^{n+1})-u_{2}(t^{n})\|_I^2||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^2_I+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\label{err15},\allowdisplaybreaks\\[7pt] \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|\phi_{h,2}^{n}||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq& C\kappa^{6}||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||_I^{6}\Big({{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,2}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_2}+{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\Big)\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)}}{48}\|\nabla \phi_{h,2}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}, \label{err16}\\[7pt] \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|\eta_{2}^n||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds\leq\frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|\eta_{2}^n\|_I^2||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^2_I+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2}\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\label{err17}\\[7pt] \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|u_{h,2}^n|\Big(|[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|-\frac{1}{2}(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|)\Big)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\ &\leq&\frac{\kappa}{2}\int_{I}|u_{h,2}^n|\Big(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|\Big)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{C\kappa^2}{8}\|u_{h,2}^n\|_I^2\Big(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|_I^2+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|_I^2\Big)\nonumber\\&&+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\label{err18}\allowdisplaybreaks\\[7pt] \lefteqn{\dfrac{\kappa}{2} \int_{I}|u_{h,2}^n|\Big(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|-|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n})]|-|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|\Big)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{C\kappa^2}{4}\|u_{h,2}^n\|_I^2(||[\boldsymbol{ \eta}^n]||^2_I+||[\boldsymbol{\eta}^{n-1}]||^2_I)+C{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2,\label{err19}\\[7pt] \lefteqn{\dfrac{\kappa}{2} \int_{I}|u_{h,2}^n|\Big(|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n})]|+|[\tilde{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|-|[{\bf u}_h^{n}]|-|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|\Big)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&C\kappa^{6}\|u_{h,2}^n\|^{6}_I\Big({{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}}\|{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)^{-5}}\|{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}\|{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\&&+{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)^{-5}}\|{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}+{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)^{-5}}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\Big)+\Big(\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{32}\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)}}{48}\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{16}\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\frac{{ (\nu_2+\nu_T)}}{16}\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\&&+\frac{{ (\nu_1+\nu_T)}}{36}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}\Big). \label{err20} \end{aligned}$$ The last term of can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\kappa \int_{I}|u_{h,2}^n|\Big(\frac{1}{2}(|[{\bf u}_h^{n}]|+|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|)-|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}|[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]|^{1/2}\Big)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds}\nonumber\\&\leq&\frac{\kappa}{2} \int_{I}|u_{h,2}^n|\Big(|[\boldsymbol{\phi}_h^n]|+|[\boldsymbol{\phi}_h^{n-1}]|+|[\boldsymbol{\eta}^n]|+|[\boldsymbol{\eta}^{n-1}]|+|[{\bf u}(t^n)-{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|\Big)|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|ds, \label{err21} \end{aligned}$$ which can be bounded in a similar way to and . Inserting all bounds in and multiplying by $2\Delta t$ gives $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{{\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|\phi_{h,1}^{n}\|_{\Omega_1}^2} +\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}-\phi_{h,1}^{n}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber\\&&+2\kappa\Delta t \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]| |\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds-\frac{{ \nu_1+\nu_T}}{8}\Delta t(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&-\frac{{ \nu_2+\nu_T}}{8}\Delta t(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&\leq& C\Delta t\Bigg(\Delta t^{-1}\int_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}}\|\partial_t\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\Big(1+\|\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1})\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|\nabla u_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\Big)\|\nabla \eta_1^{n+1}\|^2\nonumber\\&&+\|p_1(t^{n+1})-q_1^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|\partial_t u_1(t^{n+1})-\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\|\nabla \eta_1^n\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+H^{2k}\|u_1(t^n)\|_{k+1}^2+\Delta t^2\|\partial_t u_1\|_{L^{\infty}(t^n,t^{n+1};H^1(\Omega))}^2+\|\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_I^2||[{\bf u}_h^{n}]||^2_I+\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|_I^2||[\boldsymbol{\eta}^n]||^2_I\nonumber\\[5pt]&& +\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|_I^2||[{\bf u}(t^n)-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^2_I+\|u_{2}(t^{n+1})-u_{2}(t^{n})\|_I^2||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^2_I\nonumber\\[5pt] &&+\|\eta_{2}^n\|_I^2||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^2_I+\|u_{h,2}^n\|_I^2(||[\boldsymbol{ \eta}^n]||^2_I+||[\boldsymbol{\eta}^{n-1}]||^2_I)\nonumber\\ &&+\|u_{h,2}^n\|_I^2\Big(|[{\bf u}(t^{n})-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|_I^2+|[{\bf u}(t^{n-1})-{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]|_I^2+|[{\bf u}(t^{n})-{\bf u}(t^{n-1})]|_I^2\Big)\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\ &&+\bigg(\|\nabla u_{1}(t^{n+1})\|_{\Omega_1}^{4}+\kappa^{6}(\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|^{6}_I+||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^{6}_I+\|u_{h,2}^n\|^{6}_I)\bigg)\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\kappa^{6}\Big(\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|^{6}_I+\|u_{h,2}^n\|^{6}_I+h^{-2}\Big)\|\phi_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\kappa^{6}\bigg(\|u_1(t^{n+1})\|^{6}_I+\|u_{h,2}^n\|^{6}_I\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+||[{\bf u}(t^{n+1})]||^{6}_I\bigg)\|\phi_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\kappa^{6}\|u_{h,2}^n\|^{6}_I\Big(\|{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\Big)\allowdisplaybreaks \Bigg).\label{err10} \end{aligned}$$ Under the interpolation estimates and , the terms on the right hand side of can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} \int_{t^n}^{t^{n+1}}\|\partial_t\eta_{1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2&\leq&h^{2k+2}\|\partial_{t}u_1 \|_{L^2(t^n,t^{n+1};H^{k+1}(\Omega))}^2\label{err22},\\[5pt]\|\nabla \eta_1^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2&\leq&h^{2k}\|u_1\|_{k+1}^2,\\[5pt] \|\eta_{2}^n\|_{\Omega_1}^2&\leq&h^{2k+2}\|u_2\|_{k+1}^2,\\[5pt] ||[\boldsymbol{\eta}^n]||^2_I&\leq&h^{2k+2}||[{\bf u}]||^2_{k+1},\\[5pt] \|p_1(t^{n+1})-q_1^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2&\leq&h^{2k}\|p_1\|_{k}^2, \label{pq}\\[5pt] \Delta t\|\partial_{t}u_1-\frac{{u_1(t^{n+1})}-u_{1}(t^{n})}{\Delta t} \|_{\Omega_1}^2&\leq&\Delta t^2\|\partial_{tt}u_1\|_{L^\infty(t^n,t^{n+1};L^2(\Omega))}^2,\label{err23} \end{aligned}$$ Substituting - into and summing over the time steps yield $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{{\|\phi_{h,1}^{M+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|\phi_{h,1}^{1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2} +\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}-\phi_{h,1}^{n}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber\\&&+2\kappa\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^{M}\int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]| |\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds-\frac{{ \nu_1+\nu_T}}{8}\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&-\frac{{ \nu_2+\nu_T}}{8}\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&\leq& C\Bigg(h^{2k+2}\|\partial_{t}u_1 \|_{L^2(0,T;H^{k+1}(\Omega_1))}^2+h^{2k}(1+|||\nabla u_{1}|||_{\infty,\Omega_1}^2+S_M)|||u_1|||_{2,k+1}^2\nonumber\\&&+h^{2k}|||p_1|||_{2,k}^2+\Delta t^2(\|\partial_{tt}u_1\|_{L^\infty(0,T;L^2(\Omega_1))}^2+\|\partial_t u_1\|_{L^{\infty}(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}^2)+H^{2k}|||u_1|||_{2,k+1}^2\nonumber\\[5pt]&&+h^{2k+2}(|||u_1|||_{\infty,I}^2+S_M)|||[\boldsymbol{u}]|||^2_{2,k+1} +h^{2k+2}(S_M|||u_{1}|||_{2,k+1}^2+||[{\bf u}]||^2_{\infty,I}|||u_{2}|||_{2,k+1}^2)\nonumber\\[5pt] &&+\Big(|||\nabla u_{1}|||_{\infty,\Omega_1}^{4}+\kappa^{6}(|||u_1|||^{6}_{\infty,I}+||[{\bf u}]||^{6}_{\infty,I}+S_M)\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2\nonumber\\&&+\kappa^{6}\Big(|||u_1|||^{6}_{\infty,I}+S_M+h^{-2}\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\kappa^{6}\bigg(|||u_1|||^{6}_{\infty,I}+S_M\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+||[{\bf u}]||^{6}_{\infty,I}\bigg)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\kappa^{6}S_M\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\Big(\|{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\Big)\allowdisplaybreaks \Bigg)\label{err} \end{aligned}$$ where $S_M$ represents to right hand side of . Simplifying , we have $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{{\|\phi_{h,1}^{M+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2-\|\phi_{h,1}^{1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2} +\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}-\phi_{h,1}^{n}\|_{\Omega_1}^2 +(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla \phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}} \nonumber\\&&+2\kappa\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^{M}\int_{I}|[{\bf u}^n]| |\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}|^2ds-\frac{{ \nu_1+\nu_T}}{8}\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&-\frac{{ \nu_2+\nu_T}}{8}\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&\leq& C(\Delta t^2+h^{2k}+H^{2k})+\Big(|||\nabla u_{1}|||_{\infty,\Omega_1}^{4}+\kappa^{6}(|||u_1|||^{6}_{\infty,I}+||[{\bf u}]||^{6}_{\infty,I}\nonumber\\&&+S_M)\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,1}^{n+1}\|_{\Omega_1}^2+\kappa^{6}\Big(|||u_1|||^{6}_{\infty,I}+S_M+h^{-2}\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1}\nonumber\\&&+\kappa^{6}\Big(|||u_1|||^{6}_{\infty,I}+S_M+||[{\bf u}]||^{6}_{\infty,I}\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\phi_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2}\nonumber\\&&+\kappa^{6}S\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\Big(\|{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}\Big)\allowdisplaybreaks. \label{err24} \end{aligned}$$ Similar to the derivation of , we can bound the right hand side of . Combining it with and using give $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{{\|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{M+1}\|^2-\|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{1}\|^2} +\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{n+1}-\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{n}\|^2 +2\kappa\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^{M}\int_{I}|[{\bf u}^n]| |\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{n+1}|^2ds} \nonumber\\&&+{ \frac{3}{4}(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla \phi_{h_1}^{n+1}\|^2 +\frac{3}{4}(\nu_2+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla \phi_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2} \nonumber\\&&+\frac{1}{8}({{ \nu_1+\nu_T}})\Delta t\Big(2\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}-\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^n\|^2_{\Omega_1})+\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_1}-\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_1})\Big)\nonumber\\&&+\frac{1}{8}({{ \nu_2+\nu_T}})\Delta t\Big(2\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}-\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^n\|^2_{\Omega_2})+\sum_{n=1}^{M}(\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n}\|^2_{\Omega_2}-\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{n-1}\|^2_{\Omega_2})\Big)\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\\allowdisplaybreaks&\leq& C(\Delta t^2+h^{2k}+H^{2k})\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+\Big(|||\nabla {\bf u}|||_{\infty,\Omega}^{4}+\kappa^{ 6}(||[{\bf u}]||^{ 6}_{\infty,I}+|||\boldsymbol{u}|||^{ 6}_{\infty,I}+S_M)\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{n+1}\|^2\nonumber\allowdisplaybreaks\\&&+\kappa^{ 6}\Big(|||\boldsymbol{u}|||^{ 6}_{\infty,I}+||[{\bf u}]||_{\infty,I}^{ 6}+S_M+h^{-2}\Big)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^M\|\boldsymbol{ \phi}_{h}^n\|^2+\kappa^{6}S_M\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^M\|\boldsymbol{ \phi}_{h}^{n-1}\|^2.\label{err25} \end{aligned}$$ Dropping the positive term and using discrete Gronwall Lemma \[gron\] produce $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{M+1}\|^2 +2\kappa\Delta t \sum_{n=1}^{M}\int_{I}|[{\bf u}^n]| |\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{n+1}|^2ds} \nonumber\\&&+{ \frac{3}{4}(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla \phi_{h_1}^{n+1}\|^2 +\frac{3}{4}(\nu_2+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla \phi_{h,2}^{n+1}\|^2} \nonumber\\&&+\frac{1}{8}({{ \nu_1+\nu_T}})\Delta t(2\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{M+1}\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{M}\|^2_{\Omega_1})\nonumber\\&&+\frac{1}{8}({{ \nu_2+\nu_T}})\Delta t(2\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{M+1}\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{M}\|^2_{\Omega_2})\nonumber\\&\leq& \|\boldsymbol{\phi}_{h}^{1}\|^2+\frac{1}{8}({{ \nu_1+\nu_T}})\Delta t(2\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,1}^1\|^2_{\Omega_1}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,1}^{0}\|^2_{\Omega_1})\nonumber\\&&+\frac{1}{8}({{ \nu_2+\nu_T}})\Delta t(2\|\nabla{\bf \phi}_{h,2}^1\|^2_{\Omega_2}+\|\nabla {\bf \phi}_{h,2}^{0}\|^2_{\Omega_2})+C(\Delta t^2+h^{2k}+H^{2k}). \end{aligned}$$ Applying triangle inequalities yields the stated result of the theorem. \[corr\] Let $({{\bf u}},{\bf p})$be a solution of - with regularity assumptions and suppose that $(X_i^h,Q_i^h)$ for $i=1,2$ is given by $P_2/P_1$ Taylor Hood finite elements and $L_i^H$ is given by $P_1$ polynomials, $\nu_T=h$ and $H=h$. Assume the velocity data ${{\bf u}}^0$, ${{\bf u}}^1$ satisfies $$\|{{\bf u}}(t^0)-{{\bf u}}^0\|_X+\|{{\bf u}}(t^1)-{{\bf u}}^1\|_X \leq C_1h$$ for a generic constant $C_1$ independent of $\Delta t$ and $h$. Then, the error satisfies, $$\begin{gathered} \|{\bf u}(t^{{M}+1})-{\bf u}^{{M}+1}\|^2 +{ \frac{3}{4}(\nu_1+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla (u_1(t^{n+1})-u_{h,1}^{n+1})\|^2}\nonumber \\ +\frac{3}{4}(\nu_2+\nu_T)\Delta t\sum_{n=1}^{M}\|\nabla (u_2(t^{n+1})-u_{h,2}^{n+1})\|^2 \leq C((\Delta t)^2+h^{2k}).\label{cor} \end{gathered}$$ Numerical Studies ================= In this section, we present a couple of numerical experiments which illustrate situations in which GA-VMS method discussed in the previous sections is beneficial. Numerical studies of GA-VMS method includes a comparison with different types of finite element discretizations of AO interaction. The first experiment serves as a support for the orders of convergence given by Corollary \[corr\]. The second experiment is to show the energy balance of the problem. The last includes the flow over a cliff type of problem. The simulations were performed with the Taylor-Hood pair of spaces $(P2/P1)$ for velocity and pressure, and also piecewise linear finite element space $P1$ for the large scale space on the same mesh instead of piecewise quadratic finite element space $P2$ on a different coarse mesh, see [@jokaya1]; otherwise requires transfer of solutions from one mesh to the other which adds extra computational complexity. We first compare our results with GA of [@CHL12]. The scheme reads: Find $(u_{h,i}^{n+1},p_{h,i}^{n+1})\in (X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} (\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,i}}-u_{h,i}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +\nu_i(\nabla u_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +({u}_{h,i}^{n+1}\cdot \nabla {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} \nonumber -(p_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla \cdot v_{h,i}) \nonumber\\ +(\nabla\cdot {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},q_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|u_{h,i}^{n+1}v_{h,i}ds -\kappa \int_{I}u_{h,j}^n|[{\bf u}_h^n]|^{1/2}[{\bf u}_h^{n-1}]^{1/2}v_{h,i}ds, =({{ f}}_i^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i}\label{algg3}\end{aligned}$$ for all $(v_{h,i},q_{h,i}) \in (X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h)$. In addition, we also use monolithically coupled algorithms for comparison. This way, the proposed model could be compared against computationally very expensive, yet highly accurate, in terms of interface coupling, solutions. TWM and TWM-VMS refer to solving the system two-way monolithically and two-way monolithically with variational multiscale method, respectively. Galerkin FEM approximation of TWM method reads: Find $(u_{h,i}^{n+1},p_{h,i}^{n+1})\in (X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} (\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,i}}-u_{h,i}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} + \nu_i(\nabla {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +({u}_{h,i}^{n+1}\cdot \nabla {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} -(p_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla \cdot v_{h,i}) \nonumber \\ +(\nabla\cdot {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},q_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +\kappa \int_{I}|[ {\bf u}_h^n]|[{\bf u}_h^{n+1}]v_{h,i}ds =({{ f}}_i^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i},\label{BE2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $(v_{h,i},q_{h,i}) \in ({{X }}_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h)$. Similar to GA-VMS method, TWM-VMS finite element discretization reads: Find $(u_{h,i}^{n+1},p_{h,i}^{n+1},\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},{n+1}})\in (X_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h,L_i^H)$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} (\frac{{u^{n+1}_{h,i}}-u_{h,i}^{n}}{\Delta t} ,v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} +(\nu_i+\nu_T)(\nabla {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i} + ({u}_{h,i}^{n+1}\cdot \nabla {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i}-(p_{h,i}^{n+1},\nabla \cdot v_{h,i}) \nonumber \\ +(\nabla\cdot {u}_{h,i}^{n+1},q_{h,i})_{\Omega_i}+\kappa \int_{I}|[{\bf u}_h^n]|[{\bf u}_h^{n+1}]v_{h,i}ds =({{ f}}_i^{n+1},v_{h,i})_{\Omega_i}+\nu_T(\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n},\nabla v_{h,i}), \label{BE3}\\ (\mathbb{G}_i^{\mathbb{H},n}-\nabla u_{h,i}^n, \mathbb{L}_i^H)_{\Omega_i}=0, \label{algg2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $(v_{h,i},q_{h,i},\mathbb{L}_i^H) \in ({{X }}_{i}^h,Q_{i}^h,L_i^H)$. Simulations were performed at a problem defined in $\Omega = \Omega_1 \cup \Omega_2$ with $\Omega_1 = [0,1] \times [0,1]$ and $\Omega_2=[0,1] \times [0,-1]$ with prescribed solution $$\begin{aligned} u_{1,1} &= a\nu_1e^{-2bt}x^2(1 - x)^2(1 + y) + ae^{-bt}x(1 - x)\nu_1/\sqrt{\kappa a}\\ u_{1,2} &= a\nu_1e^{-2bt}xy(2 + y)(1 - x)(2x-1) + ae^{-bt}y(2x - 1)\nu_1/\sqrt{\kappa a} \\ u_{2,1} &= a\nu_1 e^{-2bt}x^2(1 - x)^2(1 + \frac{\nu_1}{\nu_2}y) \\ u_{2,2} &= a\nu_1 e^{-2bt}xy(1 - x)(2x - 1)(2 + \frac{\nu_1}{\nu_2}y), \end{aligned}$$ Herein, for simplicity pressures are set to zero in both domains, and right hand side forcing, boundary and two initial values are computed using the manufactured true solution as is done in [@ACEL18]. Problem parameters, $b=1/2$, $\kappa=0.001$ and the final time $T=1$ are fixed while $a$, $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ vary from one computation to the other. Numerical experiments are performed on a single mesh, that is $H=h$. Also discretization parameters, $h$, $\Delta t$ and the eddy viscosity parameter $\nu_T=h$ are refined all together. Therefore, first order accuracy is expected in numerical experiments. [*Convergence Rates.*]{} Results with the high-viscosity are presented in Tables \[table:GA\]-\[table:TWM-VMS\]. These results agree with the analytical predictions in terms of accuracy. That means, decoupling systems and neglecting unresolved small scales will not impose significantly high error. On contrary, latter might improve accuracy even for high viscosities, see $L^2$-norm-in-space and $L^2$-norm-in-time errors in Table \[table:TWM\] and Table \[table:TWM-VMS\]. Note that when it comes to low-viscosity results, GA and TWM both fail to converge since small viscosity causes numerical singularities. On the other hand, equipping GA and TWM with VMS regularizes their systems and produces believable results for higher viscosity, see Table \[table:GA-VMSsmall\]-\[table:TWM-VMSsmall\] for the choices $\nu_1 = 0.0005$, $\nu_2 = 0.0001$, $a = 1/\nu_1$. Altogether, the behavior of the discrete solutions observed here is in agreement with the analytical results: GA-VMS is a first order accuracy model of atmosphere-ocean interaction. It can be also observed that decoupling systems will not introduce too much error as TWM-VMS and GA-VMS both give very similar accuracy results. This might be attributed to the dominating viscosity error (instead of decoupling error). \[table:GA\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ---- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- 8 1.14578e-03 - 1.24305e-02 - 16 5.73429e-04 1.00 4.86981e-03 1.35 32 2.87691e-04 1.00 2.25678e-03 1.11 64 1.44198e-04 1.00 1.10762e-03 1.03 : GA for $\nu_1 = 0.5$, $\nu_2 = 0.1$, $a = 1$ \[table:GA-VMS\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ---- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- 8 1.76862e-03 - 1.64437e-02 - 16 7.39919e-04 1.26 6.11638e-03 1.43 32 3.29011e-04 1.17 2.58223e-03 1.24 64 1.54366e-04 1.09 1.18872e-03 1.12 : GA-VMS for $\nu_1 = 0.5$, $\nu_2 = 0.1$, $a = 1$ \[table:TWM\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ---- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- 8 1.09092e-03 - 1.19716e-02 - 16 5.46568e-04 1.00 4.58332e-03 1.39 32 2.74340e-04 1.00 2.10125e-03 1.13 64 1.37532e-04 1.00 1.02956e-03 1.03 : TWM for $\nu_1 = 0.5$, $\nu_2 = 0.1$, $a = 1$ \[table:TWM-VMS\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ---- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- 8 1.56615e-03 - 1.56615e-02 - 16 6.96009e-04 1.27 5.68593e-03 1.46 32 2.38204e-04 1.17 2.38261e-03 1.25 64 1.09747e-04 1.09 1.09747e-03 1.12 : TWM-VMS for $\nu_1 = 0.5$, $\nu_2 = 0.1$, $a = 1$ \[table:GA-VMSsmall\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ----- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- 8 1.01687e-02 - 8.89222e-02 - 16 4.26050e-03 1.26 4.53765e-02 0.97 32 1.49500e-03 1.51 2.29722e-02 0.98 64 5.21601e-04 1.52 1.18369e-02 0.96 128 1.98533e-04 1.39 5.58328e-03 1.08 : GA-VMS for $\nu_1 = 0.0005$, $\nu_2 = 0.0001$, $a = 1/\nu_1$ \[table:TWM-VMSsmall\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ----- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------ -- -- -- 8 1.01681e-02 - 8.89157e-02 - 16 4.25999e-03 1.26 4.53667e-02 0.97 32 1.49464e-03 1.51 2.29561e-02 0.98 64 5.21364e-04 1.52 1.18120e-02 0.96 128 1.98402e-04 1.39 5.55465e-03 1.09 : TWM-VMS for $\nu_1 = 0.0005$, $\nu_2 = 0.0001$, $a = 1/\nu_1$ It has to be noted that the alternative approach for GA-VMS mentioned on the Remark \[remark:alternative\_approach\] fails to provide good-quality results, see Table \[table:GA-VMS\_alt\_small\]. \[table:GA-VMS\_alt\_small\] N $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))}$ rate $||\,u-u^h\,||_{L^2(0,T;H^1(\Omega))}$ rate ---- ---------------------------------------- ------ ---------------------------------------- ------- -- -- -- 8 1.53291e-02 - 1.64229e-01 - 16 9.03667e-03 0.76 1.56901e-01 0.07 32 5.55247e-03 0.70 1.81161e-01 -0.21 64 3.65918e-03 0.60 2.18847e-01 -0.27 : GA-VMS alternative approach for $\nu_1 = 0.0005$, $\nu_2 = 0.0001$, $a = 1/\nu_1$ [*Conservation of Energy.*]{} Computational results related to conservation of global energy is presented next. For simplicity, the problem has been set to keep the same total energy over all the time levels. For this reason, we choose homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions everywhere except the interface and zero forcing. Expectations of the energy has to be drawn before giving any results. To that end, weak formulation of the continuous problem shall be considered under homogeneous boundary conditions and zero forcing: Multiplying by $\textbf{u} \in X$, integrating over the whole domain and over $[0,T]$, we get the following energy equality: $$\label{cont_energy} ||\textbf{u}(t)||_{\Omega}^2 + 2\nu\int_{0}^t||\nabla \textbf{u}(s)||_{\Omega}^2ds = ||\textbf{u}(0)||_{\Omega}^2.$$ Herein, define $$\nonumber \begin{split} I:=\text{initial kinetic energy } &= ||\textbf{u}(0)||_{\Omega}^2 = ||u_1(0)||_{\Omega_1}^2 + ||u_2(0)||_{\Omega_2}^2,\\ KE:=\text{kinetic energy at t } &= ||\textbf{u}(t)||_{\Omega}^2 = ||u_1(t)||_{\Omega_1}^2 + ||u_2(t)||_{\Omega_2}^2,\\ \mathcal{E}:=\text{energy dissipated by the time t } &= 2\nu\int_{0}^t||\nabla \textbf{u}(s)||_{\Omega}^2ds = 2\nu_1 \int_{0}^t||\nabla u_1(s)||_{\Omega_1}^2ds \\ &+ 2\nu_2 \int_{0}^t||\nabla u_2(s)||_{\Omega_2}^2ds. \end{split}$$ Energy equality means continuous system conserves energy for all time. However, discrete models introduce discretization error such as decoupling errors, consequently, energy is not exactly conserved. The following quantity gives a measurement of how far away energy goes beyond being exact. Considering discrete versions of energies, define $$\begin{aligned} AED(t):=\text{absolute energy difference} &=& |I-KE-\mathcal{E}|\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned above for continuous solution, the problem has been constructed so that it has zero forcing and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions everywhere except the interface, and divergence-free initial values, $u_{i,j}^0$ have been chosen as follows: $$\label{IC} \begin{split} u_{i,1} &= \sin(2\pi y)\sin^2(\pi x),\\ u_{i,2} &=-\sin(2\pi x)\sin^2(\pi y), i=1,2. \end{split}$$ Both GA and GA-VMS require two initial values. Therefore, we compute the second initial values with one step of IMEX method proposed in [@CHL12] and investigated in [@ZHS16]. ![Initial flows[]{data-label="fig:IV"}](initial_values.png){width="0.5\linewidth"} Discretization parameters are chosen uniform, $h=1/32$, $\Delta t = 0.01$, and computations ended at the final time $T=25$. Problem parameters, $\kappa = 0.001$, $\nu_1 = 1.5e-03$ and $\nu_2 = 1.0e-04$ have been chosen, and computations have been performed on the uniform square mesh shown faded in Figure \[fig:IV\]. It has to be noted that these choice of parameters is very close to being realistic in terms of drag coefficient $\kappa$ and the ratio of the viscosities. Totally realistic setting with real viscocities causes very prohibitive singularities in GA, at this point, we increase the values of viscosities for reliable GA results. In addition, even under this choices, computations take much longer time for linear systems of GA to converge as seen in the Table \[table:times\]. \[table:times\] GA 4h:13m:58s -------- ------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- GA-VMS 41m:04s : Computational times Noting the fact that global energy is exactly conserved in the true solution of AO interaction, any proposed model shall conserve it as much as possible. Although the mathematical definitions of the energy and energy dissipation rates in GA and GA-VMS are different from continuous formulation, their solutions both physically approach the same quantity, true solution, therefore, any well-constructed comparison should be made with physical meanings of energies given in . ![Absolute energy differences between the total energy and the initial energy input, $AED(t)$[]{data-label="fig:Energy_difference"}](AO_energy_difference.png){width="0.5\linewidth"} The absolute differences between the total energy and the initial energy input are computed over all the time levels, and presented in the Figure \[fig:Energy\_difference\]. Clearly, GA-VMS performs better than GA in terms of conservation of the total energy. In addition, Figure \[fig:IV\] shows that initial values are inversely rotating flows on both domains and differ only in directions. As a result, only the interaction on the interface determines their expectancy. It can be noted that the flow with higher viscosity will decay faster, due to higher dissipation. Consequently, energy transfer is expected to happen from the domain with the low-viscosity flow to high-viscosity flow, in a long-enough run. Figure \[fig:total\_energies\_separately\] illustrates that this expectation has been met by GA-VMS since the total energy in the atmosphere increases beyond the initial energy input while the exact opposite happens in the ocean. On the other hand, the total energy with GA immediately starts dropping in both domains, yet still keeping higher total energy in the atmosphere but less than the initial energy input, which means energy transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere has lost within the numerical error(if ever resolved correctly). This is an obvious achievement for GA-VMS since the goal of such models is to resolve energy transfer reliably. ![Total energies, ($KE+\mathcal{E}$) of Atmosphere(A) and Ocean(O), separately.[]{data-label="fig:total_energies_separately"}](AO_total_energies.png){width="0.5\linewidth"} [*Long-Time Stability.*]{} We now present computational results for the long-time stability of GA and GA-VMS will be given for a problem, that is constructed so that a parabolic inflow in the atmosphere passes a backward-facing step | a widely used benchmark problem for one-domain fluid-flow | before atmosphere and ocean met, see the domain in the Figure \[fig:domain\]. Note that this step could be a coast mountain, cliff, etc. in a real life simulation. ![Domain[]{data-label="fig:domain"}](domain.png){width="0.75\linewidth"} Homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions have been strongly enforced on the step, on the left wall and the bottom of the ocean. While parabolic inflow profile with maximum inlet 1 drives the flow in the atmosphere,“do nothing” boundary conditions weakly imposed on the outflow, on the top of atmosphere and the right wall of the ocean. Both fluids are in rest initially, and the second initial values have been computed by one-step of IMEX method as in the previous example, i.e. flows in both domains start with the same initial values. Rest of the parameters have been chosen as in Table \[table:tableparameters\]. \[table:tableparameters\] $\nu_1$ $\nu_2$ $\kappa$ T $\Delta t$ h $\nu_T$ --------- --------- ---------- ----- ------------ ------------ --------- -- 5e-04 5e-03 2.45e-03 100 0.01 0.1 - 0.14 0.01 : Problem parameters Figure \[fig:stability\] illustrates that the solution with GA starts blowing up around $t=25$ while GA-VMS produces stable results all the way up to final time $T=100$. ![Temporal evolution of $||u_{h}^{n+1}||$ with GA and GA-VMS[]{data-label="fig:stability"}](stability.png){width="0.5\linewidth"} Expected vector fields with GA and GA-VMS (in Figure \[fig:step\_comparison\]) illustrate that both methods produce very similar results as long as they are both stable. However, as seen in the Figure \[ga25\] and Figure \[ga27.75\], solution with GA has already started blowing up around $t=25$. Figures \[fig:step\_comparison\] and \[fig:step\_vms\] suggest that the interface flow in the ocean tends to follow the direction of the flow just above. For this reason, all consistent direction changes on the interface of the atmosphere results in a separate vortex formation right below. Furthermore, the reattachment point in the atmospheric flow and the separation point of two vertices in the ocean coincide. One can intuitively expect this phenomenon already since, for this setting, the oceanic flow is due to merely its interaction with the atmosphere and possess of very low energy to determine its own persistent direction. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Conclusions =========== In this report we introduced a method for approximating solutions to a turbulent fluid-fluid interaction problem -. The method combines the Geometric Averaging method for stable decoupling of the two-domain problem with the Variational Multiscale stabilization technique for high Reynolds number flows. We performed full numerical analysis of the method, proving its stability and accuracy. One of the challenges we had to overcome was the lack of benchmark problems for qualitative testing of our method in the case of low viscosities, $\nu << 1$. In addition to verifying numerically the claimed theoretical accuracy of the method in the case of a known true solution, we also used two other numerical tests to assess the qualitative behavior of the solution. First, we showed that the total global energy of the approximate solution is better conserved with the proposed method - as it should be in the continuous coupled solution. And also, energy transfer from the domain with high energy to the domain with low energy is reliably captured. Secondly, we introduced a “flow over a cliff” type of a problem, which could serve as an analogue of flow over a step, in the case of fluid-fluid interaction. The vortices forming and detaching in the air domain were closely matched by the sea regions with increased flow velocity. The GA method (without the VMS component) had failed to work in any of the tests, if the viscosity coefficient was taken to be small enough, while the proposed GA-VMS technique has matched the expectations both quantitatively and qualitatively.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Effective field theories have been developed for the description of light, shallow nuclei. I review results for two- and three-nucleon systems, and discuss their extension to halo nuclei.' address: | Department of Physics, University of Arizona\ Tucson, AZ 85721, USA author: - 'U. van Kolck [^1]' title: Effective Field Theories of Light Nuclei --- EFFECTIVE FIELD THEORIES ======================== I will remember Göteborg as a clean and ordered town. INPC 2004 was certainly well organized. My talk, too, was about organization. Nuclear structure involves energies that are much smaller than the typical QCD mass scale, $M_{QCD}\sim 1$ GeV. This is a common situation in physics: an “underlying” theory is valid at a mass scale $M_{\rm hi}$, but we want to study processes at momenta $Q$ of the order of a lower scale $M_{\rm lo}\ll M_{\rm hi}$. Typically, there is “more” at lower energies. How to organize the complexity brought in by the “effective” interactions that will ensure that low-energy observables are described correctly? Effective Field Theory (EFT) is a framework to construct these interactions systematically, at the same time maintaining desirable general principles such as causality and cluster decomposition. Here I discuss the application of EFT to a class of nuclear systems: those that exhibit poles in the complex momentum plane at a scale much smaller than the pion mass, that is, $M_{\rm hi}{\hspace*{0.2em}\raisebox{0.5ex}{$<$} \hspace{-0.8em}\raisebox{-0.3em}{$\sim$}\hspace*{0.2em}}m_\pi$. They include two- and three-nucleon systems, and other halo nuclei. EFT starts with the observation that the effective interactions consist of the sum of [*all*]{} possible interaction terms in a Lagrangian that involves only the fields representing low-energy degrees of freedom. Because of the uncertainty principle, each of these interaction terms can be taken as a local combination of derivatives of the fields. If the “integrating out” of the high-energy degrees of freedom is done appropriately, the effective Lagrangian will have the same symmetries as the underlying theory. The details of the underlying dynamics, on the other hand, are contained in the interaction strengths. The latter depend also on the details of how the low- and high-energy degrees of freedom are separated. This separation requires the introduction of a cutoff parameter $\Lambda$ with dimensions of energy. Both the interaction strengths and the quantum effects represented by loops depend on $\Lambda$. However, the cutoff procedure is arbitrary, so by construction observables are independent of $\Lambda$ (“renormalization-group invariance”). The $T$ matrix for any low-energy process acquires the schematic form $$T (Q\sim {M_{\rm lo}})= {\cal N} \sum_{\nu=\nu_{\rm min}}^\infty c_\nu ({M_{\rm hi}}, \Lambda) \left(\frac{Q}{{M_{\rm hi}}}\right)^\nu {\cal F}_\nu \left(\frac{Q}{{M_{\rm lo}}}; \frac{\Lambda}{{M_{\rm lo}}}\right), \label{T}$$ where ${\cal N}$ is a common normalization factor, $\nu$ is a counting index starting at some value $\nu_{\rm min}$, the $c_\nu$’s are parameters, and the ${\cal F}_\nu$’s are calculable functions. We must have $$\frac{\partial T(Q\sim {M_{\rm lo}})}{\partial \Lambda}=0. \label{delT}$$ In order to maintain predictive power in the effective theory it is necessary to truncate the sum in Eq. (\[T\]) in such a way that the resulting cutoff dependence can be decreased systematically with increasing order. We call such ordering “power counting”. There are essentially two ways of doing this. One is to carry out the integration of high-energy degrees of freedom explicitly —as it is done in going from QCD to the effective hadronic theory through lattice simulations— and infer the power counting from the sizes of the calculated terms. Another, which we use when we do not know or cannot solve the underlying theory, is to guess the sizes of the effective interactions by assuming that the renormalized interactions are natural, that is, are in order of magnitude given by ${M_{\rm hi}}$ to a power determined by dimensional analysis. This guess is confirmed [*a posteriori*]{}, by checking renormalization-group invariance and convergence of the truncation after the data is fitted order by order. In some cases, including the ones considered here, there exists a fine-tuning requires a bit more thought. For the last ten years or so we have been developing EFTs for systems of few nucleons [@ARNPSreview]. The goal is to understand traditional nuclear physics from a QCD standpoint. Much of this work has been devoted to the EFT where $M_{\rm hi}\sim M_{QCD}$ and $M_{\rm lo}\sim m_\pi$ [@ARNPSreview; @ulfstalk]. In this EFT, pions are explicit degrees of freedom, and (approximate) chiral symmetry plays a crucial role. While in the sector of $A=0, 1$ nucleons this “pionful” EFT reduces to well-understood chiral perturbation theory, in the $A\ge 2$ sector power counting is more subtle [@BBSvk]. Nevertheless, a reasonably successful potential has been constructed [@ARNPSreview; @ulfstalk]. Now, in many situations —in particular, many astrophysical applications— we are interested in reactions at momenta $Q\ll m_\pi$. Moreover, as we are going to see, there is interesting nuclear physics in this regime. TWO AND THREE-NUCLEON SYSTEMS ============================= The typical momentum of nucleons in the deuteron is $\aleph_1\sim \sqrt{m_N B_d}\simeq 45$ MeV, which means that the deuteron is an object about three times larger than most of the pion cloud around each nucleon. For the $s_0$ virtual bound state, the corresponding scale is even smaller, $\aleph_0\sim \sqrt{m_N B_d'}\simeq 8$ MeV. For these states the pionful EFT is an overkill. One can instead consider a much simpler EFT where the meson cloud is represented by a multipole expansion: the Lagrangian contains only nucleon fields with contact interactions. This “pionless” EFT, for which $M_{\rm hi}\sim m_\pi$ and $M_{\rm lo}\sim \aleph$ (with $\aleph$ some average of the $\aleph_i$), is now pretty well understood, despite the fact that one needs to account for fine-tuning through the anomalously-small scale $\aleph$. (It seems accidental that $\aleph$ is smaller than a pion scale such as $4\pi f_\pi^2/m_N$, which arises naturally in the pionful EFT [@ARNPSreview].) One way to do this is to introduce, in addition to the nucleon spinor/isospinor field $N$ of mass $m_N$, two auxiliary —“dimeron”— fields, a scalar/isovector ${\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0$ and a vector/isoscalar $\vec{s}_1$ with masses $\Delta_i$ [@Kap97]. (The final results for observables are, of course, independent of the choice of fields.) The most general parity- and time-reversal-invariant Lagrangian is [@pionlessPC; @gautam; @3bosons; @pionlessNd; @pionlessT] $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L}&=& N^\dagger \left(i\partial_0+ \frac{\vec{{\overrightarrow{\nabla}}}^{\,2}}{2m_{N}}\right)N +\Delta_{0} \, {\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0^\dagger \cdot {\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0 +\Delta_{1} \, \vec{s}_1^{\, \dagger}\cdot \vec{s}_1 \nonumber\\ && -\frac{g_{0}}{2}\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0^\dagger \cdot N^T \sigma_2 {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}\tau_2 N +{\rm H.c.}\right] -\frac{g_{1}}{2}\left[ \vec{s}_1^{\, \dagger} \cdot N^T \tau_2\vec{\sigma} \sigma_2 N +{\rm H.c.}\right] \nonumber\\ && -h \left\{g_{0}^2 N^\dagger ({\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}})^\dagger ({\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}) N +g_{1}^2 N^\dagger (\vec{s}_1\cdot\vec{\sigma})^\dagger (\vec{s}_1\cdot\vec{\sigma}) N \right.\nonumber\\ && \left.\qquad +\frac{g_{0}g_{1}}{3}\left[N^\dagger (\vec{s}_1\cdot\vec{\sigma})^\dagger ({\mbox{\boldmath $s$}}_0\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}) N +{\rm H.c.}\right]\right\} +\ldots, \label{lag1}\end{aligned}$$ where the $g_i$ and $h$ are coupling constants to be determined. In addition to the kinetic terms for the various fields, the Lagrangian contains all interactions between nucleon and auxiliary fields. (Integrating over the auxiliary fields in the path integral results in a completely equivalent form of the EFT, without auxiliary fields and with purely-contact interactions.) Only some of the most important terms are shown explicitly here: those that contribute to the $s$ waves in the two- and three-nucleon systems. The “$\dots$” include terms with more derivatives and contributions to other waves. The two-nucleon system ---------------------- In the two-nucleon ($NN$) system, the full $T$ matrix can be obtained by adding nucleon legs to the full dimeron propagators. The latter consist of insertions of particle bubbles generated by the two-particle/dimeron interaction —see Fig.\[fig:auxprop\]— as well as insertions stemming from terms with more derivatives. Since a two-nucleon bubble is ${\cal O}(m_N Q/4\pi)$, if $\Delta_i= {\cal O}(\aleph_i)$ and $g_i^2/4\pi={\cal O}(1/m_N)$, then the bubbles have to be resummed in the $s$ waves [@pionlessPC]. That is, with the dimeron masses fine-tuned, the leading interactions have to be summed to all orders. The $T$ matrix develops poles at $Q\sim \pm i\aleph_i$, which correspond to the observed shallow bound states. Higher-derivative interactions are smaller by powers of $Q/M_{\rm hi}$. The $NN$ $T$ matrix has the form (\[T\]) with ${\cal N}=4\pi/\mu {M_{\rm hi}}$ and $\nu= \sum_i V_i d_i -p +L$, where in a diagram $V_i$ is the number of vertices with $d_i$ derivatives, $p$ is the number of $s_0$ or $s_1$ propagators, and $L$ is the number of loops. One can show [@pionlessPC] that it is equivalent order by order to that of the effective-range expansion. $T$ involves in leading order (LO) only the scattering lengths $|a_{i}|\sim 1/\aleph_i$; at next-to-leading order (NLO) and next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO), also the effective ranges $|r_{i}| \sim 1/m_\pi$; and so on. The resulting phase shifts [@gautam; @ARNPSreview] converge to empirical values for $Q{\hspace*{0.2em}\raisebox{0.5ex}{$<$} \hspace{-0.8em}\raisebox{-0.3em}{$\sim$}\hspace*{0.2em}}m_\pi$, examples being shown in Fig. \[fig:NNphases\]. The deuteron binding energy is found to be $B_d=1.91$ MeV in NLO, to be compared with the experimental value of 2.22 MeV. In addition, many low-energy reactions involving the deuteron have been studied with this EFT —see Ref. [@ARNPSreview] for a review. The three-nucleon system ------------------------ The three-nucleon ($3N$) system is more interesting. In all but the $s_{1/2}$ wave, $3N$ forces appear only at high orders, and very precise results for nucleon-deuteron ($Nd$) scattering follow with parameters fully determined from $NN$ scattering [@pionlessNd]. The $s_{3/2}$ phase shift is given as an example in Fig. \[fig:Ndphases\]: excellent agreement with data is achieved already at NNLO. In particular, the scattering length is postdicted as $a_{3/2}=6.33\pm 0.10$ fm, to be compared to the experimental value, $6.35\pm 0.02$ fm. One can, thus, do QED-quality nuclear physics with EFT. In the $s_{1/2}$ wave, renormalization-group invariance can only be achieved if the $3N$ interactions are also enhanced by two powers of $\aleph^{-1}$ [@3bosons; @pionlessT]. In this channel, a single non-derivative $3N$ interaction appears in LO, and higher-derivative interactions are smaller by powers of $Q/M_{\rm hi}$. To NLO there is only one parameter not fixed by $NN$ observables —$h$ in Eq. (\[lag1\])). It can be fixed by, say, the $s_{1/2}$ $Nd$ scattering length, and as a function of the cutoff it displays an unusual, limit-cycle behavior. The resulting energy dependence of $s_{1/2}$ $Nd$ scattering comes out very well [@pionlessT], see Fig. \[fig:Ndphases\]. Likewise, the triton binding energy is found to be $B_t=8.31$ MeV in NLO, to be compared with the experimental value of 8.48 MeV. This EFT simplifies the treatment of light nuclei, but the application to larger nuclei still faces computational challenges. (For the first attack on the four-body system, see Refs. [@4bosons; @four].) One would like to devise further simplifications in order to extend EFTs to larger nuclei. As a first step, we can specialize to very low energies where clusters of nucleons behave coherently. Even though many interesting issues of nuclear structure are missed, we can at least describe anomalously-shallow (“halo”) nuclei and some reactions of astrophysical interest. HALOS ===== I define a halo system as one that contains two momentum scales: - $M_{\rm hi}\sim \sqrt{m_N E_{\rm core}}$, associated with the excitation energy $E_{\rm core}$ of a tight cluster of nucleons (“core”); - $M_{\rm lo}\sim \sqrt{m_N E_{\rm halo}}$, associated with the energy $E_{\rm halo}$ for the attachment or removal of one or more (“halo”) nucleons. These systems exhibit shallow $S$-matrix poles, either on the imaginary axis (bound states) or elsewhere in the complex momentum plane (resonances). With this definition, the deuteron and the triton are two- and three-body halo systems, respectively. In these cases the core is a single nucleon, $E_{\rm core}\sim m_\pi^2/m_N$, while $E_{\rm halo}\sim B_d$ ($B_t$) for the deuteron (triton). The next-simplest examples involve a $^4$He core, for which $E_{\rm core}\simeq 20$ MeV. In contrast, the removal energy for two neutrons from $^6$He is $E_{\rm halo}\simeq 1$ MeV [@tunl], making this a three-body halo nucleus. It is interesting that $^5$He is not bound. However, the total cross section for neutron-alpha ($n\alpha$) scattering has a prominent bump at $E_{\rm halo}\sim 1$ MeV, usually interpreted as a shallow $p_{3/2}$ resonance [@tunl]. In addition, reactions involving more complex nuclei are frequently characterized by shallow resonances that are narrow, corresponding to poles near the real momentum axis. It is natural to generalize the EFT to describe shallow two-body resonances [@halos; @resonances], as a step before tackling three-body halo nuclei. Here, for concreteness, I consider $n\alpha$ scattering, which will fix the $N\alpha$ effective interactions, necessary for a future study of $^6$He. Now, in addition to a nucleon field, I need to consider also a scalar/isoscalar $\phi$ field to represent the $^4$He core of mass $m_\alpha$. I also introduce isospinor dimeron fields $s$, $d$, $t$, [*etc.*]{} with masses $\Delta_{0+}$, $\Delta_{1-}$, $\Delta_{1+}$, [*etc.*]{}, which can be thought of as bare fields for the various $N\alpha$ channels: $s_{1/2}$, $p_{1/2}$, $p_{3/2}$, [*etc.*]{}, which I denote $0+$, $1-$, $1+$, [*etc.*]{} The most general parity- and time-reversal-invariant Lagrangian is [@halos; @resonances] $$\begin{aligned} {\cal L}&=&\phi^\dagger \left(i\partial_0 + \frac{{\overrightarrow{\nabla}}^{\,2}}{2m_{\alpha}}\right)\phi +N^\dagger \left(i\partial_0 + \frac{{\overrightarrow{\nabla}}^{\,2}}{2m_{N}}\right)N + t^\dagger \left(i\partial_0+\frac{{\overrightarrow{\nabla}}^{\,2}}{2(m_\alpha+m_N)} +\Delta_{1+} \right) t \nonumber\\ && +\frac{g_{1+}}{2}\bigg\{ t^\dagger \vec{S}^{\, \dagger}\cdot \bigg[N {\overrightarrow{\nabla}}\phi-({\overrightarrow{\nabla}}N)\phi\bigg]+ {\rm H.c.} \bigg\}\nonumber\\ && + \Delta_{0+} \, s^\dagger s +g_{0+} \bigg[s^\dagger N \phi +\phi^\dagger N^\dagger s \bigg] + g_{1+}' t^\dagger\left(i\partial_0+\frac{{\overrightarrow{\nabla}}^{\,2}}{2(m_\alpha+m_N)} \right)^2 t +\ldots, \label{lag2}\end{aligned}$$ in a notation similar to the one used in Eq. (\[lag1\]), where additionally the $S_i$’s are standard $2\times 4$ spin-transition matrices connecting states with total angular momentum $j=1/2$ and $j=3/2$. Again, of all possible interactions among nucleon, alpha and auxiliary fields, only some of the most important terms are shown explicitly here: those that contribute to the $p_{3/2}$ and $s_{1/2}$ partial waves. The “$\dots$” include terms with more derivatives and contributions to other waves. The $N\alpha$ $T$ matrix can be obtained from the full dimeron propagators by attaching external nucleon and alpha legs. The bubbles in the dressing of dimeron propagators —see Fig.\[fig:auxprop\] again— now represent the propagation of a nucleon and an alpha particle. Low energies ------------ A bare dimeron propagator can generate two shallow real poles provided its $\Delta$ is very small: I take $\Delta_{1+} \sim M_{\rm lo}^2/\mu$ (where $\mu$ is the $N\alpha$ reduced mass). The bubbles introduce unitarity corrections, which can dislocate the poles to the lower half-plane. The resonance will be narrow if the EFT is perturbative in the coupling $g_{1+}$. This will be so if $ g_{1+}^2/4\pi\sim 1/M_{\rm hi}\mu^2$, in which case a loop is suppressed by $M_{\rm lo}/M_{\rm hi}$. Higher-derivative terms will also be perturbative if their strengths scale with $M_{\rm hi}$ according to their mass dimensions. Likewise, parameters in waves without shallow resonances will be given solely in terms of $M_{\rm hi}$, [*e.g.*]{} $\Delta_{0+} \sim M_{\rm hi}$. This EFT then describes a shallow, narrow resonance with a single fine-tuned parameter $\Delta_{1+}$. With this scaling, the $N\alpha$ $T$ matrix has the form (\[T\]) with ${\cal N}=4\pi/\mu {M_{\rm hi}}$ and $\nu= \sum_i V_i d_i -2p +L$, where now $p$ is the number of $1+$ propagators. As a consequence, $T$ involves in LO the scattering “lengths” $|a_{0+}|\sim 1/{M_{\rm hi}}$ and $|a_{1+}|\sim 1/{M_{\rm hi}}{M_{\rm lo}}^2$, and the effective “range” $|r_{1+}| \sim {M_{\rm hi}}$ only; at NLO, the unitarity corrections in the same $0+$ and $1+$ waves; at NNLO, $|r_{0+}| \sim 1/{M_{\rm hi}}$, the shape parameter $|{\cal P}_{1+}| \sim {M_{\rm hi}}^3$, and $|a_{1-}|\sim 1/{M_{\rm hi}}^3$; and so on. We fit the EFT parameters to an $n\alpha$ phase-shift analysis [@ALR73], and find ${M_{\rm hi}}\sim 100$ MeV and ${M_{\rm lo}}\sim 30$ MeV. The results [@resonances] for the total and differential $n\alpha$ cross sections are compared with data in Fig. \[fig:sigs1\]. The data are reproduced up to neutron energies of about $E_N\approx 0.5$ MeV in LO and $0.8$ MeV in NNLO. (Interestingly, the NLO result worsens the description of the data.) The expansion fails in the immediate neighborhood of the resonance. Around the resonance -------------------- The reason for this failure is easy to understand. In a momentum region of ${\cal O}({M_{\rm lo}}^{2}/{M_{\rm hi}})$ around the resonance there is a cancellation in the denominator of the $1+$ propagator, bubbles have to be resummed to all orders, and the $1+$ propagator is enhanced by a factor of ${\cal O}({M_{\rm hi}}/{M_{\rm lo}})$. In this region, the $N\alpha$ $T$ matrix still has the form (\[T\]) but now $\nu= \sum_i V_i d_i -3p +L$. The corresponding results for the total and differential cross sections with data in Fig. \[fig:sigs2\]. The success of this resummed NLO description is evident throughout the low-energy region. (Note that an additional resummation of the $1-$ propagator, which would be necessary if there was a shallow resonance in this channel, as sometimes claimed, does not seem to improve the results significantly.) The description of the phase shifts themselves also comes out pretty well, see Ref. [@halos]. OUTLOOK ======= I have considered here only nuclear shallow states. However, the ideas discussed above are much more general. These EFTs can immediately be extended to other physical systems that contain shallow bound states, such as certain molecules [@3bosons; @4bosons; @atoms]. Apart from specific applications, these EFTs have two interesting generic features that lend them some intrinsic mathematical interest as well. First, they are the simplest theories where short-distance physics produces non-perturbative structures at low energy. Second, the non-perturbative character of the resulting renormalization shows unique features, such as limit cycles. Much more work is possible along these lines —see, [*e.g.*]{} Ref. [@limit]. More within the scope of this conference, there is certainly reason to push these EFTs in the direction of heavier nuclei. This is in fact just the very beginning of halo EFT. The next step is to use the $N\alpha$ interactions determined from $N\alpha$ scattering [@halos] and the $NN$ interactions determined from $NN$ scattering [@ARNPSreview; @gautam] to calculate the halo $^6$He as a $^4 {\rm He}+n+n$ system [@hans], the same way we successfully described triton as a $p+n+n$ system [@pionlessT]. But clearly the theory can be applied to reactions involving any halo nucleus. For example, to the extent that $^8$B can be regarded as a halo, the reaction $p + \, ^7{\rm Be} \to \, ^8{\rm B} +\gamma$ can be analyzed as was $p+n\to d+\gamma$ [@ARNPSreview; @gautam]. This could become, I hope, a useful, systematic approach to physics near the driplines. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== I am grateful to Paulo Bedaque, Carlos Bertulani and especially Hans Hammer for enjoyable collaborations on the research reported here, and to Björn Jonson, Bo Höistad and Dan Riska for the invitation to such a wide-ranging conference. [9]{} P.F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52 (2002) 339; S.R. Beane, P.F. Bedaque, W.C. Haxton, D.R. Phillips, and M.J. Savage, nucl-th/0008064; U. van Kolck, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 337. U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, plenary talk at this conference, nucl-th/0409028. S.R. Beane, P.F. Bedaque, M.J. Savage, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A700 (2002) 377; A. Nogga, R.G.E. Timmermans, and U. van Kolck, in preparation. D.B. Kaplan, Nucl. Phys. B494 (1997) 471. U. van Kolck, hep-ph/9711222, in A. Bernstein, D. Drechsel, and T. Walcher (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Chiral Dynamics 1997, Theory and Experiment, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998; Nucl. Phys. A645 (1999) 273; D.B. Kaplan, M.J. Savage, and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B424 (1998) 390; J. Gegelia, nucl-th/9802038. J.-W. Chen, G. Rupak, and M.J. Savage, Nucl. Phys. A653 (1999) 386. P.F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B428 (1998) 221; P.F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) R641; F. Gabbiani, P.F. Bedaque, and H.W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, Nucl. Phys. A675 (2000) 601. P.F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 463; Nucl. Phys. A646 (1999) 444. P.F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A676 (2000) 357; H.-W. Hammer and T. Mehen, Phys. Lett. B516 (2001) 353; P.F. Bedaque, G. Rupak, H.W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, and H.-W. Hammer, Nucl. Phys. A714 (2003) 589. V.G.J. Stoks, R.A.M. Klomp, M.C.M. Rentmeester, and J.J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C48 (1993) 792. W. Dilg, L. Koester, and W. Nistler, Phys. Lett. B36 (1971) 208. W.T.H. van Oers and J.D. Seagrave, Phys. Lett. B24 (1967) 562; A.C. Philips and G. Barton, Phys. Lett. B28 (1969) 378. A. Kievsky, S. Rosati, W. Tornow, and M. Viviani, Nucl. Phys. A607 (1996) 402. L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, cond-mat/0404313. L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Mei[ß]{}ner, nucl-th/0409040. D.R. Tilley, H.R. Weller, and G.M. Hale, Nucl. Phys. A541 (1992) 1. C.A. Bertulani, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Nucl. Phys. A712 (2002) 37. P.F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Phys. Lett. B569 (2003) 159. R.A. Arndt, D.L. Long, and L.D. Roper, Nucl. Phys. A209 (1973) 429. Evaluated Nuclear Data Files, National Nuclear Data Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory (http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/). B. Haesner [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C28 (1983) 995; M.E. Battat [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. 12 (1959) 291. H.-W. Hammer, Nucl. Phys. A737 (2004) 275. S.D. Głazek and K.G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 230401; A. Morozov and A.J. Niemi, Nucl. Phys. B666 (2003) 311; A. LeClair, J.M. Román, and G. Sierra, hep-th/0312141; A. LeClair and G. Sierra, hep-th/0403178. H.-W. Hammer and U. van Kolck, in progress. [^1]: Supported in part by the US Department of Energy and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Weighted correlation functions are an increasingly important tool for understanding how galaxy properties depend on their separation from each other. We use a mock galaxy sample drawn from the Millenium simulation, assigning weights using a simple prescription to illustrate and explore how well a weighted correlation function recovers the true radial dependence of the input weights. We find that the use of a weighted correlation function results in a dilution of the magnitude of any radial dependence of properties and a smearing out of that radial dependence in radius, compared to the input behavior. We present a quantitative discussion of the dilution in the magnitude of radial dependence in properties in the special case of a constant enhancement at $r<r_c$. In this particular case where there was a SFR enhancement at small radius $r<r_c=35$kpc, the matching of one member of an enhanced pair with an unenhanced galaxy in the same group gives an artificial enhancement out to large radius $\sim 200$kpc. We compare this with observations of SFR enhancement from the SDSS (Li et al. 2008; MNRAS, 385, 1903) finding very similar behavior — a significant enhancement at radii $<40$kpc and a weak enhancement out to more than 150kpc. While we explore a particular case in this Letter, it is easy to see that the phenomenon is general, and precision analyses of weighted correlation functions will need to account carefully for this effect using simulated mock catalogs.' author: - | Aday R. Robaina$^{1}$[^1] & Eric F. Bell$^{2}$\ \ $^{1}$Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Koenigstuhl 17, Heidelberg D–69117, Germany\ $^{2}$Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 550 Church St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA\ title: 'Systematic errors in weighted 2–point correlation functions: An application to interaction–induced star formation' --- -0.5in \[firstpage\] galaxies: general — galaxies:statistics Introduction ============ Correlation functions (2-point and higher order ones) have proved to be powerful statistical tools in order to address the study of the galaxy clustering [e.g. @peebles76; @groth; @peebles80; @dp] and are still widely used in both local [@connolly; @eisenstein; @masjedi] and high-redshift Universe [@giavalisco; @blain]. Studies of the two point correlation function have matured to the point that one can study how galaxies populate dark matter halos in detail [e.g., @zehavi], the typical halo masses of galaxy populations as a function of redshift (e.g., Lyman breaks - [@giavalisco]), the relative clustering of different populations (e.g., the tendency of AGN to cluster like the massive galaxy population as a whole; [@li06b]), and the use of clustering measures on the smallest scale to constrain the merger history of galaxies (e.g., [@patton], [@bell], [@robaina10]). Furthermore, the correlation function method allows us not only to study the clustering of the galaxies themselves, but also how some of their properties are clustered. Weighted correlation functions [@boerner] or in a general sense, marked statistics [@beisbart; @gott; @falten; @skibba06; @robaina] have been widely used in the last ten years in order to study how observables depend on the separation between galaxies. In particular, weighted correlation functions are frequently used to study the dependence of star formation rate (SFR) on separation between galaxies, in great part to explore the influence of galaxy interactions on enhancing a galaxy pair’s SFR [e.g. @li; @robaina]. The goal of this Letter is to explore the application of weighted correlation functions to study the variation of observables (e.g., SFR, color, AGN accretion rate, morphology) as a function of radius. We briefly introduce weighted 2 point correlation functions in §2. We then construct a toy model with which we study the behavior of the inferred weighted quantities relative to the input behavior (§3). This toy model is primarily to illustrate some general features of how weighted correlation functions recover input behavior, and we stress that the framework discussed in this Letter applies generally to any application of weighted correlation function analysis, while noting that we choose to present a case that is most directly analagous to the study of SFR enhancement in close pairs of galaxies. We show the results of this analysis in §4. In §5, we briefly compare with observational results of SF enhancement derived using the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [@li]. In §6, we present our conclusions. When necessary, we have assumed $H_0=70\,km\,s^{-1}$, $\Omega_{m0}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}=0.7$. Background ========== In this work, we explore the possible artifacts that the use of a marked correlation function could introduce when studying the clustering of galaxy properties. A full explanation of the methodology followed in this work has been already presented in @robaina, and is similar to the methodology adopted by @skibba06 and @li; we summarize here the basics of the method but we refer the reader to those papers for a deeper explanation. The 2–point correlation function $\xi(r)$ is the [*excess*]{} probability of finding a galaxy at a given distance $r$ from another galaxy: $${\label{eq:prob}} dP = n[1+ \xi(r)]dV,$$ where $dP$ is the probability of finding a galaxy in volume element $dV$ at a distance $r$ from a galaxy, and $n$ is the galaxy number density. A simple estimator of the unweighted correlation function is $\xi(r)\simeq DD/RR-1$, where $DD$ is the histogram of separations between galaxies and $RR$ is the histogram of separations between galaxies in a randomly-distributed catalog. In a similar way, one can estimate the weighted correlation function as $W(r)\simeq PP/PP_R-1$, where $PP$ is the weighted histogram of real galaxies and $PP_R$ the weighted histogram of separations from the catalog with randomized coordinates. We choose to use an additive weighting scheme (the weight of the pair is the sum of the weights of individual galaxies) for concreteness [e.g., @robaina], while noting that a multiplicative weighting would yield a qualitatively similar result. Then, we can define the ‘mark’ $E(r)$ as the excess clustering of the weighted correlation function compared to the unweighted correlation function: $$E(r)=\frac{1+W(r)}{1+\xi(r)}.$$ An idealised experiment ======================= We use @delucia catalog at $z=0$ derived from the Millenium simulation [@springel] in order to study how the enhancement in a physical quantity caused by a galaxy–galaxy interaction (e.g., a SF enhancement) would be recovered by weighted 2–point correlation function techniques. We manually assign a weight (we refer to it as the mark) to every galaxy in the sample, giving a mark=1 to galaxies which are [*not*]{} closer than $r_c=35$kpc to any other galaxy and mark$=\epsilon$ (with $\epsilon > 1$) to those galaxies which are in close, 3D pairs with separation $r<r_c$ kpc. For concreteness, we consider simulated galaxies with stellar masses $M_* > 2.5\times10^{10} M_{\sun}$, noting that the conclusions reached in this Letter are generally applicable, in a qualitative sense. We now examine how the marks of galaxy pairs relate to the actual behavior of the enhancement as a function of separation from their nearest neighbor. The mark is estimated by dividing the weighted correlation function by its unweighted counterpart, and recall that the correlation function relates every galaxy to every other galaxy in the sample [^2]. The weight is additive, and since every galaxy with a companion closer than $r_c$ has weight $\epsilon$, the mark of a close pair is $2\epsilon$. Yet, the galaxies in this close pair will be matched also to every other galaxy in the sample. Therefore, when a galaxy in the same group or cluster at a distance $r>r_c$ from the enhanced pair is matched with a galaxy in the pair, the mark of that pair will be $\epsilon + 1$ (1 being the default weight of non-enhanced galaxies). We see that a pair with $r>r_c$ will show an enhancement when, in reality, there is no physical interaction-induced enhancement at that radius. As that third galaxy will be matched with [*both*]{} galaxies in the neighbor close pair, two pairs with mark=$\epsilon+1$ will be contributed. Furthermore, imagine now that there is another real close pair of galaxies placed at several Mpc from the first close pair, in which both galaxies will also have mark=$\epsilon$. From matching all those 4 galaxies, the final product will be 6 galaxy pairs displaying mark=$2 \epsilon$. This will clearly affect both the normalization of the mark and the recovered value for the enhancement, producing a tail of false enhancement in the regions where more companions would be found (representing dense regions of the Universe) and decreasing the enhancement found at $r<r_c$. Results ======= We show this effect in Fig. \[fig:epsi\]. Clearly, a relatively weak tail of enhancement is recovered out to large separations. The amplitude of this tail has a radial dependence, as close pairs of galaxies tend to be found in dense regions of the Universe [@barton07]. As the magnitude of this tail depends on the distribution of neighbors as a function of the separation it will be more relevant for galaxy samples in which the clustering is stronger (e.g., massive galaxies, or non star-forming galaxies). Also visible in Fig. \[fig:epsi\] is the dilution of the recovered enhancement compared with the actual enhancement $\epsilon$ for pairs with $r<r_c$; $E(r<r_c)$. The value of $E(r<r_c)$ is lower than the “real” enhancement $\epsilon$ by a factor which increases with $\epsilon$. This effect is better seen in Fig. \[fig:recovered\], where we show the relative discrepancy between $E(r<r_c)$ and $\epsilon$, as a function of $\epsilon$. In this idealised case, this discrepancy can be exactly recovered by accounting carefully for the different pairs formed by galaxies in the sample. The relationship between $E(r<r_c)$ and $\epsilon$ is: $$\label{eq:rec_gen} E(r<r_c)=\frac{\epsilon~ N_{p,tot}}{W_{cp,max} N_{cp,max}+W_{mp}N_{mp}+W_{fp}N_{fp}},$$ where $N_{p,tot}$ is the total number of pairs which can be formed from the galaxy sample[^3], $N_{cp,max}$ is the total number of pairs which can be formed with galaxies belonging to close pairs[^4],$W_{cp,max}$ is the weight associated with those pairs, $N_{pm}$ is the number of pairs in which only one galaxy belongs to a close pair, $W_{mp}$ is the weight associated with them, and $W_{fp}$ and $N_{p,far}$ are respectively the weight and the number of pairs in which none of the galaxies belongs to a close pair. In our particular case of an additive weight, this expression reduces to: $${\label{eq:rec}} E(r<r_c)=\frac{2\epsilon}{(f^2+f)(\epsilon-1)+2},$$ where $f$ is the fraction of galaxies in close pairs. The degree of clustering of the sample is reflected in the value of $f$, so this expression is valid under different clustering conditions. For the purposes of this work, we calculate $f$ [ *directly*]{} from the mock catalogue, but real galaxy surveys lack of accurate 3D information. It is common to calculate $f$ from the inferred real space correlation function by integrating Eq. 1 out to $r_c$ [@masjedi; @bell]. In their analysis, in the limit of small $r_c$, and if the correlation function is parametrised as a power law $\xi(r)=(r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$, then: $$P(r<r_c)=f=\int_{0}^{r_c}n[1+\xi(r)]dV$$ $${\label{eq:prob2}} f \simeq \frac{4\pi n}{3-\gamma}r_0^\gamma r_c^{3-\gamma}.$$ It is worth noting that in the above example we have studied the simple case in which the enhancement is present only in close galaxy pairs, with the enhancement represented by a step function. When applying weighted correlation functions to more complex problems, like those involving clustering of the mass or colour, the function describing the behavior of the weight on separation would be much more complex. In that case, an expression for the behavior of the weight as a function of separation will have to be derived on a case-by-case basis and matched with the data. Yet, even in that more complex case, the underlying problem is very similar: the magnitude of any radial dependence in properties will be diluted and smeared out in radius by the use of weighted 2 point correlation function methods. An example application to observations ====================================== In order to test the relevance of this analysis to the real Universe, we compare our predictions with a well-established phenomenon: the enhancement of the star formation rate (SFR) in galaxy interactions. This observable has two obvious advantages. Firstly, there are a number of works in which this enhancement has been studied [@barton; @lambas; @li; @robaina]. Second, the SFR is expected to be enhanced only at scales at which galaxy-galaxy interactions are relevant; beyond that scale star formation is not only not expected to be enhanced, but should be depressed because of the well known SFR-density anticorrelation [e.g., @balogh]. From the above mentioned works we choose to compare with @li for three reasons: a) they use marked statistics, b) their large sample allowed an accurate estimate of enhancement to be made, and c) SDSS clustering has been shown to be similar to the one present in the @delucia mock catalogue from the Millenium Simulation in the local Universe [@springel]. Real galaxy surveys, even spectroscopic surveys, have no access to the real space separation of galaxies. @li used a projected correlation function $w(r_P)$ to circumvent this difficulty, where the projected correlation function is related to the 3D correlation function via: $$w(r_p) = \int^{\infty}_{- \infty} \xi ( [r_p^2 + \pi^2]^{1/2}) d \pi,$$ where $\pi$ is the coordinate along the line of sight, and $r_p$ is the projected separation transverse to the line of sight. We use for this exercise galaxies more massive than $3\times 10^{10}M_\odot$ in order to match the selection citeria in @li. Moreover, they did not use an additive weight but used the SSFR of the primary galaxy as the weight of the pair. We also use such a scheme here to perform our weighted analysis in the simulation. @li calculated the cross-correlation between a subsample of galaxies which are forming stars (primaries) and all the galaxies in the sample (secondaries). As we lack of such information we run a correlation using all the galaxies as both primaries and secondaries. As previously, we assign an average enhancement to all galaxies found physically in very close pairs, but in order to mimic the the pair selection in @li, who cross-correlate a sample of spectroscopically defined star forming galaxies with a photometric catalog of all galaxies above the stellar mass limit, we run the correlation function selecting galaxy pairs with “line-of-sight” separations of less than 100 Mpc. Our results are not sensitive to this choice of maximum separation; correlations between galaxies on scales larger than 100 Mpc are extremely weak, in comparison to the strong clustering on $<1 Mpc$ scales. We choose to model the data with a constant enhancement $\epsilon=1.8$ at $r<r_c$, with $r_c = 35$kpc, Motivated by the star formation enhancement observed in galaxy samples selected in a similar manner at different redshifts [@li; @robaina] we choose to model the data with $\epsilon =2$ for galaxies in pairs with separations $r_P<15$ kpc and $\epsilon=1.5$ for those in pairs with $15<r_P<40$ kpc. We also neglect any environmental suppression of star formation at separations $r>r_c$ [@barton; @balogh]. These are clearly oversimplifications, as the real dependence of enhancement (and suppression at large radii) on separation will be considerably more complex. Yet, this simple model suffices to illustrate the recovered enhancement signature expected from a model in which SF is enhanced only at small radii. Notwithstanding these limitations, we compare the results of our simple model with the data in Fig. \[fig:sfr\]. Strikingly, we find that the tail of enhanced SF out to $\sim$200kpc seen in the data may, in great part, be a reflection of the use of marked correlation functions statistics to explore the radial dependence of SF enhancement in galaxies. This has direct relevance in the interpretation of the results from @li. If one argued that the enhancement at $\sim 100$kpc (or much of it) was real, one would need to fulfil two criteria to produce such an effect. Firstly, assuming that the triggering event is the first pass, one would need an enhancement lifetime of at least 300Myr (longer than the internal dynamical time) for typical orbital velocities of 300km/s or less. Secondly, a significant fraction of the secondaries would need to have near-radial orbits in order to produce such an enhancement. If, as we suggest instead, the enhanced SF at $\sim 100$kpc is an artifact of the use of the 2 point correlation function, then one would argue that enhancement happens only for close pairs and shorter interaction-induced SF timescales and a greater diversity of orbits would be permitted. While developing a model that realistically reproduces the data is beyond the scope of this Letter, one can clearly see that this effect needs to be accounted for in order to robustly interpret the behavior of marked correlation functions. Conclusions =========== Weighted correlation functions are an increasingly important tool for understanding how galaxy properties depend on their separation from each other. We use a mock galaxy sample drawn from the Millenium simulation, assigning weights using a simple prescription to illustrate and explore how well a weighted correlation function recovers the true radial dependence of the input weights. We find that the use of a weighted correlation function results in a dilution of the magnitude of any radial dependence of properties and a smearing out of that radial dependence in radius, compared to the input behavior. We present a quantitative discussion of the dilution in the magnitude of radial dependence in properties in the special case of a constant enhancement $\epsilon$ for pairs separated by $r<r_c$. In this particular case the matching of one member of an enhanced pair with an unenhanced galaxy in the same group gives an artificial enhancement $\sim 0.1 \epsilon$ out to large radii $\ga 5r_c$, and matches of one member of an enhanced pair with a member of another very distant enhanced pair pulls down the value of the recovered enhancement, with the discrepancy between the input and recovered enhancement being a function of the fraction of galaxies in close pairs and the value of the input enhancement. This systematic error is $<10\%$ for enhancements $\epsilon < 4$, but precision measurements should account for this effect. We compare these results with observations of SFR enhancement from the SDSS @li, finding very similar behavior — a significant enhancement at radii $<40$kpc and a weak enhancement out to more than 150kpc, lending credibility to the notion that weak enhancement in SFR seen out to large radii is an artifact of the use of weighted correlation function statistics. While we explored a particular case in this Letter, it is easy to see that the phenomenon is general. Given this difference between input weights and those recovered by the weighted 2 point correlation function, one might ask if one shouldn’t use a different method to explore radial trends in observables. We would argue that most different methods boil down to weighted 2 point correlation functions implicitly anyway, and that one is stuck at least at the qualitative level with the differences between input and recovered weights that we have discussed above. For example, partnering projected pairs into different ’pairs’ (i.e., not matching every galaxy with every other galaxy) suffers from two drawbacks: this is still a projected analysis, and many projected close pairs will be separated by significant distances along the line of sight; and second, one may choose the wrong galaxy to partner with, a particularly acute issue for triplets or groups of galaxies. One can see that such a method will suffer from a similar supression of enhancement from the inclusion of non-pairs in the pair sample; of course, radial smearing is not possible in such a case, as there is only one radial bin. We conclude that those wishing to quantitatively analyze weighted correlation functions (or related observables) will need to account carefully for this effect using an analysis of simulated mock catalogs. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We thank Cheng Li for sharing with us the electronic version of the results of their work. A. R. R. acknowledges the Heidelberg–International Max Planck Research School program. Balogh, M. L., Couch, W. J., Smail, I., Bower, R. G., & Glazebrook, K. 2002, [MNRAS]{}, 335, 10 Barton, E. J., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2000, [ApJ]{}, 530, 660 Barton, E. J., Arnold, J. A., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., & Wechsler, R. H. 2007, [ApJ]{}, 671, 1538 Bell, E. F., Phleps, S., Somerville, R. S., Wolf, C., Borch, A., & Meisenheimer, K. 2006, [ApJ]{}, 652, 270 Blain, A. W., Chapman, S. C., Smail, I., & Ivison, R. 2004, [ApJ]{}, 611, 725 Beisbart, C., & Kerscher, M. 2000, [ApJ]{}, 545, 6 Boerner, G., Mo, H., & Zhou, Y. 1989, [A&A]{}, 221, 191 Connolly, A. J., et al. 2002, [ApJ]{}, 579, 42 Davis, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1983, [ApJ]{}, 267, 465 De Lucia, G. et al. 2006, [MNRAS]{}, 366, 499 Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2005, [ApJ]{}, 633, 560 Faltenbacher, A., Gottl[ö]{}ber, S., Kerscher, M., [ Muuml]{}ller, V. 2002, [A&A]{}, 395, 1 Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M. E., Pettini, M., & Kellogg, M. 1998, [ApJ]{}, 503, 543 Gottl[ö]{}ber, S., Kerscher, M., Kravtsov, A. V., Faltenbacher, A., Klypin, A., [ Muuml]{}ller, V. 2002, [A&A]{}, 387, 778 Groth, E. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1977, [ApJ]{}, 217, 385 Lambas, D. G., Tissera, P. B., Alonso, M. S., & Coldwell, G. 2003, [MNRAS]{}, 346, 1189 Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Wang, L., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., & Jing, Y. P. 2006, [MNRAS]{}, 373, 457 Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Jing, Y. P., & White, S. D. M. 2008, [MNRAS]{}, 385, 1903 Masjedi, M., et al.  2006, [ApJ]{}, 644, 54 Patton, D. R., et al.  2002, [ApJ]{}, 565, 208 Peebles, P. J. E., & Groth, E. J. 1976, [A&A]{}, 53, 131 Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, Research supported by the National Science Foundation. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1980. 435 p., Robaina, A. R., et al.  2009, [ApJ]{}, 704, 324 Robaina, A. R., Bell, E. F., van der Wel, A., Somerville, R. S., Skelton, R. E., McIntosh, D. H., Meisenheimer, K., & Wolf, C. 2010, accepted in ApJ, arXiv:1002.4193 Skibba, R., Sheth, R. K., Connolly, A. J., & Scranton, R. 2006, [MNRAS]{}, 369, 68 Springel, V., et al.  2005, [Nat]{}, 435, 629 Zehavi, I., et al.  2004, [ApJ]{}, 608, 16 [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (ARR) [^2]: Even in the case in which some criteria for pair-matching are imposed, like line-of-sight constraints, mass ratio, etc., one particular galaxy will be matched with many secondaries at very different separations. [^3]: When performing an autocorrelation, the total number of unique pairs would be $N(N-1)/2$, $N$ being the number of galaxies in the sample. [^4]: This is [*not*]{} the same as the number of close pairs, as we already explained.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | The conventional Josephson effect may be modified by introducing spin-active scattering in the interface-layer of the junction. Here, we discuss a Josephson junction consisting of two s-wave superconducting leads coupled over a classical spin that precesses with the Larmor frequency due to an external magnetic field. This magnetically active interface results in a time-dependent boundary condition with different tunnelling amplitudes for spin-up and -down quasiparticles and where the precession produces spin-flip scattering processes. As a result, the Andreev states develop sidebands and a non-equilibrium population that depend on the details of the spin precession. The Andreev states carry a steady-state Josephson charge current and a time-dependent spin current, whose current-phase relations could be used for characterising the precessing spin. The spin current is supported by spin-triplet correlations induced by the spin precession and creates a feed-back effect on the classical spin in the form of a torque that shifts the precession frequency. By applying a bias voltage, the Josephson frequency adds another complexity to the situation and may create resonances together with the Larmor frequency. These Shapiro resonances are manifested as torques and are, under suitable conditions, able to reverse the direction of the classical spin in sub-nanosecond time. Another characteristic feature is the subharmonic gap structure in the dc charge current displaying an even-odd effect that is attributable to precession-assisted multiple Andreev reflections. address: | $^{1}$Department of Physics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway\ $^{2}$Fachbereich Physik, Universität Konstanz, D-78457 Konstanz, Germany\ $^{3}$Department of Microtechnology and Nanoscience - MC2, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden author: - 'C. Holmqvist$^{1}$, W. Belzig$^{2}$, and M. Fogelström$^{3}$' title: 'Non-equilibrium charge and spin transport in SFS point contacts' --- Introduction ============ Interesting spin phenomena may occur when ferromagnets are combined with superconductors (see [@eschrig2011] and [@linder2015] and references therein). Cooper pairs in a conventional superconductor have spin-singlet pairing which, if the superconductor is interfaced with a ferromagnet, extend into the ferromagnet. However, the exchange field inside the ferromagnet tries to align the two spins of the Cooper pairs and hence breaks the Cooper pairs apart resulting in a rapid decay of the superconducting correlations inside the ferromagnet. For the same reasons, the critical current of a Josephson junction with a ferromagnetic layer sandwiched between the two superconductors decays rapidly with increasing thickness of the ferromagnetic layer [@bulaevskii1977; @ryazanov2001; @kontos2002; @buzdin2005]. On the other hand, if weak ferromagnetic interfaces with magnetisation directions differing from the magnetisation direction of the ferromagnetic layer are inserted, the spin-singlet correlations may be transformed into spin-triplet correlations which can survive over a long range within the ferromagnet layer [@bergeret2001; @bergeret2005; @houzet2007; @braude2007; @eschrig2008]. As a result of this non-collinear magnetisation of the ferromagnetic layer, the critical current decays similarly to a supercurrent in a non-magnetic metal with increasing junction length [@keizer2006; @khaire2010]. So far, the existence of spin-triplet correlations has been measured in this indirect way. A more direct way of detecting the spin-triplet correlations would be to measure the effects of the spin on the triplet correlations, e.g. by using phenomena explored in conventional spintronics such as spin-transfer torques and other means for creating magnetisation dynamics effects or magnetisation switching. There has been theoretical work done in this direction [@konschelle2009; @mai2011; @cai2010] using approaches based on the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equations [@waintal2001; @waintal2002; @michelsen2008; @linder2011; @kulagina2014] and Green’s function methods [@zhu2004; @zhao2008; @houzet2008; @braude2008; @yokoyama2009; @shomali2011] as well as some experimental work investigating the coupling between the dynamics of magnetic moments and Josephson currents [@petkovic2009; @barnes2011], but to our knowledge there has been no experimental investigation of the coupling between magnetisation dynamics and induced triplet correlations. This is a crucial step in developing superconducting spintronics applications [@linder2015]. In this article, we will review recent work on how magnetisation dynamics of a nanomagnet couple to the induced spin-triplet correlations associated with the charge and spin Josephson effects, and discuss how the dynamic interactions between the induced spin-triplet correlations and the nanomagnet lead to non-equilibrium transport properties that can be used to probe the induced triplet correlations directly. Quasiclassical model ==================== Consider two ordinary BCS s-wave superconductors, with a phase difference $\varphi$, coupled over a nanomagnet as depicted in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The nanomagnet may be a magnetic molecule or a magnetic nanoparticle which we will treat as a classical spin, ${\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}$, with magnetic moment ${\mbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}=\gamma{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}$, and the gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$. The nanoparticle supports a few conduction channels when placed between the two metallic leads. If the nanomagnet is subjected to an external magnetic field, ${\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}$, it will precess when the effective field is applied at an angle, $\vartheta$, relative to the spin. ${\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}$ is an effective field that includes any r.f. fields needed to maintain precession, crystal anisotropy fields and demagnetisation effects. The spin and the effective magnetic field couple via a Zeeman term, ${{\cal{H}}_B}=-\gamma {\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t)\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}$. At finite tilt angle, $\vartheta$, the spin precesses with the Larmor frequency, $\omega_L=\gamma H$, where $H=\vert {\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}\vert$ is the magnitude of the effective field. The spin dynamics are described by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation of motion [@gilbert2004; @tserkovnyak2005] $$\label{LLG} \frac{d{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}}{dt}=-\gamma {\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t) \times {\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}+{\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}}(t),$$ where the first term on the right-hand side is the torque produced by the effective field and the second term, ${\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}}(t)$, is a torque that collects effects caused by the mutual coupling between the precessing nanomagnet and the superconducting quasiparticle system. ![(a) Two superconducting leads are coupled over the spin of a nanomagnet. The tunnel junction is characterised by the hopping amplitudes $\rm{v_o}$ and ${\rm{v_s}}(t)$, where $\rm{v_o}$ is the spin-independent tunnelling and ${\rm{v_s}}(t)$ is the phenomenological time-dependent coupling generated by the nanomagnet, whose spin precesses with the frequency $\omega_L$ at the cone angle $\vartheta$. (b) The schematics of conventional Andreev scattering between two superconductors at phase difference $\varphi$. Constructive interference occurs at a phase-dependent energy $\varepsilon(\varphi)$ defining two energy-degenerate Andreev levels. (c) In addition to the spin-conserving tunnelling (solid lines), the dynamics of the spin allows for tunneling processes with spin-flip scattering combined with an absorption or emission of the energy $\hbar \omega_L$ (dashed lines). The combination of these tunnelling processes results in a lifting of the spin-degeneracy of the Andreev levels in (b) and the appearance of time-dependent spin-triplet pairing amplitudes. (d) For a junction with a static spin, the Andreev-level spectrum’s dependence on phase may be modified from a $0$ junction, ${\rm{v_o}}>{\rm{v_s}}$, to a $\pi$ junction, ${\rm{v_o}}<{\rm{v_s}}$. The black full line is $({\rm{v_o}},{\rm{v_s}})=(1,0)$ and the red line is $({\rm{v_o}},{\rm{v_s}})=(0,1)$. The dashed lines span between these two limits in increments of $0.1$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1_AndreevScattering.pdf){width="5in"} The coupling of the motion of the spin and the quasiparticle tunnelling over the spin enters via a time-dependent tunnelling term, $\hat{{{\cal{H}}}}_T = \hat{\psi}_{L}^{\dagger} \hat{v}_{LR}(t) \hat{\psi}_{R} + H.C.,$ where $\hat{\psi}_{\alpha}$ is the usual spin-dependent Nambu-spinor that describes the superconducting state in lead $\alpha=\rm{R,L}$. The hopping matrix $\hat{v}_{LR}(t)\,(=\hat{v}^\dagger_{RL}(t)\equiv \hat{v}(t))$ has a spin-structure that may be parametrised into a spin-independent amplitude ${\rm{v_o}}$ and a spin-dependent amplitude ${\rm{v_s}}(t)$. It has the following matrix structure in the combined $4\times 4$ Nambu-spin space, $$\label{hopping element} \hat{v}_{LR}(t)= \left(\begin{array}{cc} {\rm{v_o}}+{\rm{v_s}}({\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_S}(t)\cdot\!{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}})&0\\0&{\rm{v_o}}-{\rm{v_s}}\sigma_y({\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_S}(t)\cdot\!{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}})\sigma_y \end{array}\right).$$ We use the time-dependent unit vector, ${\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_S}(t)$, along ${\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t)=\vert{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}\vert {\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_S}(t)$ and include the magnitude $|{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}|$ in the spin-dependent amplitude ${\rm{v_s}}$. Above, ${\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}=({\sigma_x},{\sigma_y},{\sigma_z})$ with $\sigma_i$ being the [*i-th*]{} Pauli matrix. The spin-independent amplitude and the portion of the spin-matrix parallel to ${\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}$, ${\rm{v_o}}+{\rm{v_s}}\cos \vartheta\,({\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_z}\!\cdot\!{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}})$, describe the tunnelling amplitudes for spin-up and spin-down quasiparticles, while the portion perpendicular to ${\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}$, ${\rm{v_s}}\sin \vartheta\,(\cos(\omega_L t){\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_x}+\sin(\omega_L t){\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_y})\!\cdot\!{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}$, induces time-dependent spin flips. Our model is a generalisation to arbitrary tunnelling coupling of the one studied by Zhu and co-workers [@zhu2003; @zhu2004]. We use the quasiclassical theory of superconductivity [@eilenberger1968; @larkin1968; @eliashberg1971; @serene1983] to solve the non-equilibrium tunnelling problem stated above. Within quasiclassical theory, interfaces are handled by the formulation of boundary conditions, which usually have been expressed as scattering problems [@zaitsev1984; @shelankov1984; @millis1988; @nagai1988; @eschrig2000; @shelankov2000; @fogelstrom2000; @barash2002; @zhao2004; @eschrig2009]. In many problems, in particular when an explicit time dependence appears, we find the t-matrix formulation more convenient to use[@cuevas1996; @cuevas2001; @andersson2002]. This formulation is also well suited for studying interfaces with different numbers of trajectories on either side as is the case for normal metal/half metal interfaces [@eschrig2003; @kopu2004]. For a full account on how to solve the time-dependent boundary condition we refer to our original articles [@teber2010; @holmqvist2011; @holmqvist2012; @holmqvist2014]. ![The Josephson effect over a precessing spin at frequency $\omega_L=0.5\Delta$ for various cone angles (a-d) $\vartheta=0.1\pi/2$, (e-h) $\vartheta=\pi/4$, and (i-l) $\vartheta=\pi/2$. The tunnelling parameters are ${\rm {v_o}}=0, {\rm{v_s}}=1$ and the temperature is $T=10^{-5}\Delta$. The structure of the Andreev-level spectrum is shown vs. phase in panels (b,f,j) [@holmqvist2010PhDthesis] and the density of states (DoS) at $ \varphi=0$ in (c,g,k) [@holmqvist2011]. The current-phase relations, $j^c(\varphi)$, and the charge current kernels, $j^{c,<} (\varepsilon, \varphi)$, are shown in panels (d,h,l) [@holmqvist2011]. $j^{c,<} (\varepsilon, \varphi)$ shows how the Andreev levels in (b,f,j) are populated and in which direction they carry current; red into the right and blue into the left lead. At some phase differences $\varphi_c<\varphi<2\pi-\varphi_c$, scattering between the Andreev levels and the continuum states broadens the otherwise sharp in-gap states. The charge current (plotted in units of $e\Delta/\hbar$) is the energy-integrated spectral current and displays abrupt jumps at phase differences where Andreev levels become populated/unpopulated. The DoS at $\varphi=0$ shows the splitting of the spin-up and spin-down Andreev levels as well as the scattering of the continuum levels into the gap. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2_AndreevLevels.pdf){width="5.1in"} The quasiclassical propagator in lead $\alpha$, $\check{g}_\alpha$, is a $2\times2$ matrix in Keldysh space, denoted by the check “$\, \check{\,}\,$”. Each component is in turn a $4\times4$ matrix in the combined Nambu-spin space and has the general form $$\hat g^{R,A,K}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g+{\mbox{\boldmath$g$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}&(f+{\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}})i{\sigma_y}\\i{\sigma_y}\,(\tilde f+\tilde {\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}})&{\sigma_y}(\tilde g-\tilde {\mbox{\boldmath$g$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}){\sigma_y}\end{array}\right)^{R,A,K}$$ for the retarded ($R$), advanced ($A$), and Keldysh ($K$) components. To obtain $\check{g}_\alpha$ for a non-homogeneous system, we solve the transport equation $$\begin{aligned} i v_F \partial_x \check{g}_{\alpha}(\hat{p}_F) + [\check{\varepsilon}-\check{\Delta}_\alpha, \check{g}_{\alpha}(\hat{p}_F) ]_\circ = \check{j}_{\alpha} \delta(x-x_c)/(2\pi i)\end{aligned}$$ along a trajectory $\hat{p}_F$ in lead $\alpha$. The boundary conditions for the components of $\check{g}_\alpha$ enter via a localised inhomogeneity, given by the tunnel Hamiltonian, at the position of the contact, $x_c$ [@buchholtz1979; @thuneberg1981; @thuneberg1984]. The source term is a matrix current defined as $\check{j}_{\alpha}/2\pi i= [\check{t}_{\alpha}(\hat{p}_F,\hat{p}_F), \check{g}^0_\alpha(\hat{p}_F) ]_\circ$. The $\circ$-product is a matrix multiplication and convolution over common time arguments and $\check{g}_\alpha$ additionally obeys a normalisation condition $\check{g}_\alpha \circ \check{g}_\alpha=-\pi^2\check 1$. The matrix, $\check{t}_{\alpha}(\hat{p}_F,\hat{p}_F)$, solves the t-matrix equation $$\check t_\alpha(t,t^\prime)=\check \Gamma_\alpha(t,t^\prime) +\lbrack \check \Gamma_\alpha\!\circ\!\check g^{0}_\alpha \!\circ\! \check t_\alpha\rbrack (t,t^\prime). \label{boundaryTmatrix}$$ The t-matrix $\check{t}_{\alpha}$ depends on the hopping elements of Eq. via a matrix $\check \Gamma_{L}(t,t^\prime)$ defined as $\check \Gamma_{L}(t,t^\prime)=\lbrack \check v \!\circ\! \check g^{0}_{R}\!\circ\!\check v\rbrack (t,t^\prime)$ for the left side of the interface. The right-side matrix $\check \Gamma_{R}$ is correspondingly obtained from the left-side propagator $\check g^{0}_{L}$. $\check g^{0}_{L,R}$ are the bulk propagators in either lead computed without the tunnelling term. From the t-matrices , we calculate the full quasiclassical propagators, which can be separated into “incoming” ($\check g^{i}$) and “outgoing” ($\check g^{o}$) propagators depending on if their trajectories lead up to or away from the interface. These propagators are given by $$\check g^{i,o}_\alpha(t,t^\prime)=\check g^{0}_\alpha(t,t^\prime)+ \lbrack (\check g^{0}_\alpha\pm i \pi \check 1)\!\circ\! \check{t}_\alpha \!\circ\! (\check g^{0}_\alpha\mp i \pi \check 1)\rbrack(t,t^\prime), \label{boundary}$$ where $\pm$ and $\mp$ refer to the incoming and outgoing propagators, respectively. The matrix currents give the charge and spin currents via $$\begin{aligned} j^{c}_\alpha(t) &=& \frac{e}{2\hbar} \int \frac{d \varepsilon}{8\pi i} \mbox{Tr} [ \hat{\tau}_3 \hat{j}^{<}_{\alpha}(\varepsilon,t)]; \label{chargecurr} \\ {\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^{s}_\alpha(t) &=& \frac{1}{4} \int \frac{d \varepsilon}{8 \pi i} \mbox{Tr} [ \hat{\tau}_3 \hat{{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}} \hat{j}^{<}_{\alpha}(\varepsilon,t) ], \label{spincurr}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat \tau_3={\rm diag}(1,-1)$, $\hat{{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}}={\rm diag}({\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}},-{\sigma_y}{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}{\sigma_y})$ and “$\, \hat{\,} \,$” denotes a $4\times 4$ matrix in Nambu-spin space. The lesser (“$<$”) propagators can be obtained as $\hat{g}^<=(1/2)(\hat{g}^{K}-\hat{g}^{R}+\hat{g}^{A})$. The itinerant electrons generate a spin transfer torque which gives a contribution to the torque in Eq. as ${\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}}={\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^s_L-{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^s_R$. The spin independence of $\check {g}^0_{\alpha}(\varepsilon)$ and the form of the hopping elements simplify the time-dependent problem. This simplification can be made due to the fact that the Keldysh-Nambu-spin matrices can be factorised in spin space into generalised diagonal matrices, $\check{X}_d$, spin-raising matrices, $\check{X}_\uparrow$, and spin-lowering matrices, $\check{X}_\downarrow$. In general, a matrix factorised in this form has the time dependence $$\begin{aligned} \label{Xmatrix} \check X(t,t')=(2 \pi)^{-1}\int d\varepsilon \, {\rm e}^{-i\varepsilon(t-t')}\big\lbrack \check X_d(\varepsilon,\omega_L)+ +{\rm e}^{-i \omega_L t}\check X_\uparrow(\varepsilon,\omega_L)+ {\rm e}^{ i \omega_L t} \check X_\downarrow(\varepsilon,\omega_L)\big\rbrack . \end{aligned}$$ The matrices $\check{X}_d$, $\check{X}_\uparrow$, and $\check{X}_\downarrow$ are still Keldysh-Nambu matrices and, in addition, obey the usual algebraic rules for spin matrices, i.e. $\check X_\uparrow\circ\check Y_\uparrow=\check X_\downarrow\circ\check Y_\downarrow=0$, $\check X_{\downarrow,\uparrow}\circ\check Y_{\uparrow,\downarrow}\propto\check Z_{d}$, and $\check X_d\circ\check Y_{\uparrow,\downarrow}\propto\check Z_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$. Observables, such as the charge and spin currents above, will have the general time dependence $$\label{timedep} {\cal{O}}(t;\omega_L)={\cal{O}}_o(\omega_L)+{\cal{O}}_z(\omega_L){\sigma_z}+{\cal{O}}_\uparrow(\omega_L){\mathrm{e}}^{-i \omega_L t}\sigma_+ +{\cal{O}}_\downarrow(\omega_L){\mathrm{e}}^{i \omega_L t}\sigma_-.$$ The components ${\cal{O}}_{o,z}$ are diagonal in spin space and have spin-angular momentum $s_z=0$, while correspondingly ${\cal{O}}_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ are off-diagonal in spin space and have spin-angular momentum $s_z=\pm1$. In Eq. , we have used the definitions $\sigma_{\pm}=({\sigma_x}\pm i{\sigma_y})/2$. Andreev-reflection-induced spin torques {#sec: AR torque} ======================================= Quasiparticle scattering in a Josephson junction may lead to the formation of Andreev levels if the scattering occurs in such that a way that the quasiparticles interfere constructively (see Fig. \[fig1\](b)). In the presence of a precessing spin, the quasiparticle scattering is modified by processes shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c); a tunnelling quasiparticle may gain (lose) energy $\omega_L$ while simultaneously flipping its spin from down (up) to up (down). The Andreev level spectrum essentially depends on the ratio between the hopping amplitudes, ${\rm{v_o}}/{\rm{v_s}}$. If ${\rm{v_o}}/{\rm{v_s}}<(>)1$, the junction is in a $\pi(0)$ state [@holmqvist2011; @teber2010], see Fig. \[fig1\](d). The additional precession-induced tunnelling processes modify the Andreev levels. The Larmor frequency, $\omega_L$, determines the amount of energy exchanged during a tunnelling event, while the cone angle, $\vartheta$, determines the amount of scattering between the spin-up and -down bands. These parameters, as well as the temperature, determine the population of the Andreev states [@holmqvist2011; @holmqvist2012]. In Figure \[fig2\], we summarise how the tunnelling over a precessing spin modifies the Andreev spectra by introducing scattering resonances created by the combination of quanta exchange of $\hbar\omega_L$ and spin flips. The charge current is time-independent but still dependent on both $\omega_L$ and $\vartheta$ as seen in Fig. \[fig2\]. While the Josephson effect over the precessing spin is interesting in its own right, we will not discuss the current-phase relations further in this paper and refer the interested reader to the original articles [@teber2010; @holmqvist2011; @holmqvist2012]. Instead, we will focus on the effects of dynamic spin-triplet correlations and their consequences. An s-wave superconductor contains only spin-singlet correlations $\sim \frac{1}{2}\langle\psi_\uparrow\psi_\downarrow-\psi_\downarrow\psi_\uparrow\rangle$ and can not support a spin current. Nevertheless, induced spin-triplet correlations can be formed due to spin mixing and locally broken spin-rotation symmetry [@eschrig2008; @houzet2008; @alidoust2010]. The rotation of the classical spin generates new spinful correlations and spin currents that are created by the Andreev processes depicted in figure \[fig1\](b-c); positive interference along closed loops leads to the spin-triplet correlations $\frac{1}{2}\langle\psi_\uparrow\psi_\downarrow+\psi_\downarrow\psi_\uparrow\rangle$, $\langle\psi_\uparrow\psi_\uparrow\rangle$ and $\langle\psi_\downarrow\psi_\downarrow\rangle$. These correlations depend on the characteristics of the tunnelling interface, i.e. the precession frequency, $\omega_L$, the cone angle, $\vartheta$, the relative amplitude of hopping strengths, ${\rm{v_o}},{\rm{v_s}}$, as well as the superconducting phase difference $\varphi$, and the temperature, $T$. These spin-triplet correlations are localised near the junction interface and decay over length scales on the order of the superconducting coherence length [@fogelstrom2000; @shevtsov2014]. The spin-singlet components can be quantified by $\psi(\hat{k})=\int_{-\varepsilon_c}^{\varepsilon_c} d \varepsilon \lbrack f^<(\hat k,\varepsilon)+f^<(-\hat k,\varepsilon) \rbrack / 8 \pi i$, where $f^<(\pm \hat{k},\varepsilon)$ denotes the anomalous Green’s functions at the Fermi-surface points $\pm \hat{k}$. $\psi(\hat{k})$ is a measure of the (singlet) pairing correlations available to form a singlet order parameter $\Delta_s(\hat{k})= \lambda_s \eta(\hat{k}) \langle \eta(\hat{k}^\prime) \psi(\hat{k}^\prime)\rangle_{\hat{k}^\prime\cdot \hat{n}>0}$, where $\eta(\hat{k})=\eta(-\hat{k})$ are basis functions of even parity on which the pairing interaction may be expanded and $\hat{n}$ is the direction of the surface normal. The energy $\varepsilon_c$ is the usual cut-off that appears in the BCS gap equation. The triplet correlations span the spin space in such a way that ${\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}_z^<\sim\frac{1}{2}\langle \psi_\uparrow \psi_\downarrow+ \psi_\downarrow\psi_\uparrow \rangle$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^<_{\uparrow/\downarrow}\sim \langle \psi_{\uparrow/\downarrow} \psi_{\uparrow/\downarrow} \rangle$. We quantify the induced spin-triplet correlations, ${\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^{<}$, in terms of a ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$ vector, which in general is a $2\times2$ triplet order parameter given by $\Delta_{\hat{k}}={\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}(\hat k)\!\cdot\!{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}\, i \sigma_y$ and points along the direction of zero spin projection of the Cooper pairs [@he3book]. We make the following definitions: \[triplet correlations\] $$\begin{aligned} \pi \,\,{\rm junctions} &\quad &{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_{o}(\hat k)= \hat n\!\cdot\! \hat k \int_{- \varepsilon_c}^{\varepsilon_c} \frac{d \varepsilon}{8 \pi i} \lbrack {\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^< (\hat k,\varepsilon)-{\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^< (-\hat k,\varepsilon) \rbrack ,\\ 0 \,\,{\rm junctions} &\quad & {\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_{ e}(\hat k)= \int_{-\varepsilon_c}^{\varepsilon_c} \frac{d \varepsilon}{8 \pi i} s_\varepsilon \lbrack {\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^< (\hat k,\varepsilon)+ {\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^< (-\hat k,\varepsilon) \rbrack ,\end{aligned}$$ where the vector ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_o$ is odd in momentum and even in energy, and the vector ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_e$ is even in momentum and odd in energy. $s_\varepsilon$ is the sign of the energy $\varepsilon$. Spin-triplet pairing that is [*even-in $\hat{k}$*]{} and [*odd-in $\varepsilon$*]{} was first considered as a candidate pairing state for $^3$He [@berezinskii1974] and has recently been realised in superconductor/inhomogeneous magnet interfaces [@dibernardo2015]. The time-dependence of the ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$ vector follows from Eqs. , , i.e. $${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}(t)= {\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_z + {\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_\uparrow {\rm e}^{-i \omega_Lt}+{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_\downarrow {\rm e}^{i \omega_Lt}.$$ For ${\rm v_o}=0$ and finite ${\rm{v_s}}$, the components are equal in magnitude, ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_\uparrow={\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_\downarrow=-{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_z$ and scale with a common prefactor, ${\cal{D}}_{s}\omega_L$, where ${\cal{D}}_{s}=4 {\rm{v_s}}^2/[1+2({\rm{{\rm v_o}^2+v_s}}^2)+({\rm v_o}^2-{\rm{v_s}}^2)^2]$. As expected, the ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$-vector components decrease for increasing temperature until they vanish at $T=T_c$. For finite values of ${\rm v_o}$, the universal scaling disappears and the ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$-vector components display an asymmetry between ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_{\uparrow}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_{\downarrow}$. For temperatures $T/T_c\lesssim0.1$, the ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$ vector can be expressed in terms of the classical spin, $${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}(t)=\delta_L \dot{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t)\!\times\!{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t)+\delta_H (\gamma {\mbox{\boldmath$H$}})\!\times\!{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t)+\delta_z {\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}_z. \label{deltadvec}$$ For the odd ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$ vector, $\delta_{z,o}=0$ and, in the tunnel limit at zero temperature, $\delta_{L,o} = \pi{\cal{D}}_{s}\sin(\varphi/2)$ and $\delta_{H,o} = 4\pi i {\rm{v_o}}{\rm{v_s}} \sin(\varphi/2)$. The ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$ vectors in the left and right leads are related by ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_{R}(t)=-{\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}_L(t)$. The spin-vector part of the normal Green’s function, ${\mbox{\boldmath$g$}}^{R/A}$, can be expressed in terms of the spin-vector part of the anomalous Green’s functions, ${\mbox{\boldmath$f$}}^{R/A}$, using the normalisation condition. In the limit of a small cone angle, the $z$ component is negligible and $$\begin{aligned} g^{R(A)}_{\uparrow/\downarrow,\alpha}\left( \varepsilon \mp \frac{\omega_L}{2} \right) = \frac{1}{\bar{g}^{+/-,R(A)}_{s,\alpha}} \bigg \{ \bigg [ \frac{(1\pm i)}{2}f^{R(A)}_{s,\alpha}\left(\varepsilon\pm \frac{\omega_L}{2}\right) + \frac{(1\mp i)}{2}f^{R(A)}_{s,\alpha}\left(\varepsilon\right) \bigg ] \tilde{f}^{R(A)}_{\uparrow/\downarrow,\alpha}\left( \varepsilon \right) \nonumber \\ + \bigg [ \frac{(1\mp i)}{2}\tilde{f}^{R(A)}_{s,\alpha}\left(\varepsilon\pm \frac{\omega_L}{2}\right) + \frac{(1\pm i)}{2}\tilde{f}^{R(A)}_{s,\alpha}\left(\varepsilon\right) \bigg ] f^{R(A)}_{\uparrow/\downarrow,\alpha}\left( \varepsilon \right) \bigg \} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{g}^{+/-,R(A)}_{s,\alpha}=g^{R(A)}_{s,\alpha}\left( \varepsilon \right) + g^{R(A)}_{s,\alpha}\left( \varepsilon\pm \omega_L/2 \right)$ and $g^{R(A)}_{x, \alpha}=[g^{R(A)}_{\uparrow,\alpha}+g^{R(A)}_{\downarrow,\alpha}]/2$ and $g^{R(A)}_{y,\alpha}=i[g^{R(A)}_{\uparrow,\alpha}-g^{R(A)}_{\downarrow,\alpha}]/2$. It is then clear that the existence of the spin currents, ${\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^s_\alpha=(1/4)\int (d\varepsilon/8 \pi i) {\rm Tr} \{ \hat{\tau}_3 \hat{{\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}} [ \hat{g}^{i,K}_{\alpha}(\varepsilon,t)- \hat{g}^{o,K}_{\alpha }(\varepsilon,t) ] \}$, are a direct consequence of the precession-induced spin-triplet correlations. See also Appendix in Ref. [@holmqvist2012]. Unfortunately, the spin currents decay over relatively short distances, viz. the superconducting coherence length, and are therefore difficult to measure. The spin current is nothing but transport of spin-angular momentum and the non-conservation of the spin current results in a torque acting on the rotating spin thereby creating a back-action on the precessing spin that is sufficiently large for experimental detection [@holmqvist2011], as will be described below. Since ${\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^{s}_{R}(t,\varphi)=-{\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^{s}_{L}(t,-\varphi)\neq {\mbox{\boldmath$j$}}^{s}_{L}(t,\varphi)$, the difference between the spin currents can be used to calculate the torque ${\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}}(t)$ in Eq. . We call this torque the Andreev torque since it has its origin in the Andreev scattering processes described in Fig. \[fig1\]. The torque contribution per conduction channel is $$\begin{aligned} {\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}}_A(t)=\frac{2\hbar}{S}{\cal{D}}_{s}\beta_H\cos\vartheta \, (\gamma{\mbox{\boldmath$H$}})\!\times\! {\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}(t). \label{torque A}\end{aligned}$$ This torque describes a shift of the precession frequency, $\omega_L\rightarrow \omega_L\lbrack 1+\frac{2\hbar}{S}{\cal{D}}_{s}\beta_H \cos\vartheta\rbrack$, and this shift is therefore a direct consequence of the induced spin-triplet correlations. A measurement of this frequency shift is a measurement of the induced spin-triplet correlations. Since the shift is $\propto 1/S$, we suggest a nanomagnet with a spin that is small, but still large enough to be treated as a classical spin, say a magnetic nanoparticle with spin $S\sim50\hbar$. For a contact with two superconducting niobium (Nb) leads, the effective contact area is $\sim\pi\xi_0^2$, where the superconducting coherence length $\xi_0\sim40\,$nm for Nb. A contact width of $\sim40$ nm contains $n\sim200$ conduction channels. In bulk Nb, $\Delta\sim1\,$meV, but can be made considerably smaller in the point contact, say $\Delta\sim200\,\mu$eV. We can now study the changes to the precession due to the Andreev torque. In a typical FMR experiment, the resonance peak in the power absorption spectrum has a width that is produced by inhomogeneous broadening, e.g. from anisotropy fields, and homogeneous broadening, which is due to Gilbert damping, and can be expressed as $\Delta H_{\rm hom}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}} H \alpha_{G}$ [@platow1998], where $H=\vert {\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}\vert$ and $\alpha_G=\frac{2\hbar}{S} n \alpha {\cal{D}}_{s}$ is the Gilbert constant [@gilbert2004]. A typical magnetic field is $H\sim 180$ mT, which corresponds to a Larmor precession of $\sim20\,\mu$eV or $5$ GHz. Here, we have assumed a uniform precessional motion. In Ref. [@holmqvist2011], it was shown that the normal quasiparticles freeze out as the temperature is lowered. This process results in a decrease of the width of the resonance peak [@bell2008]. For a junction with ${\cal{D}}_{s}\sim 0.1$, the difference in homogeneous broadening is on the order of $\Delta H_{\rm hom}(T/T_c>1)- \Delta H_{\rm hom}(T/T_c\rightarrow 0) \sim 80$ mT. In addition to the resonance peak width reduction, the shift of the resonance peak $H_0$ due to the Andreev torque appears. The frequency shift corresponds to $\Delta \omega_L / \omega_L=\alpha_G \beta_H \cos\vartheta$. In the tunnel limit, $\beta_H\sim\frac{1}{16}\frac{\omega_L}{\Delta}$ in the low temperature limit [@holmqvist2011]. In this limit, a spin with angle $\vartheta=\pi/4$ can hence generate a displacement of the resonance peak by $\Delta H_0/H_0\sim 2\%$. By increasing the junction transparency, the ratio $\hbar n/S$, or the ratio $\omega_L/\Delta$, the ratio $\Delta H_0/H_0$ can be improved. Spin-precession assisted multiple Andreev reflection ==================================================== Replacing the phase bias by a voltage bias (Fig. \[fig3\](a)) leads to several new features [@holmqvist2014] attributable to the interplay between the time-dependent ${\mbox{\boldmath$d$}}$ vectors and the Josephson frequency, $\omega_J=2eV/\hbar$. The replacement causes the phase difference to increase linearly in time, $\varphi(t)=\varphi_0+\omega_J t$, where $\varphi_0$ is the initial phase difference. The bias voltage in combination with energy exchange with the precessing spin creates multiple Andreev reflection (MAR) processes that lead to characteristic signatures in the charge current-voltage characteristics [@octavio1983; @bratus1995; @averin1995; @cuevas1996]. Two examples of spin-precession-assisted MAR are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. Similarly to the phase-biased case, energy absorption (emission) corresponds to spin flip from down (up) to up (down). The first-order process shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b), which includes an energy absorption of $\omega_L$, leads to a contribution to the IV characteristics at the energy $eV=2 \Delta-\omega_L$. Fig. \[fig3\](c) shows the two possible second-order processes that include absorption of energy. The spin flip associated with the energy exchange introduces a minus sign in the next Andreev-reflection amplitude due to the change between the spinors $(\psi_\uparrow,\psi^\dagger_\downarrow)^T \leftrightarrow (\psi_\downarrow,\psi^\dagger_\uparrow)^T$. This sign difference leads to destructive interference and suppression of the total Andreev reflection. Destructive interference occurs for all even processes, $n=2,4,...$, while higher-order odd processes display constructive interference. ![(a) Same setup as in Fig. \[fig1\] but with a bias voltage applied across the tunnel junction. The (b) first- and (c) second-order MAR processes combined with absorption of energy $\omega_L$. (d) Current-voltage characteristics for the dc charge current $j^c_B$ (top) and differential conductance (bottom), $G_B=\partial j^{c}_{\rm{B}}/\partial V$, normalised by the normal conductance $G_N=[e^2/h][{\cal D}_\uparrow+{\cal D}_\downarrow]$. In both plots, $\vartheta=\pi /8$. Sketches of the time-dependent (e) damping-like and (f) field-like torques created by spin-precession-assisted MAR. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3_VoltageBias.pdf){width="4.9in"} The bias voltage makes the calculations of the charge and spin currents considerably more complicated. This complication arises in large due to the MAR processes, which make it impossible to express the Green’s functions using a closed set of equations. Instead, a recursive approach, see Ref. [@holmqvist2014] for details, has to be used. The general time dependence of a general matrix such as $\check X(t,t')$ in Eq. now has to be complemented by the time dependence generated by the Josephson frequency. In general, the current is given by $$\label{eq:jmu} j_\alpha^\mu(t) = \sum_{n,m} e^{-i(n\varphi_0+m\chi_0)-i(n\omega_J+m\omega_L)t} (j^\mu_\alpha)^m_{n}\, .$$ The current components are $$\label{eq: j n m component} (j^\mu_\alpha)^m_{n} = \int \frac{d\varepsilon}{4}{\rm Tr}\{\hat{\kappa}^\mu[ \check{t}(\varepsilon+n\omega_J+m\omega_L) \check{g}(\varepsilon)- \check{g}(\varepsilon+n\omega_J+m\omega_L) \check{t}(\varepsilon+n\omega_J+m\omega_L) ]^< \} ,$$ where we have defined $\hat\kappa^0=e\hat\tau_3$ for the charge current and $\hat{\kappa}^i={\rm diag} (\sigma_i, \sigma_y\sigma_i\sigma_y)/2$ for a spin current with a polarisation in the $i=x,y,z$ direction. Note that just as the current depends on the initial phase $\varphi_0$, it also depends on $\chi_0$, which is the initial value of the in-plane projection of the precessing spin. The integer $m$ takes the values $\{-1,0,1\}$ corresponding to $\{\downarrow,d,\uparrow\}$ in Eq. . Defining ${\rm v}_{\uparrow/\downarrow}={\rm v_o} \pm {\rm v_s} \cos\vartheta$, we write ${\cal D}_{\uparrow(\downarrow)}=4{\rm v}_{\uparrow(\downarrow)}^2/[1+{\rm v}_{\uparrow(\downarrow)}^2]^2$. The dc charge current and the differential conductance, plotted in Fig. \[fig3\](d), clearly show the contributions to the current generated by the spin-precession-assisted MAR processes. These features appear at voltages $eV=(2\Delta\pm\omega_L)/n$, where $n=1,3,...$ Note that, as expected, the contributions for the even processes $n=2,4,...$ are absent. It can be shown that the ac charge current only includes harmonics of $\omega_J$, i.e. $j_\alpha^0(t) = \sum_{n} e^{-in(\varphi_0+\omega_J t)} (j^0_\alpha)^0_{n}$. This time dependence is an effect of the combined energy exchange-spin flip tunnelling processes. The spin current, on the other hand, includes all harmonics of the Larmor and Josephson frequencies. This time dependence is captured by the spin-transfer torque, whose $\omega_L$ dependence is described by the expression $$\label{eVtorque} {\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}}(t) = \frac{\gamma_H(t)}{S} \gamma {\mbox{\boldmath$H$}}\times {\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}+\frac{\gamma_L(t)}{S^2} \dot{{\mbox{\boldmath$S$}}} \times {\mbox{\boldmath$S$}},$$ where the prefactors, $\gamma_{H/L}$, oscillate with the Josephson frequency, $\gamma_{H/L}(t)= \sum_{n} \gamma_{H/L,n}e^{i n \omega_J t}$. The component $\gamma_{L,0}$ describes a finite shift of the precession angle $\vartheta$, while the term $\propto \gamma_{H,0}$ signals a shift of the precession frequency. The damping-like torque $\propto \gamma_{L,n}$ and the field-like torque $\propto \gamma_{H,n}$ describe Josephson nutations [@nussinov2005] and oscillations of the precession frequency, respectively. Since the torque includes harmonics of both $\omega_J$ and $\omega_L$, resonances may occur when the two frequencies are commensurate. These Shapiro resonances occur at the bias voltage $V_n^m=-(m/n)\omega_L/2e$ where $n,m \neq 0$, and results in a dc contribution to the spin-transfer torque and can be seen as a rectification of the higher harmonics of the torque in section \[sec: AR torque\]. As the ac part of the torque originates from an in-plane spin-polarised current, one can then conclude that the Shapiro resonances produce dc in-plane torque components. The Shapiro resonances hence break the rotational symmetry around the $z$ axis and, therefore, the Shapiro torque depends on the initial angle of nanomagnet’s magnetisation direction, $\chi_0$. This situation is analogous to the $\varphi_0$-dependence for the Shapiro steps seen in microwave-irradiated Josephson junctions [@cuevas2002; @uzawa2005; @chauvin2006]. The dc Shapiro torque will cause the spin to precess around a new $z$ axis. Choosing suitable parameters and applying a self-consistent solution, one finds that the Shapiro torque is able to reverse the spin’s direction. To this end, we choose $n=1$ and optimise the effect of the Shapiro torque by maximising the ratio $\gamma_{H,1}/\gamma_{L,1}$. It was found in Ref. [@holmqvist2014] that $\gamma_{H,1}$ strongly depends on the junction transparency but exhibits a weak dependence on the precession angle. We therefore choose $\rm{v_o}=0$, $\rm{v_s}=0.7$, and $\vartheta=0.1 \pi$. We consider a tunnel junction consisting of Nb having a superconducting gap $\Delta\sim 0.5$ meV and containing a magnetic nanoparticle with spin $S\sim50\hbar$ with a typical frequency $\omega_L\sim 5$ GHz that corresponds to a magnetic field well below the critical magnetic field. We therefore have $\omega_L/\Delta=0.01$. A magnetic field close to the critical magnetic field reduces $\Delta$ and increases the resolution of features depending on the ratio $\omega_L/\Delta$, e.g. the subgap features in the dc charge current. A point contact of width $\sim 40$ nm has $\sim200$ conduction channels, which gives an estimated sub-nanosecond switching time for the first Shapiro resonance. Conclusion ========== We have reviewed recent work on how the magnetisation dynamics of a nanomagnet couple to the charge and spin Josephson effects. The precession of the nanomagnet modifies the Andreev scattering in several ways. First, it introduces a spin-polarised Andreev level spectrum and dynamical spin-triplet pairing correlations in the vicinity of the junction. Second, it couples in-gap Andreev levels with the continuum part of the spectrum causing a nonequilibrium population of the Andreev levels. Third, it creates a nonequilibrium population of the Andreev levels, leading to Andreev levels carrying current in opposite directions being populated and a strongly modified current-phase relation. We have focused on the consequences of the spin-polarised Andreev-level spectra and how they couple back to the precession dynamics of the nanomagnet via conservation of spin-angular momentum. Depending on if the Josephson junction is phase biased or voltage biased, the this torque can modify the precession frequency, either by a frequency shift or by frequency modulations, or it can introduce nutations. Recent experiments on superconductor/ferromagnet nanojunctions can extract the microscopic details of the scattering and match junction parameters such as spin-filtering and spin-mixing effects [@quay2013; @hubler2012; @wolf2013]. If the ferromagnetic part of the junction would be a single domain magnetic grain, properties described in this review could be probed in experiments. [9]{} Eschrig, M., 2011 Spin-polarized supercurrents for spintronics. *Physics Today* **64**, 43. Linder, J. and Robinson, J. W. A., 2015 Superconducting spintronics. *Nature Physics* **11**, 307. Bulaevskii, L. N., Kuzii, V. V., and Sobyanin, A. A., 1977 Superconducting system with weak links and current in the ground state. *Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz*. **25**, 314 \[*JETP Lett.* **25**, 290\]. Ryazanov, V. V., Oboznov, V. A., Rusanov, A. Yu.,Veretennikov, A. V., Golubov, A. A., and Aarts, J., 2001 Coupling of two superconductors through a ferromagnet: Evidence for a $\pi$-Junction. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **86**, 2427. Kontos, T., Aprili, M., Lesueur, J., Genêt, F., Stephanidis, B., and Boursier, R. 2002 Josephson junction through a thin ferromagnetic layer: Negative coupling. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **89**, 137007. Buzdin, A. I., 2005 Proximity effects in superconductor-ferromagnet heterostructures. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **77**, 935. Bergeret, F. S., Volkov, A. F., and Efetov, K. B., 2001 Enhancement of the Josephson Current by an Exchange Field in Superconductor-Ferromagnet Structures. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **86**, 3140. Bergeret, F. S., Volkov, A. F., and Efetov, K. B., 2005 Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena in superconductor-ferromagnet structures. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **77**, 1321. Houzet, M. and Buzdin, A. I., 2007 Long range triplet Josephson effect through a ferromagnetic trilayer. *Phys. Rev. B* **76**, 060504(R). Braude, V., and Nazarov, Yu. V., 2007 Fully Developed Triplet Proximity Effect. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **98**, 077003. Eschrig, M. and Löfwander, T., 2008 Triplet supercurrents in clean and disordered half-metallic ferromagnets. *Nature Physics* **4**, 138. Keizer, R. S., Goennenwein, S. T. B., Klapwijk, T. M., Miao, G., Xiao, G., and Gupta, A. 2006 A spin triplet supercurrent through the half-metallic ferromagnet CrO$_2$. *Nature* **439**, 825. Khaire, T. S., Khasawneh, M. A., Pratt, Jr., W. P., and Birge, N. O., 2010 Observation of Spin-Triplet Superconductivity in Co-Based Josephson Junctions. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **104**, 137002. Mai, S., Kandelaki, E., Volkov, A. F., and Efetov, K. B., 2011 Interaction of Josephson and magnetic oscillations in Josephson tunnel junctions with a ferromagnetic layer. *Phys. Rev. B* **84**, 144519. Konschelle, F. and Buzdin, A., 2009 Magnetic moment manipulation by a Josephson current. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **102**, 017001. Cai, L. and Chudnovsky, E. M., 2010 Interaction of a nanomagnet with a weak superconducting link. *Phys. Rev. B* **82**, 104429. Waintal, X., and Brouwer, P. W., 2001 Current-induced switching of magnetic domains to a perpendicular configuration. *Phys. Rev. B* **63**, R220407. Waintal, X., and Brouwer, P. W., 2002 Magnetic exchange interaction induced by a Josephson current. *Phys. Rev. B* **65**, 054407. Michelsen, J., Shumeiko, V. S., and Wendin, G., 2008 Manipulation with Andreev states in spin active mesoscopic Josephson junctions. *Phys. Rev. B* **77**, 184506. Linder, J. and Yokoyama, T., 2011 Supercurrent-induced magnetization dynamics in a Josephson junction with two misaligned ferromagnetic layers. *Phys. Rev. B* **83**, 012501. Kulagina, I. and Linder, J., 2014 Spin supercurrent, magnetization dynamics, and $\varphi$-state in spin-textured Josephson junctions. *Phys. Rev. B* **90**, 054504. Zhao, E. and Sauls, J. A., 2008 Theory of nonequilibrium spin transport and spin-transfer torque in superconducting-ferromagnetic nanostructures. *Phys. Rev. B* **78**, 174511. Shomali, Z., Zareyan, M., and W. Belzig, W., 2011 Spin supercurrent in Josephson contacts with noncollinear ferromagnets. *New J. Phys.* **13**, 083033. Braude, V., and Blanter, Ya. M., 2008 Triplet Josephson Effect with Magnetic Feedback in a Superconductor-Ferromagnet Heterostructure. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 207001. Zhu, J.-X., Nussinov, Z., Shnirman. A., and Balatsky, A.V., 2004 Novel spin dynamics in a Josephson junction. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92**, 107001. Houzet, M., 2008 Ferromagnetic Josephson junction with precessing magnetization. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **101**, 057009. Yokoyama, T. and Tserkovnyak, Y., 2009 Tuning odd triplet superconductivity by spin pumping. *Phys. Rev. B* **80**, 104416. Petković, I., Aprili, M., Barnes, S. E., Beuneu, F., and Maekawa, S., 2009 Direct dynamical coupling of spin modes and singlet Josephson supercurrent in ferromagnetic Josephson junctions. *Phys. Rev. B* **80**, 220502. Barnes, S. E., Aprili, M., Petković, I., and Maekawa, S., 2011 Ferromagnetic resonance with a magnetic Josephson junction. *Superconductor Science and Technology* **24**, 024020. Gilbert, T. L., 2004 A Phenomenological Theory of Damping in Ferromagnetic Materials. *IEEE Transactions on magnetics* **40**, 3443. Tserkovnyak, Y., Brataas, A., Bauer, G. E. W., and Haplerin, B. I., 2005 Nonlocal magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic heterostructures. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **77**, 1375. Zhu, J.-X., and Balatsky, A.V., 2003 Josephson current in the presence of a precessing spin. *Phys. Rev. B* **67**, 174505. Eilenberger, G., 1968 Transformation of Gorkov’s equation for type II superconductors into transport-like equations. *Z. Phys.* **214**, 195. Larkin, A.I. and Ovchinnikov, Y. N., 1969 Quasiclassical method in the theory of superconductivity. *Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz.* **55**, 2262 \[*Sov. Phys. JETP* **28**, 1200\]. Eliashberg, G. M., 1971 Inelastic Electron Collisions and Nonequilibrium Stationary States in Superconductors. *Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz.* **61**, 1254 \[*Sov. Phys. JETP* **34**, 668 (1972)\]. Serene, J. W. and Rainer, D., 1983 The quasiclassical approach to superfluid $^{\rm{3}}$He. *Phys. Rep.* **101**, 21. Zaitsev, A. V., 1984 Quasiclassical equations of the theory of superconductivity for contiguous metals and the properties of constricted microcontacts. *Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz.* **86**, 1742 \[*Sov. Phys. JETP* **59**, 1015\]. Shelankov, A. L., 1984 2-particle tunnelling in normal metal-superconductor contact. *Sov. Phys. Solid State* **26**, 981. Millis, A. J., Rainer, D., and Sauls J. A., 1988 Quasiclassical theory of superconductivity near magnetically active interfaces. *Phys. Rev. B* **38**, 4504. Nagai, K. and Hara, J., 1988 Boundary conditions for quasiclassical Green’s function for superfluid Fermi systems. *J. Low Temp. Phys.* **71**, 351. Eschrig, M., 2000 Distribution functions in nonequilibrium theory of superconductivity and Andreev spectroscopy in unconventional superconductors. *Phys. Rev. B* **61**, 9061. Shelankov, A. and Ozana, M., 2000 Quasiclassical theory of superconductivity: A multiple-interface geometry. *Phys. Rev. B* **61**, 7077. Fogelström, M., 2000 Josephson currents through spin-active interfaces. *Phys. Rev. B* **62**, 11812. Barash, Y. S., Bobkova, I. V., and Kopp, T., 2002 Josephson current in S-FIF-S junctions: Nonmonotonic dependence on misorientation angle. *Phys. Rev. B* **66**, 140503(R). Zhao, E., Löfwander, T., and Sauls, J. A., 2004 Nonequilibrium superconductivity near spin-active interfaces. *Phys. Rev. B* **70**, 134510. Eschrig, M., 2009 Scattering problem in nonequilibrium quasiclassical theory of metals and superconductors: General boundary conditions and applications. *Phys. Rev. B* **80**, 134511. Cuevas, J. C., Martín-Rodero, A., and Levy Yeyati, A., 1996 Hamiltonian approach to the transport properties of superconducting quantum point contacts. *Phys. Rev. B* **54**, 7366. Cuevas, J. C., and Fogelström, M., 2001 Quasiclassical description of transport through superconducting contacts. *Phys. Rev. B* **64**, 104502. Andersson, M., Cuevas, J. C., and Fogelström, M., 2002 Transport through superconductor/magnetic dot/superconductor structures. *Physica C* **367**, 117. Eschrig, M., Kopu, J., Cuevas, J. C., and Schön, G., 2003 Theory of Half-Metal/Superconductor Heterostructures. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **90** 137003. Kopu, J., Eschrig, M., Cuevas, J. C., and Fogelström, M., 2004 Transfer-matrix description of heterostructures involving superconductors and ferromagnets. *Phys. Rev. B* **69**, 094501. Teber, S., Holmqvist, C., and Fogelström, M., 2010 Transport and magnetization dynamics in a superconductor/single-molecule magnet/superconductor junction. *Phys. Rev. B* **81**, 174503. Holmqvist, C., Teber, S., and Fogelström, M., 2011 Nonequilibrium effects in a Josephson junction coupled to a precessing spin. *Phys. Rev. B* **83**, 104521. Holmqvist, C., Belzig, W., and Fogelström, M., 2012 Spin-precession-assisted supercurrent in a superconducting quantum point contact coupled to a single-molecule magnet. *Phys. Rev. B* **86**, 054519. Holmqvist, C., Fogelström, M., and Belzig, W., 2014 Spin-polarized Shapiro steps and spin-precession-assisted multiple Andreev reflection. *Phys. Rev. B* **90**, 014516. Holmqvist, C., 2010 Non-equilibrium Effects in Nanoscale Superconducting Hybrid Junctions. Ph.D. thesis, Chalmers University of Technology. Buchholtz, L. J. and Rainer, D., 1979 Quasiclassical boundary conditions for Fermi liquids at surfaces. *Z. Phys. B* **35**, 151. Thuneberg, E. V., Kurkijärvi, J., and Rainer, D., 1981 Quasiclassical theory of ions in $^{\rm{3}}$He. *J. Phys. C* **14**, 5615 (1981). Thuneberg, E. V., Kurkijärvi, J., and Rainer, D., 1984 Elementary-flux-pinning potential in type-II superconductors. *Phys. Rev. B* **29**, 3913. Alidoust, M., Linder, J., Rashedi, G., Yokoyama, T., and Sudbø, A., 2010 Spin-polarized Josephson current in superconductor/ferromagnet/superconductor junctions with inhomogeneous magnetization. *Phys. Rev. B* **81**, 014512. Shevtsov, O. and Löfwander, T., 2014 Spin imbalance in hybrid superconducting structures with spin-active interfaces. *Phys. Rev. B* **90**, 085432. Vollhardt, D. and Wölfle, P. 1990 The superfluid phases of Helium 3. *Taylor and Frances*. V. L. Berezinskii, 1974 New model of anisotropic phase of superfluid He-3 *Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.* **20**, 628 \[*JETP Lett.* **20**, 287\]. Di Bernardo, A., Diesch, S., Gu, Y., Linder, J., Divitini, G., Ducati, C., Scheer, E., Blamire, M. G., and Robinson, J. W. A. 2015 Signature of magnetic-dependent gapless odd frequency states at superconductor/ferromagnet interfaces. *Nat. Commun.* **6**, 8053. Platow, W., Anisimov, A. N., Dunifer, G. L., Farle, M., and Baberschke, K., 1998 Correlations between ferromagnetic-resonance linewidths and sample quality in the study of metallic ultrathin films. *Phys. Rev. B* **58**, 5611. Bell, C., Milikisyants, S., Huber, M., and Aarts, J., 2008 Spin Dynamics in a Superconductor-Ferromagnet Proximity System. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 047002. Octavio, M., Tinkham, M., Blonder, G. E., and Klapwijk, T. M., 1983 Subharmonic energy-gap structure in superconducting constrictions. *Phys. Rev. B* **27**, 6739. Bratus, E. N., Shumeiko, V.S., and Wendin, G., 1995 Theory of Subharmonic Gap Structure in Superconducting Mesoscopic Tunnel Contacts. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **74**, 2110. Averin, D. and Bardas, A., 1995 ac Josephson Effect in a Single Quantum Channel. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **75**, 1831. Nussinov, Z., Shnirman, A., Arovas., D. P., Balatsky, A.V., and Zhu. J. X., 2005 Spin and spin-wave dynamics in Josephson junctions. *Phys. Rev. B* **71**, 214520. Cuevas, J.C., Heurich, J., Martín-Rodero, A., Levy Yeyati, A., and Schön, G., 2002 Subharmonic Shapiro Steps and Assisted Tunneling in Superconducting Point Contacts. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **88**, 157001. Uzawa, Y. and Wang, Z., 2005 Coherent Multiple Charge Transfer in a Superconducting NbN Tunnel Junction. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **95**, 017002. Chauvin, M., vom Stein, P., Pothier, H., Joyez, P., Huber, M. E., Esteve, D., and Urbina, C., 2006 Superconducting Atomic Contacts under Microwave Irradiation. *Phys. Rev. Lett* **97**, 067006. Quay, C. H. L., Chevallier, D., Bena, C., and Aprili, M., 2013 Spin imbalance and spin-charge separation in a mesoscopic superconductor. *Nature physics* **9**, 84. H[ü]{}bler, F., Wolf, M. J., Beckmann, D., and von L[ö]{}hneysen, H., 2012 Long-Range Spin-Polarized Quasiparticle Transport in Mesoscopic Al Superconductors with a Zeeman Splitting *Phys. Rev. Lett* **109**, 207001. Wolf, M. J., H[ü]{}bler, F., Kolenda, S., von L[ö]{}hneysen, H., and Beckmann, D., 2013 Spin injection from a normal metal into a mesoscopic superconductor. *Phys. Rev. B* **87**, 024517.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We show that the Einstein–Maxwell–Dilaton–Axion system with multiple vector fields (bosonic sector of the $D=4, N=4$ supergravity) restricted to spacetimes possessing a non–null Killing vector field admits a concise representation in terms of the Ernst–type matrix valued potentials. A constructive derivation of the SWIP solutions is given and a colliding waves counterpart of the DARN-NUT solution is obtained. $SU(m,m)$ chiral representation of the two–dimensionally reduced system is derived and the corresponding Kramer–Neugebauer–type map is presented. PACS number(s): 97.60.Lf, 04.60.+n, 11.17.+y' --- -15mm -25mm DTP–MSU/97-04\ February 4, 1997\ gr-qc/yymmxxx 1.5cm [**Matrix Ernst potentials for EMDA with multiple vector fields**]{} [^1] and [**S.A. Sharakin**]{} [^2]\ Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University,\ Moscow 119899, [**Russia**]{}\ Recently a variety of black hole solutions was found in the four–dimensional extended supergravities [@tudo] using either [*ad hoc*]{} ansatze or employing classical dualities. In the most extensively studied $N=4$ theory it was shown that the corresponding three-dimensional reduction (with a non–null spacetime Killing symmetry assumed) may be concisely formulated in terms of generalized Ernst potentials [@ad]. This suggests an alternative interpretation of the classical $U$–duality as the ‘Ehlers’ symmetry and opens a way to apply powerful general relativity techniques to construct exact classical solutions. For the Einstein–Maxwell–Dilaton–Axion (EMDA) theory with one vector field a particularly simple matrix Ernst potential was found in terms of $2\times 2$ symmetric complex matrices [@gk]. This representation, however, is due to existence of an exceptional local isomorphism $SO(2,3)\sim Sp(4,R)$, relevant to the one-vector EMDA $U$–duality $SO(2,3)$ [@g], which is not extendible to the realistic case of multiple vector fields. Here we show that in the case of two vector fields ($p=2$) another exceptional local isomorphism $SO(2,4)\sim SU(2,2)$ gives rise to an even more economical representation of the $8$–dimensional TS in terms of the $2\times 2$ complex [*non–symmetric*]{} matrices (reducing to symmetric ones for $p=1$). For arbitrary $p$ a matrix Ernst potential can be constructed using the Clifford algerbras corresponding to the compact subgroup $SO(p+1)$ of the three–dimensional $T$–duality group $SO(1,p+1)$. This leads to the pseudounitary embedding of the $U$–duality group $SO(2,2+p)$ into $SU(m,m)$ where $m=2^k,\, k=[(p+1)/2]$. In terms of the matrix Ernst potential $U$–duality looks like a matrix–valued ‘Ehlers’ $SL(2,R)$ symmetry [@eh]. Further two–dimensional reduction of the theory (with the rank–two Abelian spacetime isometry group assumed) leads to the $SU(m,m)$ chiral representation in the $\sigma$–model variables, or to its ‘Matzner–Misner’ counterpart obtainable via the Kramer–Neugebauer–type map. We start with the four–dimensional action $$S=\int \left\{-R+2\left|\partial z (z-{\bar z})^{-1}\right|^2 + \left(iz{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^{n}{\cal F}^{n \mu\nu}+c.c\right)\right\} \sqrt{-g}d^4x,$$ where ${\cal F}^n=(F^n+i{\tilde F}^n)/2,\; {\tilde F}^{n \mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}E^{\mu\nu\lambda\tau}F^n_{\lambda\tau}, \, n=1,...,p$ (summation over repeated $n$ is understood elsewhere), $z=\kappa+ie^{-2\phi}$, and the metric signature is $+---$. For $p=6$ this action describes the bosonic sector of $N=4, D=4$ supergravity. It is invariant under the $SO(p)$ rotation of the vector fields, which is an analogue of the $T$–duality of dimensionally reduced theories [@gpr]. The equations of motion and Bianchi identities (but not the action) are also invariant under the $S$–duality transformations $$z \rightarrow \frac{az+b}{cz+d},\quad ad-bc=1,$$ $$F^n \rightarrow (c\kappa+d) F^n + c {\rm e}^{-2\phi} {\tilde F}^n.$$ Consider three–dimensional reduction of the theory assuming either timelike ($\lambda=1$), or spacelike ($\lambda=-1$) (in an essential region of spacetime) Killing symmetry. Then the four–dimensional line element may be written as $$ds^2=\lambda f(dy-\omega_idx^i)^2- \frac{\lambda}{f}h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$ where the three–space metric $h_{ij}\;(i, j=1, 2, 3)$, the one–form $\omega_i $ and the conformal factor $f$ depend on the three–space coordinates $x^i$ only. It is assumed that $y=t,\, h_{ij}$ is spacelike for $\lambda=1$, and $h_{ij}$ is of the signature $+--$ for $\lambda=-1$. One can express vector fields through the quantities $v^n,\,u^n$ which have the meaning of the electric and magnetic scalar potentials for $\lambda=1$: $$F^n_{iy}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\partial_iv^n,$$ $$2{\rm Im}\left( z{\cal F}^{n ij}\right) =\frac{f}{\sqrt{2h}}\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_ku^n,\quad h\equiv \det h_{ij}.$$ In three dimensions the ‘$T$–duality’ group is enlarged to $SO(1,p+1)$, while the $S$–duality becomes the symmetry of the action. Moreover, both these groups are unified within a larger ‘$U$–duality’ group $SO(2,p+2)$ [@gk; @udu; @ht]. This can be easily shown by constructing the Kähler metric of the target manifold of the resulting $\sigma$–model. To find such a representation one has to introduce a twist potential $\chi$ via $$d\chi=u^n d v^n -v^n d u^n -\lambda f^2 *d \omega,$$ and to derive equations for $\chi, u^n$ in addition to those for $f, \kappa, \phi, v^n$. The full set of equations will be that of the three–dimensional gravity coupled non–linear $\sigma$–model possessing the $4+2p$ dimensional target space $SO(2,2+p)/\left(SO(2)\times SO(p,2)\right)$ for $\lambda=1$, respectively $SO(2,2+p)/\left(SO(2)\times SO(p+2)\right)$ for $\lambda=-1$. In the latter case the corresponding matrices are symmetric, what is a desirable property for an application of the inverse scattering transfrom technique. Since the transition from $\lambda=1$ to $\lambda=-1$ in (3) is merely an analytic continuation, symmetric matrices may be used in the $\lambda=1$ case as well (a realization of the non–compact coset by symmetric matrices may be achieved via the left multiplication by some constant matrix). The target manifold can be parametrized by complex coordinates $z^\alpha,\, \alpha=0,1,...,p+1$ which have the following meaning. The components $\alpha=n=1,...,p$ are complex potentials for vector fields $$z^n = u^n-z v^n\equiv \Phi^n, \quad n=1,...,p,$$ while the $\alpha=0, p+1$ components are linear combinations of the complex axidilaton and the Ernst potential $E=i\lambda f-\chi +v^n\Phi^n$: $$z^0 = (E-z)/2,\quad z^{p+1}=(E+z)/2.$$ The TS metric is generated by the Kähler potential [@ad] $$G_{\alpha {\bar \beta}}=\partial_\alpha \partial_{\bar\beta} K(z^\alpha, {\bar z}^\beta),$$ $$K=-\ln V,\quad V=\lambda\eta_{\alpha\beta}{\rm Im} z^\alpha {\rm Im} z^\beta =f{\rm e}^{-2\phi},$$ where the $T$–duality $SO(1,p+1)$ metric is introduced $\eta_{\alpha\beta}=diag (-1,1,...,1),\,\alpha, \beta=0,1,...,p+1$. For $p=1$ the matrix Ernst potential incorporating linearly all Kähler variables reads [@gk; @udu] $${\cal E}=\pmatrix{ E & \Phi \cr \Phi & -z}.$$ This is a symmetric complex matrix which splits into hermitean and antihermitean parts $${\cal E} = {\cal Q}+i{\cal P},\quad {\cal P}^{\dagger}={\cal P},\;\; {\cal Q}^{\dagger}={\cal Q},$$ with [*real*]{} ${\cal Q,\, P}$ and generates a symmetric $Sp(4,R)$ matrix $${\cal M}=\left(\begin{array}{crc} {\cal P}^{-1}&{\cal P}^{-1}{\cal Q}\\ {\cal Q}{\cal P}^{-1}&{\cal P}+{\cal Q}{\cal P}^{-1}{\cal Q}\\ \end{array}\right),$$ satisfying $${\cal M}^{\dagger} J {\cal M} = J,\quad J=\pmatrix{ O & I_2 \cr -I_2 & O}.$$ It can be checked that the TS metric is $$dl^2=-2{\rm Tr}\left\{d{\cal E} \left({\cal E}^{\dagger}- {\cal E}\right)^{-1} d{\cal E}^{\dagger}\left( {\cal E}^{\dagger}-{\cal E}\right)^{-1}\right\}.$$ Kähler potentials act as scalar sources in the three–dimensional Einstein’s equations $${\cal R}_{ij}=- 2{\rm Tr}\left\{\left({\cal E}^{\dagger}- {\cal E}\right)^{-1} \left(\partial_{(i}{\cal E}\right) \left({\cal E}^{\dagger}- {\cal E}\right)^{-1} \partial_{j)}{\cal E}^{\dagger}\right\}.$$ Alternatively, in terms of ${\cal M}$, the TS metric reads $$dl^2=-\frac{1}{4} {\rm Tr} \{d{\cal M}d{\cal M}^{-1}\},$$ while the Einstein’s equations for $h_{ij}$ are $${\cal R}_{ij}=-\frac{1}{4} {\rm Tr} \{ \left(\partial_{(i} {\cal M}\right) \partial_{j)}{\cal M}^{-1} \}.$$ Here we are looking for a generalization of this representation to higher $p$. It turns out that this can be achieved not in terms of higher rank symplectic groups, but rather in terms of pseudounitary imbeddings. Consider first the case $p=2$. Then the global symmetry of the TS ($U$-duality) is the four–dimensional conformal group $SO(2,4)\sim SU(2,2)$. The latter group, realised by $(4\times 4)$ complex matrices, can be conveniently presented using the Dirac basis $\sigma_{\mu\nu}=\rho_{\mu}\otimes\sigma_{\nu}$, where $\rho_{\mu},\,\sigma_{\nu}$ are two sets of Pauli matrices (with the unit matrix for $\mu,\nu=0$) [@cg]. Any element ${\cal U}\in SU(2,2)$ satisfies ${\cal U}^{\dagger} \sigma_{30} {\cal U} = \sigma_{30}$. To get contact with $p=1$ one has to perform the unitary transformation $${\cal M}=V^{\dagger} {\cal U} V, \quad V = (\sigma_{00} - i\sigma_{10})/ \sqrt{2},$$ so that ${\cal M}$ should obey (14) (in the context of unitary groups it is more natural to multiply $J$ by $i$, [*i.e.*]{} to take $J=\sigma_{20}$). Then the expression (15) for the TS line element remains valid (up to a numerical factor) for the following $p=2$ matrix Ernst potential: $${\cal E}=\pmatrix{ E & \Phi_1-i\Phi_2 \cr \Phi_1+i\Phi_2 & -z}.$$ With the same block parametrization (13) the formulas (17,18) also hold up to a normalization. Note that now hermitean ${\cal P, Q}$ are not real. The essential feature of the matrix Ernst representation is that it provides the [*matrix–valued*]{} generalization of the Ehlers group of the vacuum general relativity [@ad]. This gives an alternative view on the $U$–duality in three–dimensional supergravities. For $p=2$ the 15–parametric ‘Ehlers’ group consists of the four–parametric gauge, $${\cal E }\rightarrow {\cal E }+{\cal G }, \qquad {\cal G }= \pmatrix{ g & m^1-im^2 \cr m^1+im^2 & b},$$ ($g,\,b$ are twist and axion shift parameters, $m^n$ is a magnetic gauge), the four–parametric ‘proper Ehlers’ (including the ‘Ehlers’–like $S$–duality component), $${\cal E }^{-1}\rightarrow {\cal E }^{-1}+{\cal H }, \qquad {\cal H }= \pmatrix{ c_E & h_m^1-ih_m^2 \cr h_m^1+ih_m^2 & c},$$ and the seven–parametric ‘scale’ transformation: $${\cal E }\rightarrow {\cal S}^{\dagger} {\cal E }{\cal S}, \qquad {\cal S }= \pmatrix{ e^{s+i\alpha} & h_e^1-ih_e^2 \cr -e^1+ie^2 & a e^{-i\alpha}}.$$ Note, that the Harrison transformations of this theory [@ad; @gl] (parametrized by $h_e^n,\, h_m^n,\, n=1,2$) enter partly into the ‘Ehlers’ and partly into the ‘scale’ subgroups. In the latter the parameter $\alpha$ represents the $SO(p)\, (p=2)$ rotations (the four–dimensional ‘$T$–duality’). To get the desired generalization to arbitrary $p$ the following observation is appropriate. The structure of the matrix Ernst potential for $p=2$ may be viewed as an expansion over the Clifford algebra corresponding to the $SO(p+1)$ subgroup of the three–dimensional $T$–duality group: $$\left\{\gamma_a,\, \gamma_b\right\}=2\delta_{ab}I_m,$$ where $a,b=1,....,p+1,\, m=2^k,\, k=[(p+1)/2]$. For $p=2$ the Clifford algebra is realized by the Pauli matrices $\sigma_a$, and clearly $${\cal E}=z^0 I_2+z^a\sigma_a.$$ For arbitrary $p$ one has merely to replace $\sigma_a$ by [*hermitean*]{} $\gamma_a$: $${\cal E}=z^0 I_k+z^a\gamma_a.$$ The dimensionality of this representation follows the usual rule valid for gamma–matrices in arbitrary dimensions: for even $p=2k$ gamma-matrices are $2^k\times 2^k$, while for $p=2k+1$ the rank is the same as for $p=2(k+1)$. The only modification to be made in (15-18) is a numerical factor due to the trace of the unit matrix: $$dl^2= \frac{1}{m}{\rm Tr}\left\{d{\cal E}{\cal P}^{-1} d{\cal E}^{\dagger}{\cal P}^{-1}\right\} = -\frac{1}{2m} {\rm Tr} \left\{d{\cal M}d{\cal M}^{-1}\right\},$$ $${\cal R}_{ij}=\frac{1}{m}{\rm Tr}\left\{ \left(\partial_{(i} {\cal E}\right){\cal P}^{-1} \left(\partial_{j)}{\cal E}^{\dagger}\right){\cal P}^{-1}\right\}= -\frac{1}{2m} {\rm Tr} \left\{ \left(\partial_{(i} {\cal M}\right) \partial_{j)}{\cal M}^{-1} \right\}.$$ The corresponding expansions of ${\cal Q}, {\cal P}$ are given by (26) again with the real and imaginary parts of $z^{\alpha}$ respectively. Matrices ${\cal M}$ are hermitean by construction (for both $\lambda=\pm 1$) and belong to $SU(m,m)$. The complex matrices ${\cal E}$ are ‘filled densely’ only for $p=2$, in which case the number of complex potentials coincides with the number of matrix elements (four). For $p>2$ one has $m^2 > p+2$. This reflects the fact that the local isomorphism between $SO(2,p+2)$ and non–compact unitary groups holds uniquely for $p=2$, for higher $p$ we deal only with [*embeddings*]{} into $SU(m,m)$. Consider now the case $p=2$ in more detail. The algebra $su(2,2)$ is formed by the complex traceless $4\times 4$ matrices $X$ subject to the condition $$X^{\dagger}\sigma_{20}+\sigma_{20}X^{\dagger}=0.$$ It consists of 8 hermitean $\sigma_{10}$, $\sigma_{30}$, $\sigma_{11}$, $\sigma_{31}$, $\sigma_{12}$, $\sigma_{32}$, $\sigma_{13}$, $\sigma_{33}$, and 7 antihermitean $i(\sigma_{01}$, $\sigma_{02}$, $\sigma_{03}$, $\sigma_{21}$, $\sigma_{22}$, $\sigma_{23}$, $\sigma_{20})$ generators. Its subsequent decomposition will be performed in relation to the geodesic ansatz for the matrix ${\cal M}$: $${\cal M}= A e^{B\sigma}.$$ (More about geodesic technique with a detailed discussion of the $p=1$ theory see in [@cg]). In (30) $\sigma$ is a harmonic function on the three–space, normalized to zero in some (‘empty’) region of the spacetime (where ${\cal M}= A$), and $B$ is an element of $su(2,2)$. We will be interested in two types of solutions: stationary asymptotically flat (SAF) configurations (elliptic case, $\lambda=1$), and colliding plane waves (CPW) (hyperbolic case, $\lambda=-1$). For SAF $A=\sigma_{03}$, while for CPW $A=-\sigma_{00}$ (this is equivalent to say that in the ‘empty’ region $f=1, \chi=\phi=\kappa=v^n=u^n=0$). In both cases it is convenient to use a representation with the hermitean ${\cal M}\in SU(2,2)$, therefore the matrix $B$ has to satisfy the following conditions $$AB=B^{\dagger} A, \quad BK+KB=0,$$ where $ K=\sigma_{23}\;{\rm for \; SAF, and\;} K=-\sigma_{20} \; {\rm for \;CPW}$. In the SAF case the elements of $su(2,2)$ satisfying these conditions form two sets of $SO(2,2)$ Clifford algebras $$\Gamma^1_{\mu}=\{i\sigma_{21},i\sigma_{22},-\sigma_{10},\sigma_{30}\}, \quad \Gamma^2_{\mu}=\{i\sigma_{02},-i\sigma_{01},\sigma_{33},\sigma_{13},\},$$ obeying $$\{\Gamma^1_{\mu},\Gamma^1_{\nu}\}=\{\Gamma^2_{\mu},\Gamma^2_{\nu}\}= 2\eta_{\mu\nu}I$$ with $\eta_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag} (-1,-1,1,1)$. The remaining generators span the $so(2,2)\times so(2)={\cal H'}$ subalgebra consisting of $$M_{12}=i\sigma_{03}/2,\;\; M_{13}=\sigma_{31}/2,\;\; M_{14}=\sigma_{11}/2,\;\;$$ $$M_{23}=\sigma_{32}/2,\;\; M_{24}=\sigma_{12}/2,\;\; M_{34}=-i\sigma_{20}/2,$$ $M_{\mu\nu}=-M_{\nu\mu}$, and $D=i\sigma_{23}$. The commutation relations read $$\left[D,M_{\mu\nu}\right]=0,\quad \left[\Gamma^1_{\mu},\Gamma^1_{\nu}\right]= \left[\Gamma^2_{\mu},\Gamma^2_{\nu}\right]=-4M_{\mu\nu},\quad \left[\Gamma^1_{\mu},\Gamma^2_{\nu}\right]=2D\eta_{\mu\nu},$$ $$\left[D,\Gamma^1_{\mu}\right]=-2\Gamma^2_{\mu},\quad \left[M_{\mu\nu},\Gamma^1_{\lambda}\right]= \eta_{\mu\lambda}\Gamma^1_{\nu}-\eta_{\nu\lambda}\Gamma^1_{\mu},$$ $$\left[D,\Gamma^2_{\mu}\right]=2\Gamma^1_{\mu},\quad \left[M_{\mu\nu},\Gamma^2_{\lambda}\right]= \eta_{\mu\lambda}\Gamma^2_{\nu}-\eta_{\nu\lambda}\Gamma^2_{\mu},$$ together with the standard commutators for $M_{\mu\nu}\in so(2,2)$. Also useful are the following anticommutators: $$\left\{\Gamma^1_\mu, \Gamma^2_\nu\right\}=4 \tilde M_{\mu\nu},\quad \left\{M_{\mu\nu},\Gamma^1_{\lambda}\right\}= -i{\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}}^\rho\Gamma^2_{\rho},\quad \left\{M_{\mu\nu},\Gamma^2_{\lambda}\right\} =i{\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda}}^\rho\Gamma^1_{\rho},$$ $$\left\{M_{\mu\nu},M_{\lambda\rho}\right\}=-\frac{1}{2} (\eta_{\mu\lambda}\eta_{\nu\rho}-\eta_{\mu\rho}\eta_{\nu\lambda})I - \frac{i}{2}D\epsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}.$$ where $\tilde M_{\mu\nu}=i{\epsilon_{\mu\nu}}^{\lambda\tau} M_{\lambda\tau}/2,\,\epsilon_{1234}=1$. In the CPW case one deals with the Clifford algebras related to the compact subgroup $SO(4)$: $$\Gamma^1_{\mu}=-\left\{\sigma_{11}, \sigma_{12}, \sigma_{13}, \sigma_{30}\right\}, \quad \Gamma^2_{\mu}=\left\{\sigma_{31}, \sigma_{32}, \sigma_{33}, -\sigma_{10}\right\},$$ while the remaining generators span the $so(4)\times so(2)={\cal H}$ (maximal compact) subalgebra of $su(2,2)$: $$M_{12}=-i\sigma_{03}/2, \quad M_{13}=i\sigma_{02}/2, \quad M_{14}=i\sigma_{21}/2,$$ $$M_{23}=-i\sigma_{01}/2,\quad M_{24}=i\sigma_{22}/2,\quad M_{34}=i\sigma_{23}/2,\quad D=i\sigma_{20}.$$ The commutators and anticommutators are the same, but now $\eta_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag} (1,1,1,1)$. In both cases $\lambda=\pm 1$ we have: $$\label{B} B={\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}} {{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^1+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^2 \equiv\alpha^{\mu}\Gamma^1_{\mu}+ \beta^{\mu}\Gamma^2_{\mu},$$ with constant $SO(2,2),\,({\rm resp.}\, SO(4))$ vectors ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}},\,{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}$. Similarly to [@cg], one can show that $$\begin{aligned} \label{B2}&& B^2=({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2)I+4({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\wedge{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}) \cdot\tilde {\bf M},\nonumber\\ &&B^3={{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}}'{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^1+{{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}}'{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^2,\\ \label{B4}&& B^4=\left[({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2)^2+ 4({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\wedge{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}})^2\right]I +8({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2)( {\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\wedge{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}})\cdot\tilde {\bf M},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}\alpha^{\mu}\alpha^{\nu}$ etc., and $${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}'= 2{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}\wedge({\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}\wedge{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}) +({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2){\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}},\quad {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}'= 2{\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\wedge({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\wedge{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}) +({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2){\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}.$$ Leaving the construction of the most general null geodesic solution to a separate publication, here we give the geodesic interpretation of the ‘SWIP’ solutions found recently [@bko]. They correspond to degenerate $B$. From (\[B\]) one finds $${\rm det} B=({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2-{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2)^2+4({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}} {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}})^2.$$ For SAF the standard definition [@cg] of the ADM mass $M$, the NUT parameter $N$, the dilaton and axion charges $D, A$ and electric/magnetic charges $Q^n, P^n$ (assuming $\sigma\rightarrow 1/r$ as $r\rightarrow \infty$) gives $$\alpha^\mu=(\sqrt{2} P^1, \sqrt{2} P^2, A-N, M+D ),\quad \beta^\mu=(-\sqrt{2} Q^1, -\sqrt{2} Q^2, M-D, A+N ).$$ The degeneracy condition det$B=0$ implies ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2={\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}} {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}=0$, what reduces to $$D+iA=-\frac{\left(Q^n+iP^n\right)^2}{2(M+iN)}.$$ This is a well–known relation for axion–dilaton black holes. Extremal black holes can be identified with null geodesics. Since $$dl^2=\frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr}(B^2)(d\sigma)^2, \quad {\cal R}_{ij}= \frac{1}{4}{\rm Tr} (B^2)\sigma_i\sigma_j,$$ and in this case Tr($B^2)=0$, the three–space is Ricci–flat. According to (\[B2\]), $${\rm Tr}(B^2)=4({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2),$$ so geodesics are null if ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2=0$ (what may be fulfiled with non–zero ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}, {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}$ in the $SO(2,2)$ case). For $p=1$ this condition entails $B^2=0$ ([*i.e.*]{} collinear ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}$ [@cg]), but for $p\ge 2$ it is not necessarily so. The $p=2$ TS admits four mutually orthogonal null vectors, and consequently four independent (real) harmonic functions may be incorporated into the geodesic construction [@cg]. It is convenient to introduce $\sigma$–valued vectors $\bf a$ and $\bf b$ as linear combinations $a^{\mu}=\alpha^{\mu}_{(A)}\sigma_{(A)}$ and $b^{\mu}=\beta^{\mu}_{(A)}\sigma_{(A)},\, A=1,...,4$, so that $B={\bf a}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^1+{\bf b}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^2$ (only four components of $\sigma$–valued vectors are independent in view of the consistency conditions [@cg]), then $${\cal M}=A\left(I_4+{\bf a}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^1+ {\bf b}{{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}}^2+2({\bf a}\wedge {{\mbox{\boldmath $b$}}})\cdot\tilde {\bf M}\right).$$ Comparing with (13) one finds $$\begin{aligned} &&f^{-1}=(1+a^4)(1+b^3)-a^3b^4,\quad e^{2\phi}=f \left[(1+a^4)^2+(b^4)^2\right], \nonumber\\ &&v^n=-f\left[(1+a^4)b^n-b^4 a^n\right],\quad u^n=f\left[(1+b^3)a^n-a^3 b^n\right],\\ && \kappa=\left[(1+a^4)a^3+(1+b^3)b^4\right]/ \left[(1+a^4)^2+(b^4)^2\right],\;\; \chi= f\left(a^3-b^4\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Actually eight components of ${\bf a}, {\bf b}$ depend on four real harmonic functions, say, $a^3, a^4, b^3, b^4$, from which one can form two complex harmonic functions $${\cal H}_1=a^3+i(1+b^3),\quad {\cal H}_2=(1+a^4)+ib^4.$$ Then $$f^{-1}={\rm Im}({\cal H}_1\bar {{\cal H}}_2), \quad z=\frac{{\cal H}_1}{{\cal H}_2},\quad \chi=f\left({\rm Re}{\cal H}_1-{\rm Im}{\cal H}_2\right),$$ what gives the metric and axidilaton part of ‘SWIP’ [@bko]. For vector fields a different gauge was used in [@bko], namely $v^n_\infty-iu^n_\infty =k^n$, where $k^n=k'^n+ik''^n$ is a complex constant vector satisfying conditions $(k^n)^2=0,\, |k^n|^2=2$. In our formalism this correspond to the following choice of the remaining components of ${\bf a}, {\bf b}$ (consistent with ${\bf a}^2={\bf b}^2={\bf ab}=0$): $$a^1=k'^1a^3 + k''^1a^4,\quad a^2=k'^2a^3 + k''^2a^4,$$ $$b^1= k'^1b^3 + k''^1b^4,\quad b^2= k'^2b^3 + k''^2b^4\;\;,$$ accompanied by shifts ${v'}^n=v^n+k'^n, {u'}^n=u^n-k''^n$. The twist potential then undergoes a transformation which makes it zero, while the rest of the solution will read $$v'^n=f{\rm Re} (k^n{\cal H}_2),\quad u'^n=f{\rm Re} (k^n{\cal H}_1),$$ $$h_{ij}=\delta_{ij},\quad \epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j\omega_k={\rm Re} \left[{\cal H}_1\partial_i\bar {\cal H}_2- \bar {\cal H}_2\partial_i{\cal H}_1\right].$$ The isotropy condition Tr$B^2=0$ in terms of charges is equivalent to the force balance [@cg; @gl]: $$\label{nf} M^2+N^2+D^2+A^2=(Q^n)^2 + (P^n)^2.$$ As it was noted, for $p\ge 2$ null geodesic solutions with det$B=0$ form two subclasses: those with collinear and those with non–collinear ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}, {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}$. In the first case $B^2=0$, hence the second condition arises: $$\label{bps2} M^2+N^2=D^2+A^2.$$ The conditions (53-54) together are equivalent to both BPS bounds of the $N=4$ theory saturated, what corresponds to the $N=2$ residual SUSY [@bko]. For non–collinear ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}, {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}$ only the force balance condition holds (the $N=1$ residual SUSY). Our second example is the CPW counterpart of the DARN–NUT solution [@gl]. It is well–known that certain CPW in the collision region map onto black hole interiors [@chandra]. Like black holes, CPW belong to spacetimes with two commuting Killing vectors, so one can further specialize three-dimensional coordinates as follows $$h_{ij}dx^i dx^j=e^{2\gamma} \left(d\rho^2-dz^2\right)-\rho^2 dx^2$$ (the second Killing vector is $\partial_x$, and $\omega_i=\omega \delta_{ix}$ in (3)). Consider degenerate $B$, putting without loss of generality ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2={\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2=1,\, {\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}} {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}=0$ with non–collinear ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}},\, {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}$. Then $$A{\cal M}=I_4\cosh^2\sigma+ 2({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\wedge{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}})\cdot{\tilde{\bf M}}\sinh^2\sigma+ \frac{1}{2} \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}^1+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}^2\right) \sinh 2\sigma.$$ Note that the three–space in the CPW case can not be Ricci–flat (for the $SO(4)$ metric ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}^2+{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}^2=0$ implies ${\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}={\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}=0$), with our normalization $${\cal R}_{ij}=2\sigma_i\sigma_j.$$ Appropriate harmonic functions should be found together with $\gamma$ in a self–consistent way. A simple solution is $$\sigma=\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+\tau}{1-\tau}\right),\quad e^{2\gamma}=\frac{1-\tau^2}{\tau^2-\zeta^2},$$ where new coordinates correspond to $$\rho^2 =(1-\tau^2)(1-\zeta^2),\quad z=-\tau\zeta.$$ This results in the folowing family of $N=4$ CPW: $$ds^2=\Sigma\left( \frac{d\tau^2}{1-\tau^2}-\frac{d\zeta^2}{1-\zeta^2}\right)- \frac{1-\tau^2}{\Sigma}\left(dy-Q\zeta dx\right)^2 - (1-\zeta^2)\Sigma dx^2,$$ where $\Sigma=1+(\beta^3-\alpha^4)\tau+(\alpha\wedge\beta)^{34}\tau^2$, $Q=\beta^4+\alpha^3$ (with $\epsilon^{\tau\zeta x}=1$), and material fields are $$-v^n=\tau\left[\beta^n+\tau(\alpha\wedge\beta)^{n4}\right]/\Sigma,\quad -u^n=\tau\left[\alpha^n+\tau(\alpha\wedge\beta)^{n3}\right]/\Sigma,$$ $$e^{-2\phi}=\Sigma/\Delta,\quad \kappa=\tau\left[\beta^4-\alpha^3+ (\alpha^3\alpha^4+\beta^3\beta^4)\tau\right]/\Delta,$$ with $\Delta=1-2\alpha^4 \tau +\left[(\alpha^4)^2+(\beta^4)^2\right]\tau^2$. For $\alpha^1= \beta^1=\alpha^2=\beta^2=0$ this solution may be interpreted as Ferrari–Ibanez–Bruni CPW [@fib] (with $(\alpha\wedge\beta)^{34}=1$), or as collinear impulsive CPW with dilaton and axion ($(\alpha\wedge\beta)^{34}=-1, Q=0$). General solution (60,61) may be considered as the CPW counterpart of the DARN–NUT solution [@gl]. Indeed, if one put in the latter $r=M_0(t+1)-r_0^-,\, \cos\theta=\zeta,\, \varphi=x,\, t=M_0 y$ (notation of [@gl]), the collision region of (60,61) is recovered with $N=-Q/(2M_0)$. Note that the extremality (BPS) limit of the DARN–NUT solution corresponds to $(\alpha\wedge\beta)^{34}=0$, the relevant CPW then has $\Sigma$ linear in $\tau$, but the above coordinate map becomes singular. A notable feature of three–dimensional sigma–models on symmetric spaces is that their further two–dimensional reduction generates (modified) chiral equations which belong to the class of integrable systems (for a simple derivation see, [*e.g.*]{} [@g]). Both vacuum Einstein’s and $p=1$ EMDA theory are known to admit two alternative Lax pairs related by the Kramer–Neugebauer (KN) map [@bdg]. Here we generalize this construction to arbitrary $p$. Let indices $A, B=1,2$ correspond to coordinates on the two–surface orthogonal to Killing orbits. Define $$h_{AB}=e^{2\gamma}G_{AB}, \quad h_{xx}=\lambda\rho^2, \quad G_{AB} = \pmatrix{ 1 &0 \cr 0 & \lambda},\quad \epsilon_{AB}= \pmatrix{ 0 &1 \cr -1 & 0}.$$ Introduce instead of $u^n$ the non–dualized potentials $a^n$ via $F^n_{Ax}=\nabla_A a^n/\sqrt{2}$, and let $q^n=a^n+\omega v^n$, $b=B_{yx}$, (a component of the Kalb–Ramond field underlying the Peccei–Quinn axion $\kappa$). Then the ‘Matzner–Misner’ counterpart of the ‘potential’ matrix ${\cal Q}$ for $p=2$ will be the following hermitean matrix $${\Omega}= \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \omega & -(q^1-iq^2)\\ -(q^1+iq^2) & q^nv^n-b\\ \end{array} \right)$$ (for $p=1$ a similar representation was given in [@bdg]). Its arbitrary–$p$ generalization is straightforward: $${\Omega}= w^0 I_k+w^a \gamma_a, \quad 2w^0 =\omega-b+q^nv^n,\quad w^n=-q^n, \quad 2w^{p+1}=\omega+b-q^nv^n.$$ &gt;From the equations of motion one can derive the following relation between ${\Omega}$ and $Q$: $$\nabla Q=-\rho^{-1} \,P{\tilde \nabla} \,\Omega\,P,$$ where $\nabla_A= (\partial_1,\partial_2), \,{\tilde \nabla}^A = \epsilon^{AB}\nabla_B$, and $A, B$ are raised and lowered by $G_{AB}$. A ‘Matzner–Misner’ matrix can now be introduced $${\cal F}=-\rho^{-1} \left( \begin{array}{ccc} P & -P\,\Omega\\ -\Omega \,P&\Omega \,P\, \Omega -\lambda\rho^2 P^{-1}\\ \end{array} \right),$$ which satisfies chiral equations of the same type as ${\cal M}$: $$\nabla^A \left(\rho {\cal F}^{-1}\nabla_A {\cal F}\right)=0,\quad \nabla^A \left(\rho {\cal M}^{-1}\nabla_A {\cal M}\right)=0.$$ Variables entering ${\cal F}$ are related nonlocally to the sigma–model variables in ${\cal M}$. Now, by definition, a KN map is a [*local*]{} relation between two alternative forms of chiral equations. Comparing (13) and (65) one finds that the map $${\cal Q}\rightarrow \sqrt{-\lambda}\Omega, \quad {\cal P}\rightarrow \rho{\cal P}^{-1},$$ transform the equations for $({\cal P,\, Q})$ into those for $({\cal P},\, \Omega)$. This opens a way of further development as discussed in [@bdg]. Hence the Ernst–type picture of the $N=4$ supergravity amounts to the [*pseudounitary*]{} embedding of the three–dimensional U–duality group. Previously found symplectic representation of the EMDA theory is valid uniquely for the one–vector truncation. Meanwhile its basic features such as an existence in the two–dimensional case of the Matzner–Misner counterpart and the Kramer–Neugebauer mapping remain valid thus opening the way to application of various techniques of the theory of integrable systems. One of the authors (DVG) is grateful to the Theory Division, CERN for hospitality, while the work was in progress. Stimulating discussions with I. Bakas are acknowledged. DVG thanks G. Clement for clarifying detailes of the geodesic technique, and R. Kallosh for helpful correspondence. The work was supported by the RFBR Grant 96–02–18899. [99]{} G.W. Gibbons, Nucl.Phys. [**B204**]{}, 337 (1982); G.W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. [**B298**]{}, 741 (1988); D. Garfinkle, G.T. Horowitz, and A. Strominger Phys. Rev. [**D43**]{}, 3140 (1991); [**D45**]{}, 3888 ([**E**]{}) (1992); R. Kallosh, A. Linde, T. Ortin, A. Peet, and A. van Proyen, Phys. Rev. [**D 46**]{}, 5278 (1992); R. Kallosh, D. Kastor, T. Ortin, and T. Torma, Phys. Rev. [**D 50**]{}, 6374 (1994); M. Cveti[č]{} and A. Tseytlin, Phys. Rev. [**D 53**]{}, 5619 (1996), ‘[*Non–Extreme Black Holes from Non–Extreme Intersecting M–branes*]{}’, DAMTP/R/96/27, hep-th/9606033. D. Gal’tsov, ’[*Square of General Relativity*]{}’ , Proc. of the First Australasian Conf. on Gen. Rel. and Grav., Adelaide, February 12–17 1996, hep-th/9608021. D.V. Gal’tsov and O.V. Kechkin, Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{}, 7394 (1994); Phys. Lett. [**B361**]{}, 52 (1995). D.V. Gal’tsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 2863 (1995) (hep-th/9410217). J. Ehlers, in [*Les Theories Relativistes de la Gravitation*]{}, CNRS, Paris, 1959, p. 275. A. Giveon, M. Porrati, and E. Rabinovici, Phys. Rept. [**244**]{}, 77 (1994) . D.V. Gal’tsov, [*‘Symmetries of Heterotic String Effective Theory in Three and Two Dimensions’*]{}, in ‘[*Heat Kernel Techniques and Quantum Gravity*]{}’, (Int. Workshop, Winnipeg, Canada, 2—6 August, 1994), S. A. Fulling (ed.), Discourses in Mathematics and Its Applications, No. 4, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1995, pp. 423–449 (hep-th/9606042); D.V. Gal’tsov and O.V. Kechkin, Phys. Rev. D. [**D54**]{}, 1656 (1996). C. Hull and P. Townsend, Nucl. Phys. [**B450**]{}, 109 (1995). G. Clement and D. Gal’tsov, Phys. Rev. D. [**D54**]{}, 6136 (1996). D.V. Gal’tsov and P.S. Letelier, ‘[*Reissner–Nordström type black holes in dilaton–axion gravity*]{}’, gr-qc/9608023; ‘[*Ehlers–Harrison transformations and black holes in dilaton–axion gravity with multiple vector fields*]{}, gr-qc/9612007. E. Bergshoeff, R. Kallosh, and T. Ortin, Nucl. Phys. [**B478**]{}, 165 (1996). S. Chandrasekhar and B.C. Xanthopoulos, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. [**A410**]{}, 311 (1987). V. Ferrari, J. Ibanez, and M. Bruni, Phys. Rev. D. [**D36**]{}, 1053 (1987). D.V. Gal’tsov, [*Geroch–Kinnersley–Chitre group for Dilaton–Axion Gravity*]{}, in ‘[*Quantum Field Theory under the Influence of External Conditions*]{}’, M. Bordag (Ed.) (Proc. of the International Workshop, Leipzig, Germany, 18–22 September 1995), B.G. Teubner Verlagsgessellschaft, Stuttgart–Leipzig, 1996, pp. 228-237, (hep-th/9606041). [^1]: Email: [email protected] [^2]: Email:[email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We define a family of maps on lattice paths, called *sweep maps*, that assign levels to each step in the path and sort steps according to their level. Surprisingly, although sweep maps act by sorting, they appear to be bijective in general. The sweep maps give concise combinatorial formulas for the $q,t$-Catalan numbers, the higher $q,t$-Catalan numbers, the $q,t$-square numbers, and many more general polynomials connected to the nabla operator and rational Catalan combinatorics. We prove that many algorithms that have appeared in the literature (including maps studied by Andrews, Egge, Gorsky, Haglund, Hanusa, Jones, Killpatrick, Krattenthaler, Kremer, Orsina, Mazin, Papi, Vaill[é]{}, and the present authors) are all special cases of the sweep maps or their inverses. The sweep maps provide a very simple unifying framework for understanding all of these algorithms. We explain how inversion of the sweep map (which is an open problem in general) can be solved in known special cases by finding a “bounce path” for the lattice paths under consideration. We also define a generalized sweep map acting on words over arbitrary alphabets with arbitrary weights, which is also conjectured to be bijective.' address: - | Dept. of Mathematics\ University of Miami\ Coral Gables, FL 33146 - | Dept. of Mathematics\ Virginia Tech\ Blacksburg, VA 24061-0123\ and Mathematics Dept.\ United States Naval Academy\ Annapolis, MD 21402-5002 - | Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics\ University of Vermont\ Burlington, VT 05401 author: - Drew Armstrong - 'Nicholas A. Loehr' - 'Gregory S. Warrington' title: 'Sweep maps: A continuous family of sorting algorithms' --- [^1] [^2] Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ This paper introduces a family of sorting maps on words that we call *sweep maps*. In its simplest form, a sweep map $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}$ uses coprime parameters $r$ and $s$ to associate a *level* $l_i$ to each letter $w_i$ in a word $w=w_1w_2\cdots w_n$ consisting of $|s|$ copies of the letter ${\mathrm{N}}$ and $|r|$ copies of the letter ${\mathrm{E}}$. (Note that $r$ or $s$ may be negative.) This assignment is done recursively: use the convention that $l_0=0$; for $i\geq 1$ we set $l_i = l_{i-1}+r$ if $w_i={\mathrm{N}}$ and $l_i=l_{i-1}+s$ if $w_i={\mathrm{E}}$. The word $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}(w)$ is then obtained by sorting the letters in $w$ according to level, starting with $-1,-2,-3,\ldots$, then continuing with $\ldots,2,1,0$. Figure \[fig:sweepmap1\] provides an example of $\operatorname{sw}_{5,-3}$ acting on the word $w={\mathrm{ENEENNEE}}$. (Here we have identified $w$ with a lattice path in the plane: each ${\mathrm{N}}$ corresponds to a unit-length north step, while each ${\mathrm{E}}$ corresponds to a unit-length east step.) Surprisingly, even though sweep maps act by sorting, they are (apparently) bijective. The reader may find it useful to check this bijectivity by hand for $\operatorname{sw}_{3,-2}$ acting on the set of all lattice paths from $(0,0)$ to $(3,2)$. As detailed in Conjecture \[conj:gen-sweep\], bijectivity seems to hold even for the general sweep maps over arbitrary alphabets with arbitrary weights, described in Section \[subsec:gen\]. The bijectivity of the general sweep maps appears to be a very subtle and difficult fact. The order in which the levels are traversed is a key ingredient to bijectivity. For example, in the case of $r=3$, $s=-2$, if we scan levels in the order $k=\ldots,2,1,0,-1,-2,\ldots$, both of the paths ${\mathrm{NENEE}}$ and ${\mathrm{NEENE}}$ map to ${\mathrm{NNEEE}}$. The sweep maps encode complex combinatorial information related to $q,t$-Catalan numbers, the Bergeron-Garsia nabla operator, and other constructions arising in representation theory, algebraic geometry, and symmetric functions. Researchers have discovered special cases of the sweep map in many different guises over the last fifteen years or so. One of the goals of this paper is to present a unifying framework for all of this work. In [@loehr-mcat; @loehr-thesis; @loehr-trapz], Loehr introduced bijections on $m$-Dyck paths, as well as generalizations to lattice paths contained in certain trapezoids, that turn out to be special cases of the sweep map. The bijection in the case $m=1$ also appears in a paper of Haglund and Loehr [@HL-park] and is foreshadowed by a counting argument in Haglund’s seminal paper on $q,t$-Catalan numbers [@Hag-bounce proof of Thm. 3.1]. The inverse bijection in the case $m=1$ appears even earlier, where it was used by Andrews et al. [@AKOP-lie] in their study of $ad$-nilpotent $\mathfrak{b}$-ideals in the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$. (See also [@vaille].) More recently, special cases of the sweep map have arisen while studying lattice paths in squares [@LW-square]; partition statistics [@LW-ptnid]; simultaneous core partitions [@AHJ]; and compactified Jacobians [@GM-jacI; @GM-jacII]. We discuss a number of these connections in more detail in Section \[sec:alg-sweep\]. We suspect that to the typical mathematician, the most interesting question regarding the sweep maps is whether they are bijective (as conjectured in Conjecture \[conj:gen-sweep\]). For a researcher interested in the $q,t$-Catalan numbers, however, of comparable interest is the connection between the sweep maps and statistics on lattice paths such as ${\mathsf{area}}$, ${\mathsf{bounce}}$ and ${\mathsf{dinv}}$. Since shortly after Haiman’s introduction of ${\mathsf{dinv}}$, it has been known that a “zeta map” takes ${\mathsf{dinv}}$ to ${\mathsf{area}}$ to ${\mathsf{bounce}}$. One point of view, then, is that rather than having three statistics on Dyck paths, we have one statistic — ${\mathsf{area}}$ — and a sweep map. Many polynomials related to the $q,t$-Catalan numbers can be defined using only an “area” and an appropriate sweep map. That these polynomials are jointly symmetric (conjecturally) supports the utility of this view (see Section \[sec:area-qtcat\]). The structure of this paper is as follows. Section \[sec:basic\] introduces the necessary background on lattice paths. We then define sweep maps and present Conjecture \[conj:gen-sweep\] on their bijectivity in Section \[sec:intro-sweep\]. Section \[sec:alg-sweep\] reviews various algorithms that have appeared in the literature that are equivalent to special cases of the sweep map, while Section \[sec:invert-sweep\] describes how to invert these maps (when known). Finally, Section \[sec:area-qtcat\] shows how the sweep maps may be used to give concise combinatorial formulas for the higher $q,t$-Catalan numbers and related polynomials formed by applying the nabla operator to appropriate symmetric functions and then extracting the coefficient of $s_{(1^n)}$. An extended abstract of this paper appears as [@ALW-sweep-fpsac]. Partitions, Words, and Lattice Paths {#sec:basic} ==================================== This section introduces our basic conventions regarding partitions, words, and lattice paths. Integer parameters $a$ and $b$ will serve to restrict our attention to such objects fitting within a rectangle of height $a$ and width $b$. Integer parameters $r$ and $s$ will be used to assign a “level” to the components of the various objects considered. Of particular interest is the case of $r=b$ and $s=-a$. The constraint of $\gcd(a,b)=1$ arises naturally in some particular sweep maps such as the map due to Armstrong, Hanusa and Jones [@AHJ] and the map due to Gorksy and Mazin [@GM-jacI; @GM-jacII] (see Sections \[subsec:zetamap\] and \[subsec:gorsky-mazin\], respectively). Let $a,b \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. Integer partition diagrams with at most $a$ parts and largest part at most $b$ (drawn according to the English convention) fit in the rectangle with vertices $(0,0)$, $(b,0)$, $(0,a)$ and $(b,a)$. We denote the set of such partitions (identified with their diagrams, which are collections of unit squares in the first quadrant) by ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}= {\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}(a,b)$. Let $\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$ denote the set of all words $w = w_1w_2\cdots w_n$, $n\geq 0$, for which each $w_j \in \{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}$, and let ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}= {\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ denote the subset of words consisting of $a$ copies of $N$ and $b$ copies of $E$. Finally, let ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}= {\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ denote the set of lattice paths from $(0,0)$ to $(b,a)$ consisting of $a$ unit-length north steps and $b$ unit-length east steps. There are natural bijections among the three sets ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}$, ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}$. Each word $w\in {\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}$ encodes a lattice path in ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}$ by letting each ${\mathrm{E}}$ correspond to an east step and each ${\mathrm{N}}$ correspond to a north step. The frontier of a partition $\pi\in {\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}$ also naturally encodes a path in ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}$. We write $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)$ or $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi)$ for the word associated with a path $P$ or a partition $\pi$, respectively. Operators $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}$ and $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}$ are defined analogously. For example, taking $a=3$ and $b=5$, the path $P$ shown on the left in Figure \[fig:sweepmap1\] has $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)={\mathrm{ENEENNEE}}$ and $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(P)=(3,3,1)$. For the word $w={\mathrm{EEENENNE}}$, $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$ is the path shown on the right in Figure \[fig:sweepmap1\], whereas $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(w)=(4,4,3)$. Let $r,s \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. We assign a **level** to each square of a partition and each step of a path in the following manner. First, assign to each lattice point $(x,y)$ the **$\boldsymbol{(r,s)}$-level** $ry+sx$. Assign to each lattice square the level of its southeast corner. We will have occasion to consider two different conventions for associating levels to north and east steps of paths. For the **east-north (E-N)** convention, each east (resp. north) step inherits the level of its eastern (resp. northern) endpoint. For the **west-south (W-S)** convention, each east (resp. north) step inherits the level of its western (resp. southern) endpoint. Figure \[fig:labeling\] illustrates the various levels relevant to the word ${\mathrm{NNENE}}$ for $r=8$ and $s=-5$. Let ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{path}}}_{r,s}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ denote the set of lattice paths in ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ whose steps all have nonnegative $(r,s)$-levels under the E-N convention. We call these paths **$\boldsymbol{(r,s)}$-Dyck paths**. A word $w\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ is an **$\boldsymbol{(r,s)}$-Dyck word** iff $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$ is an $(r,s)$-Dyck path; let ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{r,s}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ denote the set of such words. A partition $\pi\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}(a,b)$ is an **$\boldsymbol{(r,s)}$-Dyck partition** iff $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ is an $(r,s)$-Dyck path; let ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{r,s}(a,b)$ denote the set of such partitions. The Sweep Map {#sec:intro-sweep} ============= We begin in Section \[subsec:def-sweep\] by giving an algorithmic description of the basic sweep maps for words over the alphabet $\{N,E\}$. Some minor variations are presented in Sections \[subsec:irrat-sweep\] and \[subsec:minor-var\]. We then present a general sweep map in Section \[subsec:gen\] that acts on words over any alphabet with arbitrary weights assigned to each letter. The Basic Sweep Map {#subsec:def-sweep} ------------------- Let $r,s\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. We first describe the **$\boldsymbol{(r,s)^{-}}$-sweep map**, $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}:\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*\rightarrow\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$. Given $w \in \{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$, assign levels using the east-north convention applied to $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$. Define a word $y=\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}(w)$ by the following algorithm. Initially, $y$ is the empty word. For $k=-1,-2,-3,\ldots$ and then for $k=\ldots,3,2,1,0$, scan $w$ from right to left. Whenever a letter $w_i$ is encountered with level equal to $k$, append $w_i$ to $y$. The **$\boldsymbol{(r,s)^{+}}$-sweep map** $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$ is defined the same way as $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$, except that: the value $0$ is the first value of $k$ used rather than the last; and for each value of $k$, $w$ is scanned from left to right. Figure \[fig:negsweep-ex\] illustrates the action of both $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{3,-2}$ and $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{3,-2}$ on a path in ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^8{\mathrm{E}}^{10})$. We define the action of $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ on a partition $\pi$ as $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{-}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi)))$ and the action of $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{-}$ on a path as $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{-}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)))$; similarly for $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$. Geometrically, we think of each step in $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$ as a *wand* whose *tip* is located at the lattice point at the end of each step. This visual description reminds us that the maps $\operatorname{sw}^{\pm}_{r,s}$ are assigning levels to steps in the path using the east-north convention. For $r>0$ and $s<0$, $\operatorname{sw}^-_{r,s}$ acts by scanning southwest along each diagonal line $ry+sx=k$ (taking $k$’s in the appropriate order) and “sweeping up” the wands whose tips lie on each of these diagonals. The wands are laid out in the order in which they were swept up to produce the output lattice path. The labels on the wand tips are *not* part of the final output. It is clear from this description, or from the original definition, that the sweep map depends only on the “slope” $-s/r$; i.e., $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{\pm}=\operatorname{sw}_{rm,sm}^{\pm}$ for every positive integer $m$. The ${\mathsf{area}}^*_{r,s}$ statistic introduced in Section \[subsec:area-stat\] is computed using the $(r,s)$-levels of the steps in $w$, which depend not just on the ratio $-s/r$ but on the specific values of $r$ and $s$. So it is not always safe to assume that $r$ and $s$ are relatively prime. Since the sweep maps rearrange the letters in the input word $w$, it is immediate that both $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ and $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$ map each set ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ into itself. We will see later that $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ maps each set ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{r,s}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ into itself. The Irrational-Slope Sweep Map {#subsec:irrat-sweep} ------------------------------ So far, for each rational $-s/r$, we have defined the basic sweep map $\operatorname{sw}^-_{r,s}$ (which we also call the **negative-type** sweep map) and the **positive-type** sweep map $\operatorname{sw}^+_{r,s}$. We can extend this setup to define sweep maps $\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}$ indexed by *irrational* numbers $\beta$. We regard inputs to $\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}$ as lattice paths $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ consisting of “wands” with tips at their north ends and east ends. There is a “sweep line” $y-\beta x=k$ that sweeps through the plane as $k$ decreases from just below zero to negative infinity, then from positive infinity to zero. Because $\beta$ is irrational, every sweep line intersects at most one wand tip in $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$. We obtain $\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}(w)$ by writing the wands in the order in which the sweep line hits the wand tips. For fixed $a,b\geq 0$ and fixed $r>0,s<0$, one readily checks that $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}(w)=\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}(w)$ for all irrationals $\beta$ with $\beta< -s/r$ and $\beta$ sufficiently close to $-s/r$. On the other hand, $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^+(w)=\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}(w)$ for all irrationals $\beta$ with $\beta> -s/r$ and $\beta$ sufficiently close to $-s/r$. This explains the terminology “positive-type” and “negative-type” sweep map. One approach to studying the sweep map is to understand the “jump discontinuities” between $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$ and $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ that occur at certain critical rationals $-s/r$. For irrational $\beta$, we say $w$ is a **$\beta$-Dyck word** iff for all lattice points $(x,y)$ visited by $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$, $y-\beta x\geq 0$. \(a) For all irrational $\beta$, if $w\in\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$ is a $\beta$-Dyck word then $v=\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}(w)$ is a $\beta$-Dyck word. (b) For all $r,s\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, if $w\in\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$ is an $(r,s)$-Dyck word, then $v=\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^-(w)$ is an $(r,s)$-Dyck word. \(a) If $\beta<0$ then all words are $\beta$-Dyck words, so the proposition certainly holds. Therefore, in the following we assume $\beta > 0$. Fix $j > 0$; it suffices to show that the point $(x,y)$ reached by the first $j$ steps of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(v)$ satisfies $y>\beta x$. Since $\beta$ is irrational and $w$ is a $\beta$-Dyck word, there exists a real $k>0$ such that $v_1\cdots v_j$ consists of all the symbols in $w$ with wand tips at levels higher than $k$. In other words, $v_1\cdots v_j$ is a rearrangement of all the steps of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$ that end at points $(x,y)$ with $y>\beta x+k$. Now, $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$ begins at the origin, which has level zero. In general, this path enters and leaves the region $R_k=\{(x,y): y>\beta x+k\}$ several times. Let $w^{(1)},\ldots,w^{(t)}$ be the maximal substrings of consecutive letters in $w$ such that every step of $w^{(i)}$ ends in $R_k$. Every $w^{(i)}$ begins with a north step that enters $R_k$ from below, and every $w^{(i)}$ except possibly $w^{(t)}$ is followed by an east step that exits $R_k$ to the right. Suppose $w^{(i)}$ consists of $a_i$ north steps and $b_i$ east steps; since the boundary of $R_k$ is a line of slope $\beta$, the geometric fact in the previous sentence implies that $a_i/b_i>\beta$ for $1\leq i\leq t$. By definition, $v_1\cdots v_j$ is some rearrangement of $a=a_1+\cdots+a_t$ north steps and $b=b_1+\cdots+b_t$ east steps. Now $a_i>\beta b_i$ for all $i$ implies $a>\beta b$. Thus, $v_1\cdots v_j$ is a path from $(0,0)$ to $(b,a)$, where $a>\beta b$. Since $j$ was arbitrary, $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(v)$ is a $\beta$-Dyck path. \(b) It suffices to treat the case $r>0$, $s<0$. Fix $a,b\geq 0$ and $w\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{r,s}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$. We can choose an irrational $\beta<-s/r$ so close to $-s/r$ that the region $S=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2: \beta x\leq y<(-s/r)x,y\leq a\}$ contains no lattice points, and $v=\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}(w)=\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{-}(w)$. Since $w$ is an $(r,s)$-Dyck word and $\beta<-s/r$, $w$ is also a $\beta$-Dyck word. By part (a), $v=\operatorname{sw}_{\beta}(w)$ is a $\beta$-Dyck word. Since $S$ contains no lattice points, $v$ is an $(r,s)$-Dyck word, as needed. Reversed and Transposed Sweeps {#subsec:minor-var} ------------------------------ For a fixed choice of $r$ and $s$, there are four parameters that can be used to define a potential sweep map: - the level to start sweeping at, - the direction of sweep for a given level (i.e., right-to-left or left-to-right), - the relative order in which to visit levels (i.e., $k+1$ after level $k$ versus $k-1$ after level $k$), - the convention for levels assigned to steps (i.e., using the west-south convention or the east-north convention). Empirical evidence suggests that for each of the $8=2^3$ possible choices for the second through fourth parameters, there is a unique choice of starting level that will lead to a bijective sweep map for general ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$. In fact, each of these maps is closely related to the others through the following two natural involutions on words. Let $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}:\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*\rightarrow\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$ be the **reversal map** given by $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(w_1w_2\cdots w_n)=w_n\cdots w_2 w_1$. Let $\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}:\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*\rightarrow\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$ be the **transposition map** that acts by interchanging ${\mathrm{N}}$’s and ${\mathrm{E}}$’s. Evidently, both $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}$ are involutions; $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ maps ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ bijectively onto itself, whereas $\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}$ maps ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ bijectively onto ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^b{\mathrm{E}}^a)$. We can modify the sweep maps by composing on the left or right with $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ and/or $\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}$. The new maps are bijections (between appropriate domains and codomains) iff the original sweep maps are bijections. Table \[tab:sweeps\] displays the eight maps along with their relationships to $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ and $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$. One can also check that $$\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ\operatorname{sw}^+_{-r,-s}=\operatorname{sw}^-_{r,s}\mbox{ and } \operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}\circ\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{s,r}\circ\> \operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}=\operatorname{sw}^-_{r,s}.$$ The following degenerate cases of the sweep map are readily verified. - If $r<0$ and $s<0$, then $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{\pm}=\operatorname{\mathsf{id}}$, the identity map on $\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$. - If $r>0$ and $s>0$, then $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^{\pm}=\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$, the reversal map. - For $r=s=0$, $\operatorname{sw}_{0,0}^-=\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ and $\operatorname{sw}_{0,0}^+=\operatorname{\mathsf{id}}$. - If $r=0$ and $s<0$, then $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^+=\operatorname{\mathsf{id}}$, whereas $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^-$ maps ${\mathrm{N}}^{a_0}{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{N}}^{a_1}{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{N}}^{a_2}\cdots{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{N}}^{a_k}$ (where $a_j\geq 0$) to ${\mathrm{N}}^{a_1}{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{N}}^{a_2}{\mathrm{E}}\cdots{\mathrm{N}}^{a_k}{\mathrm{E}}{\mathrm{N}}^{a_0}$. Similar statements hold in the cases: $r=0$ and $s>0$; $s=0$ and $r<0$; $s=0$ and $r>0$. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- -- Map Step-labeling Order to Sweep direction Start level convention scan levels on each level $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ E-N decreasing $\leftarrow$ $-1$ $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$ E-N decreasing $\rightarrow$ $0$ $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ \operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}$ E-N increasing $\rightarrow$ $0$ $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ \operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}$ E-N increasing $\leftarrow$ $1$ $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}\circ\> \operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ W-S increasing $\rightarrow$ $ra+sb+1$ $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}\circ\> \operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ W-S increasing $\leftarrow$ $ra+sb$ $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ \operatorname{sw}^{-}_{r,s}\circ\> \operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ W-S decreasing $\leftarrow$ $ra+sb$ $\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ \operatorname{sw}^{+}_{r,s}\circ\> \operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ W-S decreasing $\rightarrow$ $ra+sb-1$ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------- -- : Symmetries of sweep maps. \[tab:sweeps\] The General Sweep Map {#subsec:gen} --------------------- Suppose $A=\{x_1,\ldots,x_k\}$ is a given alphabet and $\operatorname{wt}:A\rightarrow{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a function assigning an integer **weight** to each letter in $A$. Given a word $w=w_1w_2\cdots w_n\in A^*$, define the *levels $l_0,\ldots,l_n$ relative to the weight function $\operatorname{wt}$* by setting $l_0=0$ and, for $1\leq i\leq n$, letting $l_{i}=l_{i-1}+\operatorname{wt}(w_i)$. (These levels are essentially computed according to the east-north convention, though the west-south convention works equally well.) Define $\operatorname{sw}_{\operatorname{wt}}:A^*\rightarrow A^*$ as follows: For each $k$ from $-1$ down to $-\infty$ and then from $\infty$ down to $0$, scan $w$ from right to left, writing down each $w_i$ with $l_i=k$ and $i>0$. Let ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_k^{n_k})$ be the set of words $w\in A^*$ consisting of $n_j$ copies of $j$ for $1\leq j\leq k$. Let ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{\operatorname{wt}}(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_k^{n_k})$ be the set of such words for which all levels $l_i$ are nonnegative. \[conj:gen-sweep\] Let $A=\{x_1,\ldots,x_k\}$ be an alphabet and $\operatorname{wt}:A\rightarrow{\mathbb{Z}}$ a weight function. For any nonnegative integers $n_1,n_2,\ldots, n_k$, - $\operatorname{sw}_{\operatorname{wt}}$ maps ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_k^{n_k})$ bijectively to itself. - $\operatorname{sw}_{\operatorname{wt}}$ maps ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{\operatorname{wt}}(x_1^{n_1}\cdots x_k^{n_k})$ bijectively to itself. Algorithms Equivalent to a Sweep Map {#sec:alg-sweep} ==================================== This section reviews some algorithms that have appeared in the literature that are equivalent to special cases of the sweep map and its variations. We describe each algorithm and indicate its exact relation to the general sweep map. The algorithms reviewed here fall into three main classes: algorithms that operate on area vectors, algorithms that operate on hook-lengths of cells in a partition, and algorithms involving generators of certain semi-modules. The algorithms based on area vectors arose in the study of the $q,t$-Catalan polynomials and their generalizations; these polynomials will be discussed at greater length later in this paper. The algorithms involving hook-lengths and semi-modules were introduced to study the special case of Dyck objects where the dimensions $a$ and $b$ are coprime. The sweep map provides a single unifying framework that simultaneously generalizes all these previously studied algorithms. We find it remarkable that this map, which has such a simple definition, encodes such a rich array of mathematical structures. Algorithms Based on Area Vectors {#subsec:alg-area-vector} -------------------------------- ### Introduction {#introduction} This subsection studies several algorithms that operate on lattice paths by manipulating an *area vector* that records how many area cells in each row lie between the path and a diagonal boundary. The simplest version of these algorithms is a bijection on Dyck paths described in a paper by Haglund and Loehr [@HL-park §3, Bijections]. In [@loehr-mcat; @loehr-thesis; @loehr-trapz], Loehr generalized this bijection to define a family of maps $\phi$ acting on $m$-Dyck paths and on lattice paths contained in certain trapezoids. We begin our discussion with the maps for trapezoidal lattice paths, which contain the earlier maps as special cases. We then look at a generalization of $\phi$ acting on lattice paths inside squares, followed by a different variation that acts on Schröder paths containing diagonal steps. ### Trapezoidal Lattice Paths {#subsubsec:trapz} Fix integers $k\geq 0$ and $n,m>0$. Let $T_{n,k,m}$ denote the set of *trapezoidal lattice paths* from $(0,0)$ to $(k+mn,n)$ that never go strictly to the right of the line $x=k+my$. The paper [@loehr-trapz] introduces a bijection $\phi=\phi_{n,k,m}:T_{n,k,m}\rightarrow T_{n,k,m}$ and its inverse. That paper (last paragraph of Section 3.1) accidentally switches the roles of $\phi$ and $\phi^{-1}$ compared to [@loehr-mcat] and other literature. The map $\phi_{n,k,m}$ discussed below is the composite $\alpha^{-1}\circ\beta\circ\gamma$ from [@loehr-trapz] (which is erroneously denoted $\phi^{-1}$ in that paper). After recalling the definition of this map, we show that a variant of $\phi_{n,k,m}$ is a sweep map. Given a path $P\in T_{n,k,m}$, we first construct the **area vector** $g(P)=(g_0,g_1,\ldots,g_{n-1})$, where $g_i$ is the number of complete lattice squares in the horizontal strip $\{(x,y): x\geq 0, i\leq y\leq i+1\}$ that lie to the right of $P$ and to the left of the line $x=k+my$. The area vector $g(P)$ has the following properties: $0\leq g_0\leq k$; $g_i$ is a nonnegative integer for $0\leq i<n$; and $g_i\leq g_{i-1}+m$ for $1\leq i<n$. One readily checks that $P\mapsto g(P)$ is a bijection from $T_{n,k,m}$ to the set of vectors of length $n$ with the properties just stated. For $P\in T_{n,k,m}$, we compute $\phi(P)$ by concatenating lattice paths (regarded as words in $\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$) that are built up from subwords of $g(P)$ as follows. For $i=0,1,2,\ldots$, let $z^{(i)}$ be the subword of $g(P)$ consisting of symbols in the set $\{i,i-1,i-2,\ldots,i-m\}$; let $M$ be the largest $i$ such that $z^{(i)}$ is nonempty. Create a word $\sigma^{(i)}\in\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$ from $z^{(i)}$ by replacing each symbol $i$ in $z^{(i)}$ by ${\mathrm{N}}$ and replacing all other symbols in $z^{(i)}$ by ${\mathrm{E}}$. Let $\sigma$ be the concatenation of words $$\sigma=\sigma^{(0)}\,\,{\mathrm{E}}\sigma^{(1)}\,\,{\mathrm{E}}\sigma^{(2)}\cdots\,\, {\mathrm{E}}\sigma^{(k)}\, \sigma^{(k+1)}\,\cdots\,\sigma^{(M)},$$ in which an extra east step is added after the first $k$ words. Define $\phi(P)=\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\sigma)$. It is proved in [@loehr-trapz Sec. 3] that $\phi(P)$ always lies in $T_{n,k,m}$, and that $\phi_{n,k,m}$ is a bijection. To relate $\phi$ to the sweep map, we need to introduce a modified map $\phi'$ that incorporates the bijection described in [@loehr-trapz Sec. 4]. Keep the notation of the previous paragraph. For all $i$ with $k<i\leq M$, note that $\sigma^{(i)}$ must begin with an ${\mathrm{E}}$, so we can write $\sigma^{(i)}={\mathrm{E}}\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)}$. Let $\tau^{(i)}=\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\sigma^{(i)})$ for $0\leq i\leq k$, and let $\tau^{(i)}={\mathrm{E}}\,\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)})$ for $k<i\leq M$. Define $\phi'(P)=\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\tau)$, where $$\tau=\tau^{(0)}\,\,{\mathrm{E}}\tau^{(1)}\,\,{\mathrm{E}}\tau^{(2)}\cdots\,\,{\mathrm{E}}\tau^{(k)} \,\tau^{(k+1)}\,\cdots\,\tau^{(M)}.$$ \[ex:phi\] Let $n=8$, $k=2$, $m=2$, and $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)={\mathrm{ENNEENEEEEENNEEENNEEENEEEE}}$. Then $g(P)=(1,3,3,0,2,1,3,2)$, so $$\begin{array}{llllll} z^{(0)}=0, & z^{(1)}=101, & z^{(2)}=10212, & z^{(3)}=1332132, & z^{(4)}=33232,& z^{(5)}=333, \\ \sigma^{(0)}={\mathrm{N}}, & \sigma^{(1)}={\mathrm{NEN}}, & \sigma^{(2)}={\mathrm{EENEN}}, & \sigma^{(3)}={\mathrm{ENNEENE}}, & \sigma^{(4)}={\mathrm{EEEEE}}, & \sigma^{(5)}={\mathrm{EEE}},\\ \tau^{(0)}={\mathrm{N}}, & \tau^{(1)}={\mathrm{NEN}}, & \tau^{(2)}={\mathrm{NENEE}}, & \tau^{(3)}={\mathrm{EENEENN}}, & \tau^{(4)}={\mathrm{EEEEE}}, & \tau^{(5)}={\mathrm{EEE}}, \end{array}$$ $$\begin{aligned} \operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\phi(P)) &= \sigma = {\mathrm{N\,\,ENEN\,\,EEENEN\,\,ENNEENE\,\,EEEEE\,\,EEE}}, \\ \operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\phi'(P)) &= \tau = {\mathrm{N\,\,ENEN\,\,ENENEE\,\,EENEENN\,\,EEEEE\,\,EEE}}.\end{aligned}$$ \[thm:trapz-vs-sweep\] For all $k\geq 0$, $n,m>0$, and $P\in T_{n,k,m}$, $$\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\phi'_{n,k,m}(P))= \operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-m}\circ\>\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)).$$ **Step 1.** Write $w=\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)=w_1w_2\cdots w_{k+n+nm}$ and $\operatorname{sw}'=\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-m}\circ\>\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}$. One may routinely check that $\operatorname{sw}'(w)$ may be computed by the following algorithm. Let $l_1=k$, $l_{j+1}=l_{j}+m$ if $w_j={\mathrm{N}}$, and $l_{j+1}=l_{j}-1$ if $w_j={\mathrm{E}}$. (Thus in this variation, a north step $w_j$ from $(x,y)$ to $(x,y+1)$ has associated level $l_j=k+my-x\geq 0$, whereas an east step $w_j$ from $(x,y)$ to $(x+1,y)$ has associated level $l_j=k+my-x>0$. Up to the shift by $k$, this is the west-south convention for assigning levels.) Generate an output word $y$ from left to right as follows. For each level $L=0,1,2,\ldots$, scan $w$ from right to left, and append the letter $w_j$ to the right end of $y$ whenever an index $j\leq k+n+nm$ is scanned for which $l_{j}=L$. For each $i\geq 0$, let $\rho^{(i)}$ be the subword of $y$ generated in the $L=i$ iteration of the algorithm. In the preceding example, the sequence of steps and levels is --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ E N N E E N E E E E E N N E E E N N E E E N E E E E 2 1 3 5 4 3 5 4 3 2 1 0 2 4 3 2 1 3 5 4 3 2 4 3 2 1 (0), --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ where the zero in parentheses is the level following the final east step. The subwords $\rho^{(i)}$ are $$\rho^{(0)}={\mathrm{N}},\ \rho^{(1)}={\mathrm{ENEN}},\ \rho^{(2)}={\mathrm{ENENEE}},\ \rho^{(3)}={\mathrm{EENEENN}},\ \rho^{(4)}={\mathrm{EEEEE}},\ \rho^{(5)}={\mathrm{EEE}}.$$ By definition of the levels, one sees that the maximum level of any letter in $w$ is the same value $M$ appearing in the definition of $\phi'(P)$. Since $y=\operatorname{sw}'(w)=\rho^{(0)}\rho^{(1)}\cdots\rho^{(M)}$, it will suffice to prove that $\rho^{(0)}=\tau^{(0)}$, $\rho^{(i)}={\mathrm{E}}\tau^{(i)}$ for $1\leq i\leq k$, and $\rho^{(i)}=\tau^{(i)}$ for all $i$ with $k<i\leq M$ (as illustrated by Example \[ex:phi\]). Define $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}=\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\rho^{(i)})$ for all $i$; this is the word obtained by scanning $w$ from left to right and taking all letters at level $i$. By reversing everything, it is enough to prove that $\tilde{\rho}^{(0)}=\sigma^{(0)}$, $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}=\sigma^{(i)}{\mathrm{E}}$ for $1\leq i\leq k$, and $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}=\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)}{\mathrm{E}}$ for all $i$ with $k<i\leq M$. **Step 2.** Fix a level $L=i$. We define an **event sequence** in $\{\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B},\mathrm{C}\}^*$ associated with a left-to-right scan of level $i$. It follows from Step 1 that the levels of the north steps of $P$ will be $g_0,g_1,\ldots,g_{n-1}$ in this order. As we scan $w$ during this iteration, the following **events** may occur: - We scan an ${\mathrm{N}}$ of $w$ at level $i$, which appends an ${\mathrm{N}}$ onto both $\sigma^{(i)}$ and $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}$. - We scan an ${\mathrm{E}}$ of $w$ at level $i$, which appends an ${\mathrm{E}}$ onto $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}$. - We scan an ${\mathrm{N}}$ of $w$ with level in $\{i-1,i-2,\ldots,i-m\}$, which appends an ${\mathrm{E}}$ onto $\sigma^{(i)}$. Consider the sequence of events A, B, C that occur during the $L=i$ scan. In our example, the $L=2$ scan has event sequence BCBCABCAB, whereas the $L=3$ scan has event sequence CAABCBCABCB. **Step 3.** We prove that $\tilde{\rho}^{(0)}=\sigma^{(0)}$. For the $L=0$ scan, events B and C are impossible, since the path stays within the trapezoid. So the event sequence consists of $j$ A’s for some $j$, and $\tilde{\rho}^{(0)}$ and $\sigma^{(0)}$ both consist of $j$ $N$’s. **Step 4.** For $0<i\leq M$, we analyze the possible transitions between events A, B, and C that may occur during the $L=i$ scan. Note that events A and B can only occur when the level of the current character in $w$ is $\geq i$, whereas event C only occurs when this level is $<i$. Moreover, the only way to transition from a level $\geq i$ to a level $<i$ is via event B, and the only way to transition from a level $<i$ to a level $\geq i$ is via event C. Consequently, in the event sequence for $L=i$, every A (not at the end) can only be followed by A or B; every B (not at the end) can only be followed by C; and every C (not at the end) can only be followed by A or B. The path $P$ ends at level $0<i$, so the event sequence must end in a B. **Step 5.** We prove that $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}=\sigma^{(i)} {\mathrm{E}}$ for $1\leq i\leq k$. Since $i\leq k$ and the origin has level $k$, the first letter in the event sequence must be A or B. By Step 4, the event sequence is some rearrangement of A’s and BC’s, except there is an unmatched B at the end. By definition of the events in Step 2, this means that $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}$ and $\sigma^{(i)}$ agree, except for an extra ${\mathrm{E}}$ at the end of $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}$. **Step 6.** We prove that $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}=\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)} {\mathrm{E}}$ for $k<i\leq M$. Since $i>k$ and the origin has level $k$, the first letter in the event sequence must be an unmatched C. Thereafter, the event sequence consists of A’s and matched BC pairs, with one unmatched B at the end. The initial C gives the initial ${\mathrm{E}}$ in $\sigma^{(i)}$ that is deleted to form $\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)}$. As in Step 5, we see that $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)}$ agree, except for an extra ${\mathrm{E}}$ at the end of $\tilde{\rho}^{(i)}$ caused by the unmatched B. The proof structure above can be readily adapted to show that other algorithms based on area vectors are equivalent to suitable sweep maps. For this reason, we will omit the details of these proofs in the remainder of this subsection. For instance, one can modify the preceding proof to show that the map $\phi_{n,0,1}$ (which acts on Dyck paths of order $n$) is also a sweep map. For all $n>0$ and $P\in T_{n,0,1}$, $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\phi_{n,0,1}(P))= \operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}\circ\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-1}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P))$. Similarly, let $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ denote the map described in [@HL-park §3, Bijections] that sends unlabeled Dyck paths to unlabeled Dyck paths. For all $n>0$ and $P\in T_{n,0,1}$, $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}(P))= \operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-1}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P))$. We note that the partition $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(\phi_{n,0,1}(P))$ is the transpose of the partition $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}(P))$. Since $$\operatorname{\mathsf{flip}}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi))=\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi')$$ for all partitions $\pi$ (where $\pi'$ denotes the transpose of $\pi$), the theorem for $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ follows from the theorem for $\phi_{n,0,1}$ and vice versa. ### Square Lattice Paths In [@LW-square], Loehr and Warrington modified the map $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ to obtain a bijection $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}$ on ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$, the set of lattice paths in an $n\times n$ square. Given $P\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$, we define its **area vector** $g(P)=(g_0,g_1,\ldots,g_{n-1})$ by letting $g_i+n-i$ be the number of complete squares in the strip $\{(x,y): x\geq 0, i\leq y\leq i+1\}$ that lie to the right of $P$ and to the left of $x=n$. (This reduces to the previous area vector if $P$ is a Dyck path.) The area vectors of paths in ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$ are characterized by the following properties: $g_0\leq 0$; $g_i+n-i\geq 0$ for $0\leq i<n$; and $g_i\leq g_{i-1}+1$ for $1\leq i<n$. Given $P\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$, we define a new path $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}(P)$ as follows. For all $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, let $z^{(i)}$ be the subword of $g(P)$ consisting of all occurrences of $i$ and $i-1$. Create words $\sigma^{(i)}$ from $z^{(i)}$ by replacing each $i$ by ${\mathrm{E}}$ and each $i-1$ by ${\mathrm{N}}$. For all $i\geq 0$, let $\tau^{(i)}$ be the reversal of $\sigma^{(i)}$. For all $i<0$, $\sigma^{(i)}$ must end in ${\mathrm{E}}$, so we can write $\sigma^{(i)}=\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)}{\mathrm{E}}$; let $\tau^{(i)}=\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\tilde{\sigma}^{(i)}){\mathrm{E}}$. Finally, define $$\tau=\tau^{(-1)}\tau^{(-2)}\cdots \tau^{(-n)} \tau^{(n)}\cdots \tau^{(2)}\tau^{(1)}\tau^{(0)},$$ and set $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}(P)=\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\tau)$. Let $P\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^{16}{\mathrm{E}}^{16})$ be such that $$\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P)=w={\mathrm{ENEENENNNNEENEEEENNNENEENNNNENEE}}.$$ Then $g(P)=(-1,-2,-2,-1,0,1,0,-3,-2,-1,-1,-2,-1,0,1,1)$, so (for instance) $z^{(1)}=010011$, $\sigma^{(1)}={\mathrm{NENNEE}}$, $\tau^{(1)}={\mathrm{EENNEN}}$, $z^{(-2)}=\text{$-2$ $-2$ $-3$ $-2$ $-2$}$, $\sigma^{(-2)}={\mathrm{EENEE}}$, $\tau^{(-2)}={\mathrm{ENEEE}}$, and so on. Next, $\tau$ is the concatenation of the words $\tau^{(-1)}={\mathrm{NEENENNEE}}$, $\tau^{(-2)}={\mathrm{ENEEE}}$, $\tau^{(-3)}={\mathrm{E}}$, $\tau^{(2)}={\mathrm{NNN}}$, $\tau^{(1)}={\mathrm{EENNEN}}$, and $\tau^{(0)}={\mathrm{ENNNEENN}}$, and $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}(P)=\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\tau)$. On the other hand, the reader can check that $\tau=\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-1}(w)$. In fact, for all $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, the subword $\tau^{(i)}$ is precisely the subword $\rho^{(i)}$ of letters in $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-1}(w)$ coming from letters in $w$ with $(1,-1)$-level (using the E-N convention) equal to $i$. One can prove this always happens, by adapting the ideas in the proof of Theorem \[thm:trapz-vs-sweep\], to obtain the following theorem. For all $n>0$ and all $P\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$, $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}(P))=\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{1,-1}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(P))$. ### Schröder Lattice Paths A **Schröder path** of order $n$ is a path from the origin $(0,0)$ to $(n,n)$, never going below $y=x$, with the allowed steps being north steps of length $1$, east steps of length $1$, and a northeast step of length $\sqrt{2}$. In [@EHKK Theorem 6], Egge, Haglund, Killpatrick, and Kremer extend $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ to a bijection $\phi_{{\mathrm{EHKK}}}$ acting on Schröder paths. After converting from paths to words, $\phi_{{\mathrm{EHKK}}}$ is the sweep map $\operatorname{sw}_{\operatorname{wt}}$ associated to the alphabet $A=\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{D}},{\mathrm{E}}\}$ with weight function $\operatorname{wt}({\mathrm{N}}) = 1$, $\operatorname{wt}({\mathrm{D}}) = 0$, and $\operatorname{wt}({\mathrm{E}}) = -1$. An Algorithm Based on Hook-Lengths {#subsec:zetamap} ---------------------------------- Throughout this subsection, fix positive integers $a$ and $b$ with $\gcd(a,b)=1$. In [@AHJ], D. Armstrong, C. Hanusa and B. Jones investigate the combinatorics of $(a,b)$-cores. In the process, they define a map ${\mathsf{zeta}}: {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b) \rightarrow {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$. For $\pi\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$, the partition ${\mathsf{zeta}}(\pi)$ is defined in two stages. First, create a partition $\nu = {f}(\pi)$ as follows. Consider the levels of all lattice squares lying above $by=ax$ and below the path $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. Since $\gcd(a,b)=1$, these levels must all be distinct. Sort these levels into increasing order, and write them in a column from bottom to top. Let $\nu = {f}(\pi)$ be the unique partition such that these levels are the hook-lengths of the cells in the first column. (Recall that the **hook** of a cell $c$ in a partition diagram consists of $c$ itself, all cells below $c$ in its column, and all cells right of $c$ in its row. The **hook-length** of $c$, denoted $h(c)$, is the number of cells in the hook of $c$.) The second stage maps $\nu$ to a new partition $\rho = {g}(\nu)$ as follows. There will be one nonzero row of $\rho$ for each row of $\nu$ whose first-column hook-length is the level of a square directly east of a north step of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. To determine the length of each row in $\rho$, count the number of cells of $\nu$ in the corresponding row whose hook-length is less than or equal to $b$. The ${\mathsf{zeta}}$ map is then defined by ${\mathsf{zeta}}(\pi) = {g}\circ {f}(\pi)$. See Figure \[fig:drewmap-ex\] for an example. \[thm:drew-sweep\] For all $\pi\in {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$, $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}({\mathsf{zeta}}(\pi)) = \operatorname{sw}^{+}_{b,-a}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi))$. To prove this theorem, we will introduce alternate formulations of the maps ${f}$ and ${g}$, denoted ${\tilde{f}}$ and ${\tilde{g}}$, that focus attention on the lattice paths making up the frontiers of $\pi$, $\nu$, and $\rho$. This will enable us to compare the action of the ${\mathsf{zeta}}$ map on partitions to the action of the sweep map on lattice paths. To start, define ${\tilde{f}}: {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}$ by setting ${\tilde{f}}(\pi) = \operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(z_0z_1z_2\cdots)$, where $z_0=E$, and for all $i > 0$, $$z_i = \begin{cases} {\mathrm{N}}, & \text{if the square with level $i$ lies between $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ and the line $by=ax$},\\ {\mathrm{E}}, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ Since $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ begins at $(0,0)$ and ends at $(b,a)$, we must have $z_i = {\mathrm{E}}$ for all $i > ab-a-b$. \[lem:nu\] For all $\pi \in {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}$, ${\tilde{f}}(\pi) = {f}(\pi)$. We first observe that the partitions ${\tilde{f}}(\pi)$ and ${f}(\pi)$ will have the same number of (positive-length) rows. For, on one hand, the first-column hook-lengths in ${f}(\pi)$ will be the levels of the squares between $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ and $by=ax$. On the other hand, these same levels will be the indices of the north steps of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}({\tilde{f}}(\pi))$. Now we show that the row lengths will be the same. Consider the $i$-th row from the bottom (starting with $i=1$ for the bottom row) in each partition. Suppose the first-column hook-length in this row in ${f}(\pi)$ is $k$. By definition, the length of this row in ${f}(\pi)$ will be $k-i+1$. Additionally, since we are in the $i$-th row from the bottom, it follows that of the values $\{0,1,2,\ldots,k-1\}$, exactly $i-1$ are levels of lattice squares below $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$, while the remaining $k-i+1$ values are levels of lattice squares above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. But the levels corresponding to squares above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ map to ${\mathrm{E}}$’s under ${\tilde{f}}$. So $|\{j:\,0\leq j\leq k\mbox{ and } z_j = {\mathrm{E}}\}| = k-i+1$, which implies that the number of cells in the $i$-th row from the bottom of ${\tilde{f}}(\pi)$ will also be $k-i+1$. We now define an analog of the map ${g}$ that maps $\nu = {\tilde{f}}(\pi)={f}(\pi)$ to a new partition $\rho$. With the word $z=z_0z_1z_2\cdots$ defined as above, let $y=y_0y_1y_2\cdots$ be the subword of $z$ formed by retaining only those $z_i$ for which $i+a$ is the level (using the W-S convention) of a step of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$; then set ${\tilde{g}}(\nu)=\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(y)$. (Technically, ${\tilde{g}}$ depends not only on the partition $\nu$, but on $a$, $b$ and $\pi = {\tilde{f}}^{-1}(\nu)$ as well. However, $a$ and $b$ are fixed and we consider ${\tilde{g}}$ only as part of the composition ${\tilde{g}}\circ {\tilde{f}}$.) \[lem:drew-sweep\] For all $\pi\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$, $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}({\tilde{g}}\circ{\tilde{f}}(\pi)) = \operatorname{sw}^{+}_{b,-a}\circ \operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi))$. Recall from Table \[tab:sweeps\] that the sweep map variation on the right side of the lemma acts on $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi)$ by scanning the levels $0,1,2,\ldots$ in this order, sweeping up path steps with levels assigned according to the W-S convention. (Since $\gcd(a,b)=1$, each level appears at most once in $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi)$. Also, for $r=b$ and $s=-a$, $ra + sb = 0$.) To compare this sweep map to the action of ${\tilde{g}}\circ{\tilde{f}}$, first note that a north step on the frontier of $\pi$ has level $i+a$ iff the lattice square directly east of that north step has level $i$. Such lattice squares are encoded as $z_i={\mathrm{N}}$ by ${\tilde{f}}$ and are then retained by ${\tilde{g}}$. Similarly, an east step on the frontier of $\pi$ has level $i+a$ iff the lattice square directly north of that east step has level $i$. Such lattice squares are encoded as $z_i={\mathrm{E}}$ by ${\tilde{f}}$ and are then retained by ${\tilde{g}}$. All other lattice squares not of these two types are discarded by ${\tilde{g}}$. Thus $\operatorname{\textsc{word}}({\tilde{g}}\circ{\tilde{f}}(\pi))$, which is precisely the subword of $z_0z_1z_2\cdots$ consisting of letters retained by ${\tilde{g}}$, will be the same word produced by the sweep map. Intuitively, one can think of ${\tilde{f}}$ as sweeping up *all* lattice-square levels, and then ${\tilde{g}}$ keeps only those levels of squares that are “adjacent” to the frontier of $\pi$ in the sense described above. Below, we will call these squares *frontier squares* of $\pi$. Before proving our final lemma, we need to introduce some temporary notation for describing the cells and rows of $\nu={f}(\pi)={\tilde{f}}(\pi)$. First, let ${\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$ be the set of hook-lengths of cells in the first (leftmost) column of $\nu$. In our running example, ${\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}=\{1,2,4,5,8,9,11,15,18,25\}$. Each square $c$ in the diagram of $\nu$ lies due north of an east step on the frontier of $\nu$, say $z_i={\mathrm{E}}$; and $c$ lies due west of a north step on the frontier of $\nu$, say $z_m={\mathrm{N}}$. Identify the square $c$ with the ordered pair of labels $[i,m]$. Observe that $[i,m]$ is the label of some cell $c$ in the diagram of $\nu$ iff $0\leq i<m$ and $z_i={\mathrm{E}}$ and $z_m={\mathrm{N}}$; in this case, we must have $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$. It is routine to check that the hook-length $h(c)$ is $m-i$. For all $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$, the *row of $\nu$ indexed by $m$* is the row with leftmost cell $[0,m]$, whose hook-length is $m$. \[lem:rho\] For all $\pi \in {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$, ${\tilde{g}}({\tilde{f}}(\pi)) = {g}({f}(\pi))$. Let $\nu={\tilde{f}}(\pi)={f}(\pi)$. We must show ${g}(\nu)={\tilde{g}}(\nu)$. **Step 1.** We show that ${g}$ and ${\tilde{g}}$ keep the same rows of $\nu$. On one hand, the definition of ${g}$ tells us to keep the rows of $\nu$ indexed by those $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$ appearing as the level of a square immediately east of a north step in $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. These squares are the frontier squares of $\pi$ below $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. On the other hand, the definition of ${\tilde{g}}$ tells us to retain the frontier steps $z_m={\mathrm{N}}$ of $\nu$ for those $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$ such that $m+a$ is the level of a north step of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. As observed in the earlier lemma, these $m$’s correspond to $m$’s that are the levels of frontier squares of $\pi$ below $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. So ${g}$ and ${\tilde{g}}$ do retain the same rows of $\nu$. **Step 2.** For each fixed $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$, we compare the cells in the row of $\nu$ indexed by $m$ that are discarded by ${g}$ and ${\tilde{g}}$. On one hand, let $$C_m = \{c:\,\text{$c$ is a cell in the row of $\nu$ indexed by $m$, and $h(c)>b$}\}.$$ The cells in $C_m$ are erased by ${g}$. So, for those row indices $m$ retained by ${g}$, $|C_m|$ is the difference between the length of this row in $\nu$ and the length of the corresponding row in ${g}(\nu)$. On the other hand, let $$B_m = \{j:\,1\leq j < m, z_j = {\mathrm{E}},\text{ and the square with level $j$ is not a frontier square of $\pi$}\}.$$ The values $j\in B_m$ index the east steps $z_j={\mathrm{E}}$ prior to the north step $z_j=m$ that are discarded by ${\tilde{g}}$. So, for those row indices $m$ retained by ${\tilde{g}}$, $|B_m|$ is the difference between the length of this row in $\nu$ and the length of the corresponding row in ${\tilde{g}}(\nu)$. Since ${g}$ and ${\tilde{g}}$ retain the same row indices $m$ (by Step 1), it will now suffice to show that $|B_m|=|C_m|$ for all $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$. **Step 3.** Fix $m\in{\mathrm{FCHL}}_{\nu}$; we define bijections $G:B_m\rightarrow C_m$ and $H:C_m\rightarrow B_m$. Given $j\in B_m$, let $G(j)=[j-b,m]$. Given a cell $[i,m]\in C_m$, let $H([i,m])=i+b$. It is clear that $H\circ G$ and $G\circ H$ are identity maps, so the proof will be complete once we check that $G$ does map $B_m$ into $C_m$, and $H$ does map $C_m$ into $B_m$. Consider a fixed $j\in B_m$. Since $z_j={\mathrm{E}}$, $j$ is the level of a square above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$, but this square is not a frontier square of $\pi$. Hence, the square directly below this square (whose level is $j-b$) is also above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. This implies $j-b\geq 0$ and $z_{j-b}={\mathrm{E}}$. Moreover, since $j<m$, the hook-length of the cell $[j-b,m]$ is $m-(j-b)=b+(m-j)>b$, proving that $G(j)=[j-b,m]\in C_m$. Now consider a fixed cell $[i,m]\in C_m$. By definition of $C_m$, we must have $z_i={\mathrm{E}}$ and $m-i>b$. So the square with level $i$ is above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$, and hence the square with level $i+b$ is also above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ and is not a frontier square of $\pi$. In particular, $z_{i+b}={\mathrm{E}}$. Finally, $i+b<m$ and $i+b>0$, so $i+b\in B_m$. We conclude that $H([i,m])\in B_m$. In our running example, the row indices $m$ retained by both ${g}$ and ${\tilde{g}}$ are $5,9,15,25$. For $m=25$, we have $$B_{25}=\{10,13,16,17,20,22,23,24\};$$ $$C_{25}=\{[0,25],[3,25],[6,25],[7,25],[10,25],[12,25],[13,25],[14,25]\}.$$ ($C_{25}$ is the set of the leftmost eight cells in the top row of $\nu$.) The map $j\mapsto [j-10,25]$ defines a bijection from $B_{25}$ to $C_{25}$. An Algorithm Based on Semi-Module Generators {#subsec:gorsky-mazin} -------------------------------------------- In [@GM-jacI; @GM-jacII], E. Gorsky and M. Mazin relate the $q,t$-Catalan numbers and their generalizations to the homology of compactified Jacobians for singular plane curves with Puiseux pair $(a,b)$. In the course of their investigations, they introduce the following map ${\mathrm{G}}_{b,a}$ on partitions in ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$ (we follow the notation of  [@GM-jacII]). Let $a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ with $\gcd(a,b)=1$ and $\pi\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$. For $1\leq i\leq b$, define the **$\boldsymbol{b}$-generators of $\boldsymbol{\pi}$**, denoted $\beta_1 < \cdots < \beta_b$, to be the levels of the squares immediately above $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. Define $\Delta = \Delta(\pi)$ to be the set of levels of *all* lattice squares lying north or west of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ (i.e., including squares not adjacent to $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$). Equivalently, $\Delta={\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}\setminus\Delta^c$ where $\Delta^c$ is the finite set of levels of lattice squares between $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ and $by=ax$. We then define a new partition $\rho = {\mathrm{G}}_{b,a}(\pi)$ by setting the $i$-th column of $\rho$ to have length $$g_{b,a}(\beta_i) = |\{\beta_i,\beta_i+1,\ldots,\beta_i+a-1\} \setminus \Delta| = |\{\beta_i,\beta_i+1,\ldots,\beta_i+a-1\}\cap\Delta^c|.$$ For our running example where $\pi = (4,4,4,2,2,1)$, $a=7$, and $b=10$, the $10$-generators are $\{0,3,6,7,12,14,19,21,28,35\}$, $$\Delta^c = \{1,2,4,5,8,9,11,15,18,25\},$$ and $\Delta=\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\setminus\Delta^c$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} g_{10,7}(0) &= |\{0,\ldots,6\} \setminus \{0,3,6\}\}| = 4,\\ g_{10,7}(3) &= |\{3,\ldots,9\} \setminus \{3,6,7\}\}| = 4,\\ g_{10,7}(6) &= |\{6,\ldots,12\} \setminus \{6,7,10,12\}\}| = 3,\\ g_{10,7}(7) &= |\{7,\ldots,13\} \setminus \{7,10,12,13\}\}| = 3,\\ g_{10,7}(12) &= |\{12,\ldots,18\} \setminus \{12,13,14,16,17\}\}| = 2,\\ g_{10,7}(14) &= |\{14,\ldots,20\} \setminus \{14,16,17,19,20\}\}| = 2,\\ g_{10,7}(19) &= |\{19,\ldots,25\} \setminus \{19,20,21,22,23,24\}\}| = 1,\\ g_{10,7}(21) &= |\{21,\ldots,27\} \setminus \{21,22,23,24,26,27\}\}| = 1,\\ g_{10,7}(28) &= |\{28,\ldots,34\} \setminus \{28,\ldots,34\}\}| = 0,\\ g_{10,7}(35) &= |\{35,\ldots,41\} \setminus \{35,\ldots,41\}\}| = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The vector $(g_{10,7}(0),g_{10,7}(3),\ldots,g_{10,7}(35)) = (4,4,3,3,2,2,1,1)$ gives the column lengths of the partition $\rho={\mathrm{G}}_{7,3}(\pi)=(8,6,4,2)$. See Figure \[fig:GMmap\]. The preceding example suggests that the Gorsky-Mazin map coincides with the map discussed in §\[subsec:zetamap\]. We now prove this fact. \[thm:gm\] For $a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$ with $\gcd(a,b)=1$ and all $\pi\in {\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$, $$\operatorname{\textsc{word}}({\mathrm{G}}(\pi)) = \operatorname{sw}^{+}_{b,-a}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi)).$$ Let $\pi\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{ptn}}}_{b,-a}(a,b)$ have $b$-generators $\beta_1 < \beta_2 < \cdots < \beta_b$. Recall from Table \[tab:sweeps\] that $\operatorname{sw}^+_{b,-a}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ uses the west-south convention to assign levels to steps of a lattice path. It follows that the levels of east steps in $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ are precisely the numbers $a+\beta_1<a+\beta_2<\cdots<a+\beta_b$. The $i$-th east step in the output of $\operatorname{sw}^+_{b,-a}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ will be preceded by all the north steps whose levels are less than $a+\beta_i$ and followed by all the north steps whose levels are greater than $a+\beta_i$. Since the output has exactly $a$ north steps total, it will suffice to prove (for each fixed $i$) that $$\mbox{(the number of north steps of level $<a+\beta_i$)} +g_{b,a}(\beta_i)=a.$$ For each north step of level $a+k$, the lattice square with level $k$ lies below $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$, but all of the squares to the left lie west of $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$ and have levels of the form $k+ja$ for some $j\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 1}$. On the other hand, for each $b$-generator $\beta_i$, $g_{b,a}(\beta_i)$ is the number of levels in the set $\{\beta_i,\beta_i+1,\ldots,\beta_i+a-1\}$ that are the levels of squares below $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(\pi)$. For each north step of level $a+k$ with $k \geq \beta_i$, $$|\{\beta_i,\ldots,\beta_i+a-1\} \cap \{k+ja\}_{j > 0}| = 0.$$ But for each north step of level $a+k$ with $k < \beta_i$, then the cardinality will be exactly $1$. Thus the number of levels removed from the $a$-element set $\{\beta_i,\ldots,\beta_i+a-1\}$ to obtain $g_{b,a}(\beta_i)$ is the same as the number of north steps of level $<a+\beta_i$, as needed. Inverting the Sweep Map {#sec:invert-sweep} ======================= Introduction. {#subsec:invert-intro} ------------- The main open problem in this paper is to prove that *all sweep maps are bijections*. Even in the two-letter case, this problem appears to be very difficult in general. Nevertheless, many special cases of the sweep map are known to be invertible. After discussing the basic strategy for inversion (which involves recreating the labels on the output steps by drawing a suitable “bounce path”), we describe the inverse sweep maps that have appeared in the literature in various guises. We omit detailed proofs that the inverse maps work, since these appear in the references. Strategy for Inversion. {#subsec:strategy-invert} ----------------------- In Figure \[fig:negsweep-ex\], we showed the computation of $Q=\operatorname{sw}_{3,-2}^-(P)$ where $P,Q$ are paths in ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^8{\mathrm{E}}^{10})$. The output $Q$ is the path shown on the far right of the figure, *not including labels*. Suppose we were given $Q$ and needed to compute $P=(\operatorname{sw}_{3,-2}^-)^{-1}(Q)$. If we could somehow recreate the labels on the steps of $Q$ (as shown in the figure), then the sweep map could be easily inverted, as follows. By counting the total number of north and east steps, we deduce that $P$ must end at level $8\cdot 3 + 10\cdot (-2) = 4$. We now reconstruct the steps of $P$ in reverse order. The last step of $P$ must be the first step of $Q$ in the collection of steps labeled 4 (since, when sweeping $P$ to produce $Q$, level 4 is swept from right to left). We mark that step of $Q$ as being used. Since it is a north step, the preceding step of $P$ must end at level 1. We now take the first unused step of $Q$ labeled 1 (which is a north step), mark it as used, and note that the preceding step of $P$ must end at level $-2$. We continue similarly, producing $P$ in reverse until reaching the origin, and marking steps in $Q$ as they are used. Because $Q$ is in the image of the sweep map, this process must succeed (in the sense that all steps of $Q$ are used at the end, and we never get stuck at some level where all steps in $Q$ with that label have already been used). Evidently, the strategy outlined here works for any choice of weights, including the general case of alphabets with more than one letter. Variations of the sweep map (such as $\operatorname{sw}^+$) can be handled analogously. The crucial question is *how to recreate the labels on the steps of $Q$*. This question has been answered in the literature for Dyck paths, $m$-Dyck paths, trapezoidal lattice paths, square paths, Schröder paths, $(n,nm+1)$-Dyck paths, and $(n,nm-1)$-Dyck paths. In every known case, the key to recreating the labels is to define a *bounce path* for a lattice path $Q$. The steps of $Q$ associated with the “$i$-th bounce” in the bounce path receive label $i$. Once labels have been assigned, one can reverse the sweep map as described in the previous paragraph. We begin by discussing the simplest instance of the bounce path, which is used to invert the map $\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^-=\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ (see §\[subsubsec:trapz\]) acting on Dyck paths. Ironically, several different authors independently introduced inverse sweep maps even before the map $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ was proposed in the context of $q,t$-Catalan numbers. We describe these inverses in §\[subsec:vaille\] and §\[subsec:andrews\] below. Inversion of $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ via Haglund’s Bounce Path {#subsec:invert-HL} ------------------------------------------------------------- Figure \[fig:invert-HL\] shows the computation of $Q=\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^-(P)=\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}(P)$ for a Dyck path $P\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^{14}{\mathrm{E}}^{14})$. To understand how to find $P=\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}^{-1}(Q)$ given $Q$, it suffices (by the above remarks) to see how to pass from the unlabeled path $Q$ on the right side of the figure to the labeled path in the middle of the figure. To recreate the labels, we draw the *bounce path* for the Dyck path $Q$, using the following definition due to Haglund [@Hag-bounce]. The bounce path starts at $(n,n)$ and makes a sequence of horizontal moves $H_i$ and vertical moves $V_i$, for $i=0,1,2,\ldots$, until reaching $(0,0)$. Each horizontal move is determined by moving west from the current position as far as possible without going strictly left of the path $Q$. Then the next vertical move goes south back to the diagonal $y=x$. Figure \[fig:sweep-bounce\] shows the bounce path for our example path $Q$. In this example, the labels we are trying to recreate are related to the bounce path as follows: every step of $Q$ located above the bounce move $H_i$ and to the left of bounce move $V_{i-1}$ has label $i$. As special cases, the steps of $Q$ above $H_0$ have label zero, and the steps of $Q$ to the left of the last bounce move $V_s$ have label $s+1$. We claim that this relation between the labels and the bounce path holds in general, for any Dyck path $Q$ of the form $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}(P)$. This claim implies that $P$ can be uniquely recovered from $Q$, so that $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ is injective and hence bijective. To prove the claim, let $h_i$ be the length of the horizontal move $H_i$ of the bounce path for $Q$, and let $v_i=h_i$ be the length of the vertical move $V_i$ of the bounce path for $Q$. Also define $v_i=h_i=0$ for $i<0$ and $i>s$, where $s+1$ is the total number of horizontal bounces. Finally, let $n_i$ (resp. $e_i$) denote the number of north (resp. east) steps of $P$ with $(1,-1)$-level equal to $i$. We first prove this lemma: $n_i = e_{i-1}$ for all $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. For any level $i$, the number of times the path $P$ arrives at this level (via a north step of level $i$ or an east step of level $i$) equals the number of times $P$ leaves this level (via a north step of level $i+1$ or an east step of level $i-1$). This holds even when $i=0$, since $P$ begins and ends at level zero. It follows that $n_i + e_i = n_{i+1} + e_{i-1}$ for all $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Also $n_i=0$ for all $i\leq 0$, and $e_i=0$ for all $i<0$. Thus $n_i=e_{i-1}=0$ for all integers $i\leq 0$. Fix an integer $i\geq 0$, and assume that $n_i=e_{i-1}$. Then $n_{i+1}=n_i+e_i-e_{i-1}=e_i$, so the lemma follows by induction. Now we show that for all $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $h_i = e_i$ and $v_{i-1} = n_i$. Since $P$ is a Dyck path, the assertion holds for all $i<0$. We prove the two equalities for $i \geq 0$ by induction on $i$, starting with the base case of $i=0$. Recall that the steps of $P$ are swept in decreasing order by level. We know that $v_{-1} = n_0 = 0$. Since $n_0 = 0$, the path $Q$ ends in $e_0$ east steps. Hence $h_0 \geq e_0$. Since $P$ starts at level $0$, the first step in $P$ at *any* level $i > 0$ must be a north step. It follows that the last step in $Q$ labeled with a 1 is a north step and, consequently, that $h_0 = e_0$. Assume now that $h_k = e_k$ and $v_{k-1} = n_k$ for some fixed $k\geq 0$. It follows from the bounce mechanism that $v_k = h_k$. We know that $h_k = e_k$ by the induction hypothesis. Finally, $e_k = n_{k+1}$ by the above discussion. Combining these equalities, we find that $v_k = n_{k+1}$. We know that $h_{k+1} \geq e_{k+1}$ using $v_k = n_{k+1}$ and the fact that the east steps of $P$ at level $k+1$ must be swept after any steps at level $k+2$. As observed above, the first step in $P$ at level $k+2$ (if it exists) is a north step. Hence $h_{k+1} = e_{k+1}$. Vaill[é]{}’s Bijection {#subsec:vaille} ---------------------- In 1997, Vaill[é]{} [@vaille] defined a bijection $\omega$ mapping Dyck paths to Dyck paths, which is the inverse of the map $\phi_{n,0,1}$ defined in §\[subsubsec:trapz\]. (Recall that $\phi_{n,0,1}$ differs from $\phi_{{\mathrm{HL}}}$ by reversing and flipping the output lattice path.) Vaill[é]{} gives this example of his bijection $\omega$ in [@vaille Fig. 3, p. 121]: $$\begin{aligned} P&={\mathrm{NNEENNNNNEENNEENEEENNEENNEEENNEE}},\\ \omega(P)&={\mathrm{NENNENNENNNENNENEEENEEENENNEENEE}}.\end{aligned}$$ The bounce path of $P$ is clearly visible in the left panel of that figure, although here the bounce path moves from $(0,0)$ north and east to $(n,n)$ as a result of the reversal and flipping. The Bijection of Andrews et al. {#subsec:andrews} ------------------------------- Andrews, Krattenthaler, Orsina, and Papi [@AKOP-lie] described a bijection mapping Dyck partitions to Dyck paths that is essentially the inverse of $\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^{-}$. They give an example starting with an input partition $\pi=(10,10,9,6,5,4,4,3,1,1,1,1,0)$ in [@AKOP-lie Fig. 2, p. 3841]. The word of this partition (after adding one more zero part at the end) is $$y=\operatorname{\textsc{word}}(\pi)={\mathrm{NNENNNNEENENNENENEEENENNEEEE}}.$$ This partition maps to the output Dyck path shown in [@AKOP-lie Fig. 3, p. 3846], which has word $$w={\mathrm{NENNNEEENNENNEENNNEENEEENNEE}}.$$ One may check that $\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^-(w)=y$, and similarly for other objects, so these authors have inverted the sweep map on Dyck paths. Here too, Haglund’s bounce path construction (this time proceeding from $(n,n)$ to $(0,0)$) is visible in Figure 2 of [@AKOP-lie]. Inverting $\phi_{n,k,m}$ and $\phi'_{n,k,m}$. {#subsec:invert-trapz} --------------------------------------------- Loehr describes $\phi_{n,0,m}$ and its inverse in [@loehr-mcat]. The maps $\phi_{n,k,m}$, $\phi'_{n,k,m}$, and their inverses are treated in [@loehr-trapz]. The key to inversion is defining the bounce path for a trapezoidal lattice path $Q\in T_{n,k,m}$. This bounce path starts at $(0,0)$ and moves north and east to $(k+nm,n)$. For $i\geq 0$, the $i$-th bounce moves north $v_i$ steps from the current location as far as possible without going strictly north of the path $Q$. The $i$-th bounce continues by moving east $h_i=v_i+v_{i-1}+\cdots+v_{i-(m-1)}+s$ steps, where $v_j=0$ for $j<0$, $s=1$ for $0\leq i<k$, and $s=0$ for $i\geq k$. One can show that if $Q$ is produced from $P$ via sweeping (as described in Step 1 of the proof of Theorem \[thm:trapz-vs-sweep\]), then the steps of $Q$ located north of the $(i-1)$-th horizontal bounce move and west of the $i$-th vertical bounce move receive label $i$. Thus, we can invert the sweep map in this case. Inverting $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}$. {#subsec:invert-LW} --------------------------------- Loehr and Warrington describe the inverse of $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}$ in [@LW-square] using the language of area vectors. Their result amounts to inverting the sweep map $\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^-$ on the domain ${\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$ of lattice paths in an $n\times n$ square. As usual, it suffices to discuss the construction of the “square bounce path.” Given $Q=\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^-(P)$ with $P,Q\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$, first choose the maximum integer $k$ such that the path $Q$ touches the line $y=x-k$. Call this line the *break diagonal*. The *break point* of $Q$ is the lowest point $(x,y)$ of $Q$ on the line $y=x-k$. The *positive bounce path* of $Q$ starts at $(n,n)$ and moves to the break point as follows. First go south $k$ steps from $(n,n)$ to $(n,n-k)$; call this move $V_{-1}$. Repeat until reaching the break point, taking $i=0,1,2,\ldots$: In move $H_i$, go west until blocked by the north end of a north step of $Q$; in move $V_i$, go south to the break diagonal. Next, the *negative bounce path* of $Q$ starts at $(0,0)$ and moves to the break point as follows. First go east $k$ steps from $(0,0)$ to $(k,0)$; call this move $H_{-1}$. Repeat until reaching the break point, taking $i=-2,-3,\ldots$: In move $V_i$, go north to the first lattice point on $Q$; in move $H_i$, go east to the break diagonal. (Since the negative bounce path is blocked by lattice points, not edges, on $Q$, this rule is not the reflection of the rule for the positive bounce path.) One can check that when sweeping $P$ to produce $Q$, the steps of $Q$ located north of move $H_i$ and west of move $V_{i-1}$ receive label $i$. It is now straightforward to invert $\phi_{{\mathrm{LW}}}$. Inverting $\phi_{{\mathrm{EHKK}}}$. {#subsec:invert-EHKK} ----------------------------------- Egge, Haglund, Killpatrick, and Kremer describe the inverse of their map $\phi_{{\mathrm{EHKK}}}$ in [@EHKK p. 15]. Given a Schröder path $Q$, their algorithm to compute $P=\phi_{{\mathrm{EHKK}}}^{-1}(Q)$ begins by dividing the steps of $Q$ into regions based on a version of the bounce path defined for Schröder paths. This amounts to reconstructing the labels of the steps of $Q$ created when applying the sweep map to $P$. They then reconstruct the area vector of $P$ (modified to allow diagonal steps) by an insertion process that reverses the action of the sweep map. This special case of sweep inversion is notable because it inverts a sweep map on a three-letter alphabet (although one of the letters has weight zero). Inverting ${\mathrm{G}}_{b,a}$. {#subsec:invert-gorsky-mazin} ------------------------------- In [@GM-jacII], Gorsky and Mazin describe how to invert special cases of their map ${\mathrm{G}}_{b,a}$ using the language of semi-module generators and bounce paths. Their results amount to inverting $\operatorname{sw}_{b,-n}$ on the domain ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{path}}}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ in the case where $b=nm\pm 1$ for some $m$. The case $b=nm+1$ essentially duplicates the $m$-bounce path construction of [@loehr-mcat] (although there is a lot of new material relating this construction to semi-modules). The case $b=nm-1$ is a new inversion result obtained via a modification of the $m$-bounce paths. Specifically, one constructs the bounce path’s vertical moves $v_i$ (for $i\geq 0$) as described in §\[subsec:invert-trapz\] above, but now $h_i=v_i+v_{i-1}+\cdots+v_{i-(m-1)}+t$, where $t=-1$ for $i=m-1$ and $t=0$ for all other $i$. Area Statistics and Generalized $q,t$-Catalan Numbers {#sec:area-qtcat} ===================================================== This section applies the sweep map to provide new combinatorial generalizations of the $q,t$-Catalan numbers [@GH-qtcat] and the $q,t$-square numbers [@LW-square]. We make several conjectures regarding the joint symmetry of these polynomials and their connections to the nabla operator $\nabla$ on symmetric functions introduced by A. Garsia and F. Bergeron [@nabla1; @nabla2; @nabla3]. Area Statistics {#subsec:area-stat} --------------- For any word $w\in\{{\mathrm{N}},{\mathrm{E}}\}^*$, let ${\mathsf{area}}(w)$ be the number of pairs $i<j$ with $w_i={\mathrm{E}}$ and $w_j={\mathrm{N}}$. This is the area of the partition diagram $\operatorname{\textsc{ptn}}(w)$ consisting of the squares above and to the left of steps in $\operatorname{\textsc{path}}(w)$. For $r,s\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, let $w$ have $(r,s)$-levels $l_0,l_1,\ldots$ (E-N convention). Let ${\mathsf{ml}}_{r,s}(w)=\min\{l_0,l_1,\ldots\}$, and set ${\mathsf{area}}^*_{r,s}(w)={\mathsf{area}}(w)+{\mathsf{ml}}_{r,s}(w)$. Note that ${\mathsf{area}}^*_{r,s}(w)\neq{\mathsf{area}}^*_{rm,sm}(w)$ in general, so we cannot necessarily assume that $\gcd(r,s)=1$ when using ${\mathsf{area}}^*$. The function ${\mathsf{ml}}_{b,-a}$ appears in [@ALW-RPF] as ${\mathsf{ml}}_{b,a}$. The correspondence between partitions and paths lying in a fixed triangle has led to inconsistent terminology: “area” can refer to either the number of squares lying in the partition determined by a path (as above) or the number of squares between the path and a diagonal (such as in [@ALW-RPF]). Generalized $q,t$-Catalan Polynomials {#subsec:gen-qt-cat} ------------------------------------- For $r,s\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $a,b\geq 0$, define the **$q,t$-Catalan numbers for slope $\boldsymbol{(-s/r)}$ ending at $\boldsymbol{(b,a)}$** by $$C_{r,s,a,b}(q,t)=\sum_{w\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{r,s}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)} q^{{\mathsf{area}}(w)}t^{{\mathsf{area}}(\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^-(w))}.$$  \[conj:qt-joint\] For all $r,s\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and all $a,b\geq 0$, $C_{r,s,a,b}(q,t)=C_{r,s,a,b}(t,q)$. Note that the conjectured bijectivity of $\operatorname{sw}_{r,s}^-$ on the domain ${\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}_{r,s}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)$ would imply the weaker univariate symmetry property $C_{r,s,a,b}(q,1)=C_{r,s,a,b}(1,q)$. The rational $q,t$-Catalan polynomials defined in [@ALW-RPF] arise from a sweep map that, in the case $\gcd(a,b)=1$ considered in that paper, reduces to $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{b,-a}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$. As such, the joint symmetry conjecture [@ALW-RPF Conj. 19] is not quite a special case of Conjecture \[conj:qt-joint\]. Let $w\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{path}}}_{1,-1}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)$ be a “classical” Dyck path with area vector $(g_1,\ldots,g_n)$ (see §\[subsubsec:trapz\]). Let ${\mathsf{Area}}(w)=g_1+\cdots+g_n$, which is the number of area squares between the path $w$ and the line $y=x$, and let ${\mathsf{dinv}}(w)$ be the number of $i<j$ with $g_i-g_j\in\{0,1\}$. The Garsia-Haiman $q,t$-Catalan numbers [@GH-qtcat] can be defined by the combinatorial formula $$C_n(q,t)=\sum_{w\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{path}}}_{1,-1}({\mathrm{N}}^n{\mathrm{E}}^n)} q^{{\mathsf{Area}}(w)}t^{{\mathsf{dinv}}(w)}.$$ To relate this polynomial to the one defined above, note that ${\mathsf{area}}(w)+{\mathsf{Area}}(w)=n(n-1)/2$. Similarly, it follows from Theorem \[thm:trapz-vs-sweep\] and [@loehr-mcat §2.5] that ${\mathsf{area}}(\operatorname{sw}_{1,-1}^-(w))+{\mathsf{dinv}}(w)=n(n-1)/2$. Therefore, $$C_n(q,t)=(qt)^{n(n-1)/2}C_{1,-1,n,n}(1/q,1/t).$$ Combining this with a theorem of Garsia and Haglund [@nablaproof], we get $$(qt)^{n(n-1)/2}C_{1,-1,n,n}(1/q,1/t)=\langle\nabla(e_n),s_{(1^n)}\rangle.$$ More generally, for any positive integers $m,n$, the higher-order $q,t$-Catalan numbers [@loehr-mcat; @loehr-thesis] satisfy $$C_n^{(m)}(q,t)=(qt)^{mn(n-1)/2}C_{m,-1,n,mn}(1/q,1/t).$$ The main conjecture for these polynomials can be stated as follows: $$(qt)^{mn(n-1)/2}C_{m,-1,n,mn}(1/q,1/t) =\langle\nabla^m(e_n),s_{(1^n)}\rangle.$$ An interesting open problem is to find formulas relating the general polynomials $C_{r,s,a,b}(q,t)$ to nabla or related operators. Generalized $q,t$-Square Numbers {#subsec:gen-qt-square} -------------------------------- Next we generalize the $q,t$-square numbers studied in [@LW-square]. For $a,b\geq 0$, define the **$\boldsymbol{q,t}$-rectangle numbers for the $\boldsymbol{a\times b}$ rectangle** by $$S_{a,b}(q,t)=\sum_{w\in{\mathcal{R}^{\mathrm{word}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)} q^{{\mathsf{area}}^*_{b,-a}(w)}t^{{\mathsf{area}}^*_{b,-a}(\operatorname{sw}_{b,-a}^-(w))}.$$ For all $a,b$, $S_{a,b}(q,t)=S_{a,b}(t,q)$. The joint symmetry conjecture is known to hold when $a=b$. This follows from the stronger statement $$(qt)^{n(n-1)/2}S_{n,n}(1/q,1/t) =2\langle (-1)^{n-1}\nabla(p_n),s_{(1^n)}\rangle,$$ which was conjectured in [@LW-square] and proved in [@CL-sqthm]. We conjecture the following more general relationship between certain $q,t$-rectangle numbers and higher powers of $\nabla$. For all $m\geq 0$ and $n>0$, $$(qt)^{mn(n-1)/2}S_{n,mn}(1/q,1/t) =(-1)^{n-1}(m+1)\langle \nabla^m(p_n),s_{(1^n)}\rangle.$$ Specialization at $t=1/q$ {#subsec:t=1/q} ------------------------- Recall the definitions of $q$-integers, $q$-factorials, and $q$-binomial coefficients: $[n]_q=1+q+q^2+\cdots+q^{n-1}$, $[n]!_q=[n]_q[n-1]_q\cdots [2]_q[1]_q$, and ${{\textstyle\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{a+b}{a,b}_{q}}=[a+b]!_q/([a]!_q[b]!_q)}$. In [@ALW-RPF Conj. 21], the authors make the following conjecture for coprime $a$ and $b$: $$q^{(a-1)(b-1)/2} \sum_{D\in{\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{word}}}({\mathrm{N}}^a{\mathrm{E}}^b)} q^{{\mathsf{area}}(\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{b,-a}(\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}(D)))-{\mathsf{area}}(D)}=\frac{1}{[a+b]_q}{\displaystyle\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{a+b}{a,b}_{q}}.$$ We conjecture here that $\operatorname{sw}^{+}_{b,-a}\circ\operatorname{\mathsf{rev}}$ can be replaced by $\operatorname{sw}^{-}_{b,-a}$: For all coprime $a,b>0$, $$q^{(a-1)(b-1)/2} C_{b,-a,a,b}(q,1/q) = \frac{1}{[a+b]_q}{\displaystyle\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{a+b}{a,b}_{q}}.$$ We also introduce two conjectures regarding the $t=1/q$ specialization of paths in a rectangle. For all $m,n\geq 0$, $$q^{m\binom{n}{2}}S_{n,mn}(q,1/q) =\frac{(m+1)}{[m+1]_{q^n}}{\displaystyle\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{mn+n}{mn,n}_{q}}.$$ This conjecture generalizes to arbitrary rectangles as follows: For all $a,b\geq 0$, write $b=b'k$ and $a=a'k$ for integers $a',b',k\geq 0$ with $\gcd(a',b')=1$. Then $$q^{k(a'-1)(b'-1)/2 + a'b'\binom{k}{2}}S_{a,b}(q,1/q)=\frac{(a'+b')}{[a'+b']_{q^k}} {\displaystyle\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{a+b}{a,b}_{q}}.$$ A Sage worksheet containing code to compute the images of paths under various versions of the sweep map as well as to check the conjectures of Section \[sec:area-qtcat\] can be found at the third author’s web page [@sage-worksheet]. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The authors gratefully acknowledge discussions with Jim Haglund, Mark Haiman and Michelle Wachs. [99]{} George Andrews, Christian Krattenthaler, Luigi Orsina, and Paolo Papi, “$ad$-Nilpotent $\mathfrak{b}$-ideals in $sl(n)$ having a fixed class of nilpotence: combinatorics and enumeration,” *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **354** no. 10 (2002), 3835–3853. Drew Armstrong, Christopher R. H. Hanusa, and Brant C. Jones, “Results and conjectures on simultaneous core partitions,” `http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0572`. Drew Armstrong, Nicholas A. Loehr, and Gregory S. Warrington, “Rational parking functions and Catalan numbers,” `http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1845`. Nicholas A. Loehr and Gregory S. Warrington, “Sweep maps for lattice paths,” 12-page extended abstract accepted as a poster for *FPSAC 2014*. F. Bergeron and A. Garsia, “Science Fiction and Macdonald Polynomials,” *CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes AMS* VI **3** (1999), 363—429. F. Bergeron, N. Bergeron, A. Garsia, M. Haiman, and G. Tesler, “Lattice Diagram Polynomials and Extended Pieri Rules,” *Adv. in Math.* **2** (1999), 244—334. F. Bergeron, A. Garsia, M. Haiman, and G. Tesler, “Identities and Positivity Conjectures for some remarkable Operators in the Theory of Symmetric Functions,” *Methods and Applications of Analysis* VII **3** (1999), 363—420. Mahir Can and Nicholas A. Loehr, “A proof of the $q,t$-square conjecture,” *J. Combin. Theory Ser. A* **113** (2006), 1419–1434. Eric Egge, Jim Haglund, Kendra Killpatrick, and Darla Kremer, “A Schröder generalization of Haglund’s statistic on Catalan paths,” *Electron. J. of Combin.* **10** (2003), Research Paper 16, 21 pages (electronic). A. Garsia and J. Haglund, “A proof of the $q,t$-Catalan positivity conjecture,” *LACIM 2000 Conference on Combinatorics, Computer Science, and Applications* (Montreal), *Discrete Math.* **256** (2002), 677—717. Adriano Garsia and Mark Haiman, “A remarkable $q,t$-Catalan sequence and $q$-Lagrange inversion,” *J. Algebraic Combin.* **5** (1996), 191–244. Evgeny Gorsky and Mikhail Mazin, “Compactified Jacobians and $q,t$-Catalan numbers, I,” *J. Combin. Theory Ser. A* **120** (2013), 49–63. Also online at `arXiv:1105.1151v2`. Evgeny Gorsky and Mikhail Mazin, “Compactified Jacobians and $q,t$-Catalan numbers, II,” *J. Algebraic Combin.* **39** (2014), no. 1, 153–186. James Haglund, “Conjectured statistics for the $q,t$-Catalan numbers,” *Adv. in Math.* **175** (2003), 319–334. James Haglund and Nicholas A. Loehr, “A conjectured combinatorial formula for the Hilbert series for diagonal harmonics,” *Discrete Math.* **298** (2005), 189–204. Nicholas A. Loehr, “Conjectured statistics for the higher $q,t$-Catalan sequences,” *Electron. J. Combin.* **12** (2005) research paper R9; 54 pages (electronic). Nicholas A. Loehr, *Multivariate analogues of Catalan numbers, parking functions, and their extensions.* Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego (2003), 267 pages. Nicholas A. Loehr, “Trapezoidal lattice paths and multivariate analogues,” *Adv. in Appl. Math.* **31** (2003), 597–629. Nicholas A. Loehr and Gregory S. Warrington, “A continuous family of partition statistics equidistributed with length,” *J. Combin. Theory Ser. A* **116** (2009), 379–403. Nicholas A. Loehr and Gregory S. Warrington, “Square $q,t$-lattice paths and $\nabla(p_n)$,” *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **359** (2007), 649–669. J. Vaill[é]{}, “Une bijection explicative de plusieurs propriétés remarquables des ponts,” *European J. Combin.* **18** (1997), no. 1, 117–124. Gregory S. Warrington, *Sage worksheet for computing sweep maps (available online)*, 2014. <http://www.cems.uvm.edu/~gswarrin/research/sweep.sws>. [^1]: This work was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (\#244398 to Nicholas Loehr). [^2]: Third author supported in part by National Science Foundation grant DMS-1201312.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | We show that the full set of solutions to systems of equations and inequations in a hyperbolic group, with or without torsion, as shortlex geodesic words, is an EDT0L language whose specification can be computed in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(n^2\log n)$ for the torsion-free case and [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(n^4\log n)$ in the torsion case. Our work combines deep geometric results by Rips, Sela, [Dahmani and Guirardel]{} on decidability of existential theories of hyperbolic groups, work of computer scientists including Plandowski, Jeż, Diekert and others on [$\mathsf{PSPACE}$]{} algorithms to solve equations in free monoids and groups using compression, and an intricate language-theoretic analysis. The present work gives an essentially optimal formal language description for all solutions in all hyperbolic groups, and an explicit and surprising low space complexity to compute them. address: - 'School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland' - 'University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo NSW 2007, Australia' author: - Laura Ciobanu - Murray Elder bibliography: - 'CiobanuElderIcalp2019.bib' title: Solutions sets to systems of equations in hyperbolic groups are EDT0L in PSPACE --- Introduction ============ Hyperbolic groups were introduced by Gromov in 1987 [@Gromov], and play a significant role in group theory and geometry [@isomorphismDG; @definable; @SelaElem]. Virtually free groups, small cancellation groups, and the fundamental groups of extensive classes of negative curvature manifolds are important examples (see [@MSRInotes] for background). In a certain probabilistic sense made precise in [@GromovRandom; @OlS; @Sil], almost all finitely generated groups are hyperbolic. They admit very efficient solutions to the word and conjugacy problems [@EpHoltConj; @realtime; @HoltLS], and extremely nice language-theoretic properties, for example the set of all geodesics over any generating set is regular (see Lemma \[prop:reg-hyp\]), and forms a biautomatic structure [@WordProc]. They are exactly the groups which admit context-free multiplication tables [@GilmanHyp], and have a particularly simple characterisation in terms of rewriting systems [@Cannon; @Lys] (see Lemma \[lem:Dehn\]). In this paper we consider systems of equations and inequations in hyperbolic groups, building on and generalising work recently done in the area of solving equations over various groups and monoids in [$\mathsf{PSPACE}$]{}. Starting with work of Plandowski [@Plandowski], many prominent researchers have given [$\mathsf{PSPACE}$]{} algorithms [@CDE; @DEicalp; @dgh01; @DiekJezK; @MR3571087; @Jez2; @Jez1] to find (all) solutions to systems of equations over free monoids, free groups, partially commutative monoids and groups, and virtually free groups (that is, groups which have a free subgroup of finite index). The satisfiability of equations over torsion-free hyperbolic groups is decidable by the work of Rips and Sela [@RS95], who reduced the problem in hyperbolic groups to solving equations in free groups, and then calling on Makanin’s algorithm [@mak83a]. Kufleitner proved [$\mathsf{PSPACE}$]{} for decidability in the torsion-free case [@DIP-1922], without an explicit complexity bound, by following Rips-Sela and then using Plandowski’s result [@Plandowski]. [Dahmani and Guirardel]{} radically extended Rips and Sela’s work to all hyperbolic groups (with torsion), by reducing systems of equations to systems over virtually free groups, which they then reduced to systems of [*twisted*]{} equations over free monoids [@DG]. In terms of describing solution sets, Grigorchuck and Lysionok gave efficient algorithms for the special case of quadratic equations [@GLquadratic]. Here we combine Rips, Sela, [Dahmani and Guirardel]{}’s approach with recent work of the authors with Diekert [@CDE; @DEicalp; @DEarxiv] to obtain the following results. \[thmTorsionFree\] Let $G$ be a torsion-free hyperbolic group with finite symmetric generating set $S$. Let $\Phi$ be a system of equations and inequations of size $n$ (see Section \[sec:notationSolns\] for a precise definition of input size). Then the set of all solutions, as tuples of shortlex geodesic words over $S$, is EDT0L. Moreover there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$ algorithm which on input $\Phi$ prints a description for the EDT0L grammar. \[thmTorsion\] Let $G$ be a hyperbolic group with torsion, with finite symmetric generating set $S$. Let $\Phi$ be a system of equations and inequations of size $n$ (see Section \[sec:notationSolns\] for a precise definition of input size). Then the set of all solutions, as tuples of shortlex geodesic words over $S$, is EDT0L. Moreover there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^4\log n)$ algorithm which on input $\Phi$ prints a description for the EDT0L grammar. A corollary of Theorems 1 and 2 is that the existential theory for hyperbolic groups can be decided in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$ for torsion-free and ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^4\log n)$ for groups with torsion. Another consequence of our work is that we can decide in the same space complexity as above whether or not the solution set is empty, finite or infinite. EDT0L is a surprisingly low language complexity for this problem. EDT0L languages are playing an increasingly useful role in group theory, not only in describing solution sets to equations in groups [@CDE; @DEicalp; @DiekJezK], but more generally [@BEboundedLATA; @BCEZ; @CEF]. The paper is organised as follows. We briefly set up some notation for solution sets and input size in Section \[sec:notationSolns\]. We then give an informal description of the entire argument for the torsion-free case in Section \[sec:overview\]. This overview uses various concepts which are defined more carefully afterwards, but we hope that having the entire argument in one place is useful for the reader to understand the ‘big picture’ before descending into the details. Section \[sec:EDT0L\] develops necessary material on EDT0L and space complexity. Section \[sec:hyp-intro\] covers the necessary background on hyperbolic groups, including the key step to obtain a full solution set (as tuples of shortlex geodesics) from a [*covering solution set*]{} (see Definition \[solutiondef\](iii)). In Section \[sec:torsionfree\] we use Rips and Sela’s *canonical representatives* (see Appendix \[sec:torsionfree\]) in torsion-free hyperbolic groups, to reduce the problem of finding solutions in a torsion-free hyperbolic group to finding solutions in the free group on the same generators as the hyperbolic one. We show that if the input system has size $n$ then the resulting system in the free group has size $O(n^2)$. Applying [@CDE] produces a covering solution set in $O(n^2\log n)$ nondeterministic space, from which we obtain the full set of solutions as shortlex geodesics in the original group, as an EDT0L language, in the same space complexity. In Section \[sec:torsion\] we prove the general case for hyperbolic groups with torsion, following [Dahmani and Guirardel]{} who construct canonical representatives in a graph containing the Cayley graph of the hyperbolic group, and working in an associated virtually-free group. Notations for equations and solution sets {#sec:notationSolns} ========================================= Let $G$ be a fixed group with finite symmetric generating set $S$. Let $\pi\colon S^*\to G$ be the natural projection map. Let $\{X_1, \dots, X_{m}\}$, $m{\geqslant}1$, be a set of variables to which we adjoin their formal inverses $X_i^{-1}$ and denote by $\mathcal X$ the union $\{X_i, X_i^{-1} \mid 1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}m\}$. Let $\mathcal{C}=\{a_1, \dots, a_k\} \subseteq G$ be a set of constants and $$\label{system} \Phi=\{\varphi_j(\mathcal X, \mathcal{C})=1\}_{j=1}^h \cup \{\varphi_j(\mathcal X, \mathcal{C})\neq1\}_{j=h+1}^s$$ be a set of $s$ equations and inequations in $G$, where the length of each (in)equation is $l_i$. Then the total length of the equations is $n=\sum_{i=1}^s l_i$, and we take $|\Phi|=n$ as the input size in the remainder of the paper. A tuple $(g_1,\dots, g_m)\in G^m$ *solves* an equation \[resp. inequation\] $\varphi_j$ in $\Phi$ if replacing each variable $X_i$ by $g_i$ (and $X_{i}^{-1}$ by $g_i^{-1}$) produces an identity \[resp. inequality\] in the group as follows: $$\varphi_j(g_1, \dots, g_m, a_1, \dots, a_k)=1 \ [\text{resp. }\varphi_j(g_1, \dots, g_m, a_1, \dots, a_k)\neq1] .$$ A tuple $(g_1,\dots, g_m)\in G^m$ solves $\Phi$ if it simultaneously solves $\varphi_j$ for all $1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}s$. \[solutiondef\] - The [*group element solution set*]{} to $\Phi$ is the set $$\text{Sol}_G(\Phi)=\{(g_1,\dots, g_m) \in G^m \mid (g_1,\dots, g_m) \text{ solves } \Phi\}.$$ - Let $T\subseteq S^*$ and $\#$ a symbol not in $S$. The [*full set of $T$-solutions*]{} is the set $$\text{Sol}_{T,G}(\Phi)=\{w_1\#\dots\# w_m \mid w_i \in T, (\pi(w_1),\dots, \pi(w_m) ) \text{ solves } \Phi\}.$$ - A set $L\subseteq\{w_1\#\dots\# w_m \mid w_i \in S^*, 1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}m\}$ is a [*covering solution set*]{} to $\Phi$ if $$\{(\pi(w_1),\dots, \pi(w_k))\mid w_1\#\dots\# w_m \in L \}=\text{Sol}_G(\Phi).$$ Overview of the proof {#sec:overview} ===================== In a free group, the equation $xy=z$ has a solution in reduced words (that is, words which do not contain factors $aa^{-1}$ for any $a\in S$) if and only if there exist words $P,Q,R$ with $x=PQ, y=Q^{-1}R, z=PR$ in the free monoid with involution over $S$ ([@CDE Lemma 4.1]). In a hyperbolic group this direct reduction to cancellation-free equations is no longer true: a triangle $xy=z$ where $x,y,z$ are replaced by geodesics looks as in Figure \[subfig:geod\]. [0.45]{} ![Solutions to $xy=z$ in the Cayley graph of a hyperbolic group.[]{data-label="fig:triangle"}](hyptriangleCROP "fig:"){height="1.2in"}   [0.45]{} ![Solutions to $xy=z$ in the Cayley graph of a hyperbolic group.[]{data-label="fig:triangle"}](canLABEL2 "fig:"){height="1.2in"} Rips and Sela [@RS95] proved that in a torsion-free hyperbolic group one can define certain special words called [*canonical representatives*]{} so that a system of equations of the form $X_jY_j=Z_j, 1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}O(n)$ has solutions which are canonical representatives with the properties that their prefixes and suffixes coincide, as shown in Figure \[subfig:can\], and the inner circle is the concatenation of three words with lengths in $O(n)$. Moreover, these canonical representatives are $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesics (Definition \[defn:qg\]) where the constants $\lambda, \mu$ depend only on the group. We use these facts to devise the following algorithm, presented here for the torsion-free case. We treat the hyperbolic group $G$ with finite generating set $S$ as a constant. On input a system of equations and inequations as in (\[system\]) of size $n$: 1. Replace inequations by equations (by using a new variable and requiring that this variable is not trivial in the group, as explained in Section 6.3). 2. Triangulate the system, so that all equations have the form $X_jY_j=Z_j$. The size of the resulting system is still in $O(n)$. Suppose there are $q\in O(n)$ such equations. 3. Enumerate, one at a time, all possible tuples $\mathbf c=(c_{11},c_{12},c_{13},\dots, c_{q1},c_{q2},c_{q3})$ of words (say, in lex order) so that the length $\ell(c_{ji})$ with respect to $S$ is bounded by a constant in $O(n)$. Note that the size of each tuple (the sum of the lengths of the $c_{ij}$) is in $O(n^2)$. 4. For each tuple $\mathbf c$, run Dehn’s algorithm to check $c_{j1}c_{j2}c_{j3}=_G1$ for $1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}q$. If this holds for all $j$, write down a system of $3q$ equations $$X_j=P_jc_{j1}Q_j, Y_j=Q_j^{-1}c_{j2}R_j, Z_j=P_jc_{j3}R_j.$$ Note that the resulting system, $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$, has size in $O(n^2)$. 5. We now call the algorithm of the authors and Diekert [@CDE] to find all solutions to $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ in the free group generated by $S$. This algorithm, on input of size $O(n^2)$, runs in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$, and prints a description of the EDT0L grammar which generates all tuples of solutions as reduced words in $S^*$. Specifically it prints nodes and edges of a trim NFA which is the rational control for the EDT0L grammar (see Definition \[def:et0lasfeld\] below). Modify the algorithm so that the nodes printed include the label $\mathbf c$ which has length $O(n^2)$ (so does not affect the complexity). 6. Delete the current system stored, and move to the next tuple $\mathbf c$. 7. At the end, print out a new start node and $\epsilon$ edges to the start node of the NFA for the system $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ for all $\mathbf c$ already printed. The NFA that is printed gives an EDT0L grammar that generates a language of tuples which is a covering solution to the original system in the hyperbolic group. To obtain the full set of solutions as shortlex geodesic words we need to perform further steps. Using the facts that canonical representatives are $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesics, and - the full set of $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesics, $Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}$ - the set of all pairs $\{(u,v)\in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}\mid u=_G v\}$ - the set of all shortlex geodesics in $G$ are all regular, we can obtain from the covering solution an ET0L language, in the same space complexity (by Proposition \[prop:closureET0L\] below), which represents the full set of solutions in shortlex geodesic words. Then finally, because of the special form of our solutions, we can apply a version of the [*Copying Lemma*]{} of Ehrenfeucht and Rozenberg [@EhrenRozenCopyingEDT0L] to show that in fact the resulting language of shortlex representatives is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$. Details for handling the case of hyperbolic groups with torsion also follows this general scheme, however finding the analogue of canonical representatives is harder in this case, so further work is required, and we describe this in Section \[sec:torsion\]. E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{PSPACE}$]{} {#sec:EDT0L} ================================ ET0L and EDT0L languages ------------------------ Let $C$ be an alphabet. A *table* for $C$ is a finite subset of $C\times C^*$. If $(c,v)$ is in some table $t$, we say that $(c,v)$ is a *rule* for $c$. A table $t$ is [*deterministic*]{} if for each $c\in C$ there is exactly one $v\in C^*$ with $(c,v)\in t$. If $t$ is a table and $u\in C^*$ then we write $u\longrightarrow^t v$ to mean that $v$ is obtained by applying rules from $t$ to each letter of $u$. That is, $u=a_1\dots a_n$, $a_i\in C$, $v=v_1\dots v_n$, $v_i\in C^*$, and $(a_i,v_i)\in t$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}n$. If $H$ is a set of tables and $r\in H^*$ then we write $u\longrightarrow^{r} v$ to mean that there is a sequence of words $u=v_0,v_1,\dots, v_n=v\in C^*$ such that $v_{i-1}\longrightarrow^{t_i} v_i$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}n$ where $r=t_1\dots t_n$. If $R\subseteq H^*$ we write $u\longrightarrow^{R} v$ if $u\longrightarrow^{r} v$ for some $r\in R$. \[def:et0lasfeld\] Let $\Sigma$ be an alphabet. We say that $L\subseteq \Sigma^*$ is an [*ET0L*]{} language if there is an alphabet $C$ with $\Sigma\subseteq C$, a finite set $H\subset \mathscr P(C\times C^*)$ of tables, a regular language $R \subseteq H^*$ and a letter $c_0\in C$ such that $$L = \{ w \in \Sigma^* \mid c_0 \longrightarrow^R w\}.$$ In the case when every table $h \in R$ is deterministic, i.e. each $h \in R$ is in fact a homomorphism, we write $ L = \{ r(c_0) \in \Sigma^* \mid r\in R \}$ and say that $L$ is [*EDT0L*]{}. The set ${R}$ is called the [*rational control*]{}, the symbol $c_0$ the *start symbol* and $C$ the [*extended alphabet*]{}. Space complexity for E(D)T0L ---------------------------- Let $f\colon {\mathbb N}\to{\mathbb N}$ be a function. Recall an algorithm is said to run in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$ if it can be performed by a non-deterministic Turing machine with a read-only input tape, a write-only output tape, and a read-write work tape, with the work tape restricted to using $O(f(n))$ squares on input of size $n$. We use the notation $L(\mathcal A)$ to denote the language accepted by the automaton $\mathcal A$. The following definition formalises the idea of producing some E(D)T0L language (such as the solution set of some system of equations) in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$, where the language is the output of a computation with input (such as a system of equations) of size $n$. Let $\Sigma$ be a (fixed) alphabet and $f\colon {\mathbb N}\to{\mathbb N}$ a function. If there is an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$ algorithm that on input $\Omega$ of size $n$ outputs the specification of an ET0L language $L_{\Omega}\subseteq \Sigma^*$, then we say that $L_{\Omega}$ is [*ET0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$*]{}. Here the specification of $L_{\Omega}$ consists of: - an extended alphabet $C\supseteq \Sigma$, - a start symbol $c_0\in C$, - a finite list of nodes of a (trim) NFA $\mathcal A$, labeled by some data, some possibly marked as initial and/or final, - a finite list $\{(u,v,h)\}$ of edges of $\mathcal A$ where $u,v$ are nodes and $h\in \mathscr P(C\times C^*)$ is a table such that $L_{\Omega}=\{w\in \Sigma^*\mid c_0\to^{L(\mathcal A)} w\}$. A language $L_{\Omega}$ is [*EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$*]{} if, in addition, every table $h$ labelling an edge of $\mathcal A$ is deterministic. Note that the entire print-out is not required to be in $O(f(n))$ space. Previous results of the authors with Diekert can now be restated as follows. The set of all solutions to a system of size $n$ of equations (with rational constraints), as reduced words, in a free group is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n\log n)$. The set of all solutions to a system of size $n$ of equations (with rational constraints), as words in a particular quasigeodesic normal form over a certain finite generating set, in a virtually free group is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$. In our applications below we have $\Omega$ representing some system of equations and inequations, with $|\Omega|=n$, and we construct algorithms where the extended alphabet $C$ has size $|C|\in O(n)$ in the torsion-free case and $|C|\in O(n^2)$ in the torsion case. This means we can write down the entire alphabet $C$ as binary strings within our space bounds. Moreover, each element $(c,v)$ of any table we construct has $v$ of (fixed) bounded length, so we can write down entire tables within our space bounds. Closure properties ------------------ It is well known [@LsysHandbook Theorem 2.8] that ET0L is a full AFL (closed under homomorphism, inverse homomorphism, finite union, intersection with regular languages). Here we show the space complexity of an ET0L language is not affected by these operations. \[prop:closureET0L\] Let $\Sigma, \Gamma$ be finite alphabets of fixed size, $M$ an NFA of constant size with $L(M) \subseteq \Sigma^*$, and $\varphi\colon \Gamma^*\to \Sigma^*$, $\psi\colon \Sigma^*\to \Gamma^*$ homomorphisms. If $L_{\Omega_1}, L_{\Omega_2}\subseteq \Sigma^*$ are E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$ (on inputs $\Omega_1, \Omega_2$, respectively, with $|\Omega_1|, |\Omega_2|\in O(n)$) then - (homomorphism) $\psi(L_{\Omega_1})$ is E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$, - (intersection with regular) $L_{\Omega_1}\cap L(M)$ is E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$, - (union) $L_{\Omega_1}\cup L_{\Omega_2}$ is E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$, - (inverse homomorphism) $\varphi^{-1}(L_{\Omega_1})$ is ET0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$. The proof is straightforward keeping track of complexity in the standard proofs [@AsveldChar; @Culik]. Note EDT0L is not closed under inverse homomorphism [@EhrenRozenInverseHomomEDT0L]. \[prop:projection\] If $L_{\Omega} \subseteq \Sigma^*$ is E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$ on an input $\Omega$ of size $n$, and for some fixed integer $s$ all words in $L_{\Omega}$ have the form $u_1\#\dots \#u_s$ with $u_i\in\left(\Sigma\setminus \{\#\}\right)^*$, and $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}s$, then $$L=\{u_i\#\dots\#u_j\mid u_1\#\dots \#u_i\#\dots\#u_j\#\dots \#u_s\in L_{\Omega}\}$$ is E(D)T0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$. From ET0L to EDT0L ------------------ In computing the full solution set to equations as shortlex geodesic words, we will need to take inverse homomorphism. Even though in general the image under an inverse homomorphism of an EDT0L language is just ET0L, because of the special structure of solution sets we can apply the [*Copying Lemma*]{} of Ehrenfeucht and Rozenberg [@EhrenRozenCopyingEDT0L] to show the following. \[prop:copyME\] Let $S$ be an alphabet and $h:S\to S'$ be a homomorphism of from $S$ to a disjoint alphabet $S'=\{s'\mid s\in S\}$ defined by $h(s)=s'$. Let ${\wr}$ be a symbol not in $S\cup S'$ and define $h({\wr})={\wr}$. Let $L_1$ be a set of words of the form $w{\wr}h(w)$ where $w\in S^*$. If $L_1$ is ET0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$, then $L_2=\{w\mid w{\wr}h(w)\in L_1\}$ is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$. By [@EhrenRozenCopyingEDT0L], any nondeterministic table in the grammar for $L_1$ can be replaced by a finite number of deterministic tables (essentially, if nondeterminism allowed some letter $c\in C$ to produce two different results, then some word in $L_1$ would not have the form $w{\wr}h(w)$). So without loss of generality we can replace a table $f$ containing $(c,v_1),\dots, (c,v_k)$ by $k$ tables $f_i$ containing $(c,v_i)$ only). This modification is clearly in the same space bound. Project onto the prefix using Proposition \[prop:projection\]. Hyperbolic groups {#sec:hyp-intro} ================= Definitions ----------- Recall the [*Cayley graph*]{} for a group $G$ with respect to a finite symmetric generating set $S$ is a directed graph $\Gamma(G,S)$ with vertices labeled by $g\in G$ and a directed edge $(g,h)$ labeled by $s\in S$ whenever $h=_Ggs$. Let $\ell(p)$, $i(p)$ and $f(p)$ resp. be the length, initial and terminal vertices of a path $p$ in the Cayley graph. A path $p$ is [*geodesic*]{} if $\ell(p)$ is minimal among the lengths of all paths $q$ with the same endpoints. If $x,y$ are two points in $\Gamma(G,S)$, we define $d(x,y)$ to be the length of a shortest path from $x$ to $y$ in $\Gamma(G,S)$. Let $G$ be a group with finite symmetric generating set $S$, and let $\delta{\geqslant}0$ be a fixed real number. If $p,q,r$ are geodesic paths in $\Gamma(G,S)$ with $f(p)=i(q),f(q)=i(r),f(r)=i(p)$, we call $[p,q,r]$ a [*geodesic triangle*]{}. A geodesic triangle is [*$\delta$-slim*]{} if $p$ is contained in a $\delta$-neighbourhood of $q\cup r$, that is, every point on one side of the triangle is within $\delta$ of some point on one of the other sides. (See for example Figure \[subfig:geod\].) We say $(G,S)$ is [*$\delta$-hyperbolic*]{} if every geodesic triangle in $\Gamma(G,S)$ is $\delta$-slim. We say $(G,S)$ is [*hyperbolic*]{} if it is $\delta$-hyperbolic for some $\delta{\geqslant}0$. It is a straightforward to show that being hyperbolic is independent of choice of finite generating set. Thus we say $G$ is hyperbolic if $(G,S)$ is for some finite generating set $S$. \[lem:Dehn\] $G$ is hyperbolic if and only if there is a finite list of pairs of words $(u_i,v_i)\in S^*\times S^*$ with $|u_i|>|v_i|$ and $u_i=_G v_i$ such that the following holds: if $w\in S^*$ is equal to the identity of $G$ then it contains some $u_i$ as a factor. This gives an algorithm to decide whether or not a word $w\in S^*$ is equal to the identity: while $\ell(w)>0$, look for some $u_i$ factor. If there is none, then $w\neq_G 1$. Else replace $u_i$ by $v_i$ (which is shorter). This procedure is called [*Dehn’s algorithm*]{}. Dehn’s algorithm runs in (linear time and) linear space. \[defn:qg\] For $\lambda {\geqslant}1, \mu{\geqslant}0$ real numbers, a path $p$ in $\Gamma(G,S)$ is a $(\lambda, \mu)$-[*quasigeodesic*]{} if for any subpath $q$ of $p$ we have $\ell(q){\leqslant}\lambda d(i(q),f(q))+\mu$. Throughout this article, we assume $G$ is a fixed hyperbolic group which we treat as a constant for complexity purposes. We assume we are given $(G,S)$, the constant $\delta$, the finite list of pairs for Dehn’s algorithm, and any other constants depending only on the group, for example the constants $\lambda,\mu$ in Prop. \[canrep\_qg\] below. Languages in hyperbolic groups ------------------------------ \[prop:reg-hyp\] Let $G$ be a fixed hyperbolic group with finite generating set $S$, $\lambda{\geqslant}1, \mu{\geqslant}0$ constants with $\lambda\in\mathbb Q$ and $\mu$ sufficiently large. Then the following sets are regular languages. 1. The set of all geodesics over $S$. 2. The set of all shortlex geodesics over $S$. 3. The set of all $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesics, $Q_{S,\lambda, \mu}\subseteq S^*$. Furthermore, the set of all pairs of words $(u,v)\in Q_{S,\lambda, \mu}^2$ such that $u=_Gv$ is accepted by an asynchronous 2-tape automaton. See [@WordProc; @HoltRees]. Main reduction result --------------------- Here is our key technical result. \[prop:shortlex-hyp\] Let $G$ be a hyperbolic group with finite symmetric generating set $S$. Let $h:S\to S'$ and $Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}$ be as defined above, $\#,{\wr}$ symbols not in $S\cup S'$, $h(\#)=\#,h({\wr})={\wr}$, and $\mathcal T\subseteq Q_{S,\lambda, \mu}$ a regular set of quasigeodesic words in bijection with $G$. Suppose $L_1\subseteq (S\cup S'\cup \{\#,{\wr}\})^*$ consists of words of the form $$u_1\#\dots\#u_r{\wr}h(v_1)\#\dots \#h(v_r), \ u_i,v_i\in Q_{S,\lambda, \mu}, u_i=_Gv_i, 1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}r.$$ If $L_1$ is ET0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$, then 1. $L_{Q}=\{w_1\#\dots \#w_r{\wr}h(z_1)\#\dots \#h(z_r)\mid \exists u_1\#\dots\#u_r{\wr}h(v_1)\#\dots \#h(v_r) \in L_1, w_i=_Gz_i=_Gu_i, w_i,z_i\in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu} \}$ is ET0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$. 2. $L_{\mathcal T}=\{w_1\#\dots \#w_r\mid \exists u_1\#\dots\#u_r{\wr}h(v_1)\#\dots \#h(v_r) \in L_1, w_i=_Gu_i, w_i\in \mathcal T\}$ is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(f(n))$. The proof involves a series of operations as in Proposition \[prop:closureET0L\]–\[prop:copyME\]. Note that the set of all shortlex geodesics is a suitable choice for $\mathcal T$ in the proposition. Reduction from torsion-free hyperbolic to free groups {#sec:torsionfree} ===================================================== Section \[sec:overview\] contains an overview of the general algorithm for solving equations in torsion-free hyperbolic groups. Here we provide further details, and give a proof of the soundness and completeness of our algorithm. The algorithm relies on the existence and special properties of canonical representatives, whose construction is very technical (see Appendix \[appendix:torsionfree\]). Their existence guarantees that the solutions of any equation in a torsion-free hyperbolic group can be found by solving an associated system in the free group on $S$, while the fact that they are quasigeodesics (see \[canrep\_qg\]) allows us to apply the results of the previous sections to obtain the EDT0L characterisation of solutions in shortlex normal form. \[prop:MAIN-torsionfree\] Let $G$ be a torsion-free hyperbolic group, with finite symmetric generating set $S$. Let $ \Phi$ be a system of equations and inequations of input size $n$ as in Section \[sec:notationSolns\]. Let $h:S\to S',\#,{\wr}$ be as in Proposition \[prop:shortlex-hyp\]. Then there exist $\lambda{\geqslant}1, \mu{\geqslant}0 $ and $$L=\{w_1\#\dots\# w_m{\wr}h(w_1) \#\dots \# h(w_m) \mid w_i \in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}, 1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}m\}$$ such that $\{w\mid w {\wr}h(w)\in L\}$ is a covering solution for $\Phi$, and $L$ is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$. Applying Proposition \[prop:shortlex-hyp\] immediately gives Theorem \[thmTorsionFree\]. We produce a language $L$ of quasigeodesic words over $S$ such that the projection of any tuple in $L$ is in the group element solution set $\text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$ (soundness). We then prove (using [@RS95 Corollary 4.4]) that any solution in $\text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$ is the projection of some tuple in $L$ (completeness). Our proof follows the outline presented in Section \[sec:overview\]. #### 1. Preprocessing {#preprocessing .unnumbered} - (Remove inequations) We first transform $\Phi$ into a system consisting entirely of equations by adding a variable $x_D$ to $\mathcal{X}$ and replacing any inequation $\varphi_j(\mathcal X, \mathcal{A})\neq1$ by $\varphi_j(\mathcal X, \mathcal{A}) = x_D$, with the constraint $x_D\neq_G 1$. - (Triangulation) We transform each equation into several equations of length $3$, by introducing new variables. This can always be done (see the discussion in [@CDE Section 4]), and it produces approximately $\sum_{i=1}^s l_i\in O(n)$ triangular equations with set of variables $\mathcal{Z}$ where $m {\leqslant}|\mathcal Z|\in O(n)$ and $\mathcal X \subset \mathcal{Z}$. From now on assume that the system $\Phi$ consists of $q\in O(n)$ equations of the form $X_jY_j=Z_j$ where $1{\leqslant}j {\leqslant}q$. #### 2. Lifting $\Phi$ to the free group on $S$ {#lifting-phi-to-the-free-group-on-s .unnumbered} In [@RS95 Theorem 4.2] Rips and Sela define a constant, which they call $`bp'$, that roughly bounds the circumference of the ‘centres’ of the triangles whose edges are canonical representatives. We denote here $bp$ by $\rho$, and note that $\rho\in O(q)= O(n)$ depends on $\delta$ and linearly on $q$. As described in Section \[sec:overview\] we run in lex order through all possible tuples of words $\mathbf c=(c_{11},c_{12},c_{13},\dots, c_{q1},c_{q2},c_{q3})$ with $c_{ji}\in S^*,\ell(c_{ji}){\leqslant}\rho\in O(n)$. For each tuple $\mathbf c$ we use Dehn’s algorithm to check $c_{j1}c_{j2}c_{j3}=_G1$, and if this holds for all $1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}q$ we then construct a system $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ of equations of the form $$\label{csystem} X_j=P_jc_{j1}Q_j, \ Y_j=Q_j^{-1}c_{j2}R_j, \ Z_j=P_jc_{j3}R_j, \ \ 1{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}q,$$ which has size $O(n^2)$. In order to avoid an exponential size complexity we write down each system $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ one at a time, so the space required for this step is $O(n^2)$. Let $\mathcal{Y}\supset\mathcal{Z}\supset \mathcal X$ be the new set of variables. #### 3. Some observations {#some-observations .unnumbered} We pause to make the following observations. Any solution to $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ in the free group $F(S)$ is guaranteed to be a solution to $\Phi$ in the original hyperbolic group $G$. Thus if $S_1\subseteq F(S)^m$ is a group element solution to $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ then $\pi(S_1)$ is a group element solution to $\Phi$ in $G$. This will show soundness below. Secondly, if $(g_1,\dots, g_m)\in G^m$ is a solution to $\Phi$ in the original hyperbolic group, [@RS95 Theorem 4.2 and Corollary 4.4] (see Theorem 31 in Appendix \[appendix:torsionfree\]) guarantees that there exist canonical representatives $w_i\in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}$ with $w_i=_Gg_i$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}m$, which have reduced forms $u_i=_Gw_i$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}m$, and our construction is guaranteed to capture any such collection of words. This will show completeness below. Thirdly, note that the constraint that a word $w\in S^*$ must be a $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesic and satisfy $w=_G1$ implies that $\ell(w){\leqslant}\mu$. Therefore we can construct a DFA $\mathcal D$ which accepts all words in $S^*$ equal to $1$ in the hyperbolic group $G$ of length at most $\mu$ in constant space (using for example Dehn’s algorithm). In our next step, we will use this rational constraint to handle the variable $x_D$ added in the first step above (to remove inequalities). Now let us complete the construction by finding the covering solution required. #### 4. Covering solution set {#covering-solution-set .unnumbered} We now run the algorithm from [@CDE] (which we will refer to as the CDE algorithm) which takes input $\Phi_\mathbf{c}$, which has size in $O(n^2)$, plus the rational constraint $x_D\not\in L(\mathcal D)$, plus for each $y\in \mathcal Y$ the rational constraint that the solution for $y$ is a word in $Q_{S,\lambda, \mu}$. Since these constraints have constant size (depending only on the group $G$, not the system $\Phi$), they do not contribute to the $O(n^2)$ size of the input to the CDE algorithm. We make two modifications to the details of the CDE algorithm. First, every node printed by the algorithm should include the additional label $\mathbf c$. (This ensures the NFA we print for each system $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ is distinct.) This does not affect the complexity since $\mathbf c$ has size in $O(n^2)$. Second, so that we can apply Proposition \[prop:copyME\] later, we modify the form of ‘extended equations’ in [@CDE] by inserting the factor ${\wr}h(W)$ in the appropriate position(s). This simply increases the size of the nodes by a factor (of two). We run the CDE algorithm to print an NFA (possibly empty) for each $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$, which is the rational control for an EDT0L grammar that produces all solutions as freely reduced words for elements of $F(S)$ which correspond to solutions as $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesics to the same system $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ in the hyperbolic group. If $(w_1,\dots, w_m)$ is a solution in canonical representatives to $\Phi$ then $(u_1,\dots, u_m,\dots u_{|\mathcal Y|})$ will be included in the solution to $ \Phi_{\mathbf c}$ output by the CDE algorithm, with $u_i$ the reduced forms of $w_i$ for $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}m$. This shows completeness once we union the grammars from all systems $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ together. Adding a new start node with edges to each of the start nodes of the NFA’s with label $\mathbf c$, we obtain a rational control for the EDT0L grammar generating $L$ as required. The space required is exactly that required by the CDE algorithm on input $O(n^2)$, which is ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^2\log n)$. Reduction from hyperbolic with torsion to virtually free groups {#sec:torsion} =============================================================== In the case of a hyperbolic group $G$ with torsion, the general approach of Rips and Sela can still be applied, but the existence of canonical representatives is not always guaranteed (see Delzant [@Delzant Rem.III.1]). To get around this, Dahmani and Guirardel ‘fatten’ the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,S)$ of $G$ to a larger graph $\mathcal K$ which contains $\Gamma(G,S)$ (in fact $\Gamma(G,S)$ with midpoints of edges included), and solve equations in $G$ by considering equalities of paths in $\mathcal{K}$. More precisely, $\mathcal{K}$ is the $1$-skeleton of the barycentric subdivision of a Rips complex of $G$ (see Appendix \[appendix:torsion\] for definitions). \[Kpaths\] Let $\gamma, \gamma'$ be paths in $\mathcal{K}$. - We denote by $i(\gamma)$ the initial vertex of $\gamma$, by $f(\gamma)$ the final vertex of $\gamma$, and by $\overline{\gamma}$ the reverse of $\gamma$ starting at $f(\gamma)$ and ending at $i(\gamma)$. - We say that $\gamma$ is *reduced* if it contains no backtracking, that is, no subpath of length $2$ of the form $e \overline{e}$. - We write $\gamma \gamma'$ for the concatenation of $\gamma$, $\gamma'$ if $i(\gamma')=f(\gamma)$. - Two paths in $\mathcal{K}$ are *homotopic* if one can obtain a path from the other by adding or deleting backtracking subpaths. Each homotopy class has a unique reduced representative. Let $V$ be the set of all homotopy classes $[\gamma]$ of paths $\gamma$ in $\mathcal{K}$ with $i(\gamma)=1_G$, and $f(\gamma)\in G$. For $[\gamma]$, $[\gamma'] \in V$ define their product $[\gamma][\gamma']=[\gamma^v\gamma']$, where $\gamma ^v\gamma'$ denotes the concatenation of $\gamma$ and the translate $^v\gamma'$ of $\gamma'$ by $v=f(\gamma)$, and let $[\gamma]^{-1}$ be the homotopy class of $^{v^{-1}}\overline{\gamma}$. Then $V$ is a group that projects onto $G$ by the final vertex map $f$, that is, $f:V \twoheadrightarrow G$ is a surjective homomorphism. Moreover, since $G$ has an action on $\mathcal{K}$ induced by the natural action on its Rips complex, $V$ will act on $\mathcal{K}$ as well. This gives rise to an action of $V$ onto the universal cover $T$ (which is a tree) of $\mathcal{K}$, and [@DG Lemma 9.9] shows that the quotient $T/V$ is a finite graph (isomorphic to $\mathcal{K}/G$) of finite groups, and so $V$ is virtually free. We assume that the algorithmic construction (see [@DG Lemma 9.9]) of a presentation for $V$ is part of the preprocessing of the algorithm, will be treated as a constant, and will not be included in the complexity discussion. The first step in solving a system $\Phi$ of equations in $G$ is to translate $\Phi$ into identities between quasigeodesic paths (with start and end point in $G$) in $\mathcal{K}$, defined as $\mathcal{Q}\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_1, \mu_1}(V)$ in Equation (\[qgK\]) paths which can be seen as the analogues of the canonical representatives from the torsion-free case. This can be done by Proposition 9.8 [@DG]. (see Proposition \[prop:K\]). The second step in solving $\Phi$ is to express the equalities of quasigeodesic paths in $\mathcal{K}$ in terms of equations in the virtually free group $V$ based on $\mathcal{K}$. Finally, Proposition 9.10 [@DG] shows it is sufficient to solve the systems of equations in $V$ in order to obtain the solutions of the system $\Phi$ in $G$. In the virtually free group $V$ we will use the results from [@DEarxiv]. Let $Y$ be the generating set of $V$ and $T\subseteq Y^*$ the set of normal forms for $V$ over $Y$ as in [@DEarxiv Remark 44, page 50], and let $$\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi)=\{w_1\#\dots\# w_m )\in T^n\mid (\pi(w_1),\dots,\pi(w_m) )\text{ solves } \Psi \text{ in } V\}$$ be the language of $T$-solutions in $V$ of a system $\Psi$ of size $|\Psi|=O(k)$; by [@DEarxiv] the language $\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi)$ consists of ($\lambda_Y, \mu_Y$)-quasigeodesics and is EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(k^2\log k)$ over $Y$. \[prop:MAIN-torsion\] Let $G$ be a hyperbolic group with torsion, with finite symmetric generating set $S$. Let $ \Phi$ be a system of equations and inequations with $|\Phi|=n$ as in Section \[sec:notationSolns\]. Let $h:S\to S',\#,{\wr}$ be as in Proposition \[prop:shortlex-hyp\]. Then there exist $\lambda{\geqslant}1, \mu{\geqslant}0 $ and $$L=\{w_1\#\dots\# w_m{\wr}h(v_1) \#\dots \# h(v_m) \mid w_i, v_i\in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}, w_i=_Gv_i, 1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}m\}$$ such that $\{w\mid w{\wr}h(v)\in L\}$ is a covering solution for $\Phi$, and $L$ is ET0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^4\log n)$. Again applying Proposition \[prop:shortlex-hyp\] immediately gives Theorem \[thmTorsion\]. Before proving Proposition \[prop:MAIN-torsion\] we need to show how one can translate between elements and words in $V$ over the generating set $Y$, and elements and words in $G$ over $S$ via the graph $\mathcal{K}$, so that the EDT0L characterisation of languages is preserved. \[notationZ\] Let $Z$ be some generating set of $V$ and let $\pi\colon Z^* \to V$ be the standard projection map from words to group elements in $V$. 1. For each $z_i \in Z$ there exists a unique reduced path $p_i$ in $\mathcal{K}$ with $i(p_i)=1_G$ and $f(p_i) \in G$; by concatenation for each word $w=z_{i_1} \dots z_{i_k}$ over $Z$ there is then a unique path denoted $$\label{unreduced} p_w=p_{i_1} \dots p_{i_k}$$ with $i(p_w)=1_{\mathcal{K}}=1_G$ and $f(p_w) \in G$. 2. For each $z_i\in Z$, assign a geodesic path $\gamma_i$ in the Cayley graph $\Gamma(G,S)$ such that $i(\gamma_i)=1_G$ and $f(\gamma_i)=f(p_i) \in G$, where $p_i$ as in (i). Let $\sigma\colon Z^* \to S^*$ be the map/substitution given by $\sigma(z_i)=\gamma_i$; by concatenation one can associate to each word $w=z_{i_1} \dots z_{i_k}$ over $Z$ a path in $\Gamma(G,S)$ denoted $$\label{Gpath} \gamma_w=\gamma_{i_1} \dots \gamma_{i_k}=\sigma(w)$$ with $i(p_w)=1_G$ and $f(\gamma_w)=f(w) \in G$. 3. There exists a unique reduced path, denoted $p_{\pi(w)}$, which is homotopic to $p_w$. [Proof of Proposition \[prop:MAIN-torsion\]]{} The algorithm to produce the language of solutions for $\Phi$ is similar to that outlined in Section \[sec:overview\] and detailed in the proof of Proposition \[prop:MAIN-torsionfree\], but it applies to different groups. The triangulation of $\Phi$ and introduction of a variable with rational constraint to deal with the inequations proceeds in the same manner. Again, we suppose after preprocessing we have $q\in O(n)$ triangular equations. Then for $\kappa\in O(n)$ as in Proposition \[prop:V\]. define $V_{{\leqslant}\kappa}=\{[\gamma] \in V\mid \gamma \textrm{\ reduced\ and\ } \ell_{\mathcal{K}}(\gamma){\leqslant}\kappa \}.$ One lifts the system $\Phi$ in $G$ to a finite set of systems $\Psi_{\mathbf c}$ in the virtually free group $V$, one system for each $q$-tuple $\mathbf{c}$ of triples $(c_1, c_2, c_3)$ with $c_i \in V_{{\leqslant}\kappa}$ and such that $f(c_1c_2c_3)=1_G$, as in Proposition \[prop:V\]. We enumerate these tuples by enumerating triples of words $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ over the generating set $Y$ of $V$ with $\ell_Y(v_i){\leqslant}\kappa_Y$, where $\kappa_Y\in O(q)$ is a constant depending on $\kappa$, as in Lemma \[kappaV\](ii). By Lemma \[kappaV\](ii) the tuples of path triples $(p_{v_1},p_{v_2},p_{v_3})$ (see (\[unreduced\])) in $\mathcal{K}$ contain all $q$-tuples of triples $(c_1, c_2, c_3)$ with $c_i \in V_{{\leqslant}\kappa_{Y}}$, up to homotopy. Then for each triple $(v_1,v_2,v_3)$ we check whether $f(v_1v_2v_3)=1_G$, and this is done by checking whether $\sigma(v_1)\sigma(v_2)\sigma(v_3)=_G 1$ using the Dehn algorithm in $G$. Then each system $\Psi_{\mathbf{c}}$ is obtained as in (\[csystem\]) in the proof of Proposition \[prop:MAIN-torsionfree\] and has input size $O(q^2)\in O(n^2)$ since it has $O(q)$ equations, each of length in $O(q)$, and the factors $c_{i}$ inserted also have length in $O(q)$. For each system $\Psi_{\mathbf{c}}$ over $V$ we apply the algorithm in [@DEarxiv] and obtain the set of solutions $\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi_{\mathbf{c}})$ as an EDT0L in ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}((q^2)^2\log (q^2))= {\ensuremath{\mathsf{NSPACE}}}(n^4\log n)$ of $(\lambda_Y,\mu_Y)$-quasigeodesics over $Y$. Now let $\mathcal{Q}\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi_{\mathbf{c}})$ be the set of all $(\lambda'_1,\mu'_1)$-quasigeodesics which represent solutions of $\Psi_{\mathbf{c}}$ in $V$ over $Y$. By Proposition \[prop:shortlex-hyp\] this language is ET0L and by Corollary \[cor:KtoY\] it contains at least one word over $Y$ for each solution in $\mathcal{Q}\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_1, \mu_1}(V)$. Then $\sigma(\mathcal{Q}\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi_{\mathbf c}))$ is ET0L since ET0L languages are preserved by substitutions, and by Prop. \[prop:V\] $\mathcal{S}=\cup_{\mathbf{c}} \sigma(\mathcal{Q}\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi_{\mathbf{c}}))$ contains $\text{Sol}_{G}(\Phi)$, so it is a covering solution set of $\Phi$. By Lemma \[VtoG\] the set $\mathcal{S}$ consists of at least one $(\lambda_G, \mu_G$)-quasigeodesic over $S$ for each solution, and then by intersection with the regular set $Q_{S,\lambda_G, \mu_G}$ of quasigeodesics in $G$ over $S$ we obtain a set of solutions for $\Phi$ consisting of ($\lambda_G, \mu_G$)-quasigeodesics. Finally, we run the modified DE algorithm (inserting the additional ${\wr}h(W)$ and label $\mathbf c$ for each node printed) to print an NFA for each $\Phi_{\mathbf c}$ for the EDT0L grammar for $\text{Sol}_{T,V}(\Psi_{\mathbf{c}})$, which we union using an extra start node as before. From the above work this grammar generates the language $L$ as required. \[kappaV\] 1. If $c \in V$ and the reduced path representing $c$ in $\mathcal{K}$ is an $(a,b)$-quasigeodesic, then there exists a word $w$ on $Y$ representing $c$ such that $w$ is an $(a',b')$-quasigeodesic, where $a',b'$ depend on $a,b$ and $Y$. 2. If $c \in V$ and the length of the reduced path representing $c$ in $\mathcal{K}$ is ${\leqslant}L$, then there exists a word $w$ on $Y$ representing $c$ such that $\ell_Y(w){\leqslant}L_Y$, where $L_Y$ depends on $L$ and $Y$. \[cor:KtoY\] For any element $v \in \mathcal{Q}\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_1, \mu_1}(V)$ there is a $(\lambda'_1, \mu'_1)$-quasigeodesic word over $Y$ representing $v$, where $\lambda'_1, \mu'_1$ depend on $\lambda_1, \mu_1$ and $Y$. \[VtoG\] Let $w$ be a ($\lambda'_1, \mu'_1$)-quasigeodesic word over $Y$. Then if the reduced path $p_{\pi(w)}$ is $(a,b)$-quasigeodesic in $\mathcal{K}$ the (unreduced) path $p_{w}$ is $(a_{\mathcal{K}},b_{\mathcal{K}})$-quasigeodesic in $\mathcal{K}$, where $(a_{\mathcal{K}},b_{\mathcal{K}})$ depend on $a,b, \lambda'_1, \mu'_1$ and $Y$. Moreover, $\sigma(w)$ is a $(\lambda_G,\lambda_G)$-quasigeodesic over $S$ in the hyperbolic group $G$, where $\lambda_G,\lambda_G$ depend on $\lambda_1, \mu_1$ and $Y$. Consider the generating set $Z=Y \cup V_{{\leqslant}3}$ for $V$ and let $\lambda_Z, \mu_Z$ be such that any $(\lambda'_1, \mu'_1)$-quasigeodesic over $Y$ is $(\lambda_Z, \mu_Z)$-quasigeodesic over $Z$. Let $M=\max\{l_{\mathcal{K}}(p_y) \mid y \in Y\}$. That is, $M$ is the maximal length of a generator in $Y$ with respect to the associated reduced path length in $\mathcal{K}$. We will show the statement in the lemma holds for $(a_{\mathcal{K}},b_{\mathcal{K}})=(a,b+M\mu_Z)$. We say that a subpath $s_w$ of $p_w$ is a maximal backtrack if $p_w=p s_w p'$, $s_w$ is homotopic to an empty path (via the elimination of backtrackings), and $s_w$ is not contained in a longer subpath of $p_w$ with the same property. This implies there is a point $A$ on $p_w$ such that $s_w$ starts and ends at $A$, and such a maximal backtrack traces a tree in $\mathcal{K}$. We can then write $p_w=a_1s_1 a_2 \dots s_{n-1}a_n$, where $a_i$ are (possibly empty) subpaths of $p_w$ and $s_i$ are maximal backtracks; thus $p_{\pi(w)}=a_1a_2 \dots a_n$. If $l_{\mathcal{K}}(s_i) {\leqslant}M\mu_Z$ for all $i$, then the result follows immediately. Otherwise there exists an $s_i$ with $l_{\mathcal{K}}(s_i)>M\mu_Z$, and we claim that we can write $s_i$ in terms of a word over $Z$ that is not a quasigeodesic, which contradicts the assumption that $w$ is quasigeodesic. To prove the claim, suppose $i(s_i)=f(s_i)=A$. We have two cases: in the first case $A\in G$ then $\pi(s_i)=_V 1$ and $s_i$ corresponds to a subword $v$ of $w$ for which $l_{\mathcal{K}}(p_{v}){\geqslant}M\mu_Z$. But $v$ represents a word over $Z$, so $l_{\mathcal{K}}(p_{v}) {\leqslant}l_Z(v) M$, and altogether $ M\mu_Z {\leqslant}l_{\mathcal{K}}(p_{v}) {\leqslant}l_Z(v) M.$ Since $|v|_Z=0$ and $v$ is a ($\lambda_Z, \mu_Z$)-quasigeodesic word over $Z^*$, $l_Z(v) {\leqslant}\mu_Z$, which contradicts $l_Z(v) {\geqslant}\mu_Z$ from above. In the second case $A\notin G$, so take a point $B \in G$ at distance $1$ from $A$ in $\mathcal{K}$ (this can always be done), and modify the word $w$ to get $w'$ over $Z$ so that $p_{w'}$ in $\mathcal{K}$ includes the backtrack $[AB,BA]$ off the path $p_w$. Also modify $s_i$ to obtain a new backtrack $s'_i$. Clearly $\pi(p_w)=\pi(p_{w'})$ and $\pi(s_i)=\pi(s'_i)$, and $s'_i$ becomes a maximal backtrack of $p_{w'}$ which can be written as a word over the generators $Z$ that represents the trivial element in $V$. We can the apply the argument from the first case. The fact that $\sigma(w)$ is a $(\lambda_G,\mu_G)$-quasigeodesic over $S$ in the hyperbolic group $G$ follows from the fact that $\mathcal{K}$ and $\Gamma(G,S)$ are quasi-isometric. Additional material for Section \[sec:EDT0L\] {#appendix:EDT0L} ============================================= [Proof of Proposition \[prop:projection\]]{} Since the grammar produces exactly $s-1$ $\#$ symbols, we can deterministically modify the grammar to label each symbol $\#_1,\dots,\#_{s-1}$ in the same space complexity. Replace each letter $c\in C$ by $c^{ij}$ for all $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}s$ to indicate that the word produced by $c$ will lie in the factor(s) $u_t, i{\leqslant}t{\leqslant}j$. The new start symbol is $(S_0)^{1,s}$. For each rule $(c,v)$, if $v$ contains no symbols $\#_t$ then replace $(c,v)$ by $(c^{ij},v^{ij})$ for all $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}s$. If $v=v_0\#_{i_1}v_1 \dots v_{r-1}\#_{i_r}v_r$, for all $i,j$ with $i{\leqslant}i_1, j{\geqslant}i_r$, replace $(c,v)$ by $(c^{ij},v_0^{i,i_1-1}\#_{i_1}v_1^{i_1,i_2} \dots v_{r-1}^{i_{r-1}i_r}\#_{i_r}v_r^{i_r,j})$ for all $k{\leqslant}i_1$, $\ell{\geqslant}i_r$. Note these modifications are deterministic so preserve EDT0L. Additional material for Section \[sec:hyp-intro\] {#appendix:hyp-intro} ================================================= [Proof of Proposition \[prop:shortlex-hyp\]]{} Let $\$$ denote a ‘padding symbol’ that is distinct from $S\cup S'\cup\{\#,{\wr}\}$, and let $$\mathcal X=\left\{{s\choose t}, {s'\choose t'}, {s\choose \$}, {\$\choose s},{s'\choose \$}, {\$\choose s'}, {\#\choose \#} {{\wr}\choose {\wr}} \mid s,t\in S, s',t'\in S' \right\}.$$ Define a homomorphism $\psi\colon \mathcal X^*\to (S\cup S'\cup\{\#\})^*$ by $$\psi\left({x\choose y}\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{llll} 1 & \ \ & x=\$\\x & & x\in S\cup S'\cup\{\#,{\wr}\}\end{array}\right.$$ Then $L_2=\psi^{-1}(L_1)$ is ET0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$ by Proposition \[prop:closureET0L\]. $L_2$ consists of strings of letters which we can view as two parallel strings: the top string is a word from $L_1$ with $\$$ symbols inserted, and the bottom string can be any word in $S\cup S'\cup\{\#,{\wr},\$\}$ with $\#,{\wr}$ occurring in exactly the same positions as the top string, and by construction there are no two $\$$ symbols in the same position top and bottom. Let ${\mathcal M}$ be the asynchronous 2-tape automaton which accepts all pairs $(u,v)\in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}$ with $u=_Gv$ as in Proposition \[prop:reg-hyp\]. For each accept state, add loops back to the start state labeled ${\#\choose \#}$. The new automaton ${\mathcal M}_1$ accepts padded pairs of $(\lambda, \mu)$-quasigeodesic words $(u_i,v_i)$ with $u_i=_Gv_i$, and each pair is separated by ${\#\choose \#}$. Now make a copy ${\mathcal M}_1'$ of ${\mathcal M}_1$ placing a prime on each letter $s\in S$, and join the accept states of ${\mathcal M}_1$ to the start state of ${\mathcal M}_1'$ by transitions labeled ${{\wr}\choose {\wr}}$. The new automaton ${\mathcal M}_2$ accepts some number of padded pairs of words $(u_i,v_i)\in Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}^2$, $u_i=_Gv_i$, followed by some number of padded pairs of words $(u_i',v_i')\in (S')^*$ which are represent $(\lambda,\mu)$-quasigeodesics in $(G,S')$, and $u_i'=_Gv_i'$. We now take $L_3=L_2\cap L({\mathcal M}_2)$. This is again ET0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$ by Proposition \[prop:closureET0L\] since $ L({\mathcal M}_2)$ is regular. The language $L_3$ can be seen as pairs of strings, the top string a padded version of a string in $L_1$ and the bottom of the form $w_1\#\dots \#w_r{\wr}h(z_1)\#\dots \#h(z_r)$ with $w_i=_Gu_i, z_i=_Gv_i$ and $w_i,z_i$ $\lambda,\mu$-quasigeodesics. Moreover, since by hypothesis $u_i=_Gv_i$ we have $w_i=_G z_i$ for all $1{\leqslant}i{\leqslant}r$. By Proposition \[prop:closureET0L\], projecting $L_3$ onto the bottom string and deleting $\$$ symbols, which is a homomorphism, shows that the language $L_Q$ is ET0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$. Finally, the intersection $L_4=L_{Q}\cap \mathcal T$ is ET0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$ since $\mathcal T$ is regular and a subset of $Q_{S,\lambda,\mu}$. However, since $\mathcal T$ also is in bijection with $G$, we have $w_i$ and $z_i$ are identical words, thus $L_6$ consists of words of the form $w_1\#\dots \#w_r{\wr}h(w_1)\#\dots \#h(w_r)$. By Proposition \[prop:copyME\], the language $L_4$ is in fact EDT0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$, and by Proposition \[prop:projection\] projecting onto the prefix gives us $L_{\mathcal T}$ is EDT0L in [$\mathsf{NSPACE}$]{}$(f(n))$. Additional material for Section \[sec:torsionfree\] {#appendix:torsionfree} =================================================== In order to construct canonical representatives one first needs the concept of a *cylinder* of a group element $g$, whose definition is lengthy and not needed here (see Definition 3.1 in [@RS95]). Informally, a cylinder is a narrow neighbourhood of bounded thickness - depending on an integer $T$ called the *criterion* - of any geodesic $[1,g]$; that is, a cylinder contains those points that are ‘close’ to the geodesics connecting $1$ and $g$ in the Cayley graph. Denote the cylinder of $g\in G$ depending on $T$ by $C_T(g)$. \[prop\_nbhd\] Let $G$ be a $\delta$-hyperbolic group, $g\in G$ an element, $T$ a criterion, and $h \in C_T(g)$. The following hold: \(1) for every geodesic $[1,g]$, $d(h, [1,g]){\leqslant}2\delta$, \(2) $g^{-1}h \in C_T(g^{-1})$, \(3) any point that lies on a geodesic $[1,g]$ is in $C_T(g)$. For fixed $T$ denote the cylinder of any element $g$ simply by $C(g)$. The next step towards building canonical representatives consists of ‘cutting’ the cylinders into slices. \[def\_diff\] Let $w$ be a vertex in $\Gamma(G,S)$ and let $v \in C(w)$. The *left* and *right* neighborhoods of $v$ in $C(w)$ are $$N_L^{w}(v)= \{ x \in C(w) \mid d(1, x){\leqslant}d(1,v) \ \textrm{and} \ d(v,x){\geqslant}10\delta\}$$ $$N_R^{w}(v)= \{ x \in C(w) \mid d(1, x){\geqslant}d(1,v) \ \textrm{and} \ d(v,x){\geqslant}10\delta\}.$$ The *difference* between two elements $u$ and $v$ of $C(w)$ is then [$$diff_w(u,v)=|N_L^{w}(u)\setminus N_L^{w}(v)|-|N_L^{w}(v) \setminus N_L^{w}(u)|+|N_R^{w}(v) \setminus N_R^{w}(u)|-|N_R^{w}(u) \setminus N_R^{w}(v)|.$$]{} One can show that for any $u,v,t \in C(w)$ $diff_w(u,v) + diff_w(v,t)=diff_w(u,t),$ and $diff_w(u,v)=-diff_w(v,u),$ and define an equivalence relation on $C(w)$ with $u \sim v$ if and only if $diff_w(u,v)=0$. We call the equivalence classes with respect to $\sim$ *slices*, and denote the slice of $v\in C(w) $ by $slice_v^w$. We say that $slice_{v_2}^w$ is *consecutive* to $slice_{v_1}^w$ if $diff_w(v_2,v_1)>0$. Consecutivity between slices is well defined, and we can thus partition each cylinder into slices, which are ‘small’, in the sense that each slice is included in a ball of radius $10\delta$. \[prop\_slice\] For any $v\in C(w)$, the diameter of $slice_v^w$ is ${\leqslant}10\delta.$ Moreover, If $slice_{v_2}^w$ is consecutive to $slice_{v_1}^w$ and $|v_1|{\geqslant}10 \delta$, then the diameter of $slice_{v_1}^w \cup slice_{v_2}^w$ is ${\leqslant}20\delta +1$. Now let $B_{10\delta}(1)$ be the ball of radius $10 \delta$ around the identity. We define the following equivalence relation on the set of subsets of $B_{10\delta}(1)$: $$A \sim B \textrm{\ if \ and \ only \ if \ } \exists g\in G \textrm{\ such that \ } gA=B.$$ Every equivalence class is called an *atom*. Choose a set $\{A_1, \dots, A_k \}$ of representatives of all atoms in $B_{10\delta}(1)$. Since every slice $slice_v^w$ in a cylinder has bounded diameter, there exists only one $1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}k$ such that $slice_v^w=gA_i$ for some $g\in G$, and $g$ is unique with this property. The set $A_i$ is called the *model* for $slice_v^w$. For every atom representative $A_i$ choose an (arbitrary) point $a_i$ in $A_i$, called the *center* of $A_i$ and denoted by $ce(A_i)$. Then for every slice $slice_v^w$ the center $ce(slice_v^w)$ is defined by $$ce(slice_v^w):= g^{-1}ce(A_i),$$ where $A_i$ is the model for $slice_v^w$ and $g$ the corresponding element sending $A_i$ to $slice_v^w$. For $x\in G$, $|x|_S {\leqslant}20\delta +1$, the *step* of $x$, written $st(x)$, is a chosen geodesic word on the generators $S$ such that $\overline{st(x)}=x$, and $st(x^{-1})=st(x)^{-1}$. By having cut the cylinders into slices, defined a ‘dictionary’ of atoms and their centres which canonically assign a center to each slice, one can connect the centres using the fixed steps and get canonical representatives.  \[canrep\] Let $w\in G$ be a vertex in the Cayley graph of $G$ and let $\{slice_{v_1}^w, \dots, slice_{v_m=w}^w\}$ be the sequence of consecutive slices of the cylinder $C_T(w)$ depending on criterion $T$. If $|w| {\leqslant}10\delta$ we let $\theta_T(w):=st(w)$. Else we define the *canonical representative* of $w$ to be $$\theta_T(w):=st(ce(slice_{v_1}^w)))\star (\star_{i=2}^m st(ce(slice_{v_{i-1}}^w)^{-1}ce(slice_{v_i}^w)))\star st(ce(slice_w^w)^{-1}).$$ For a fixed $T$ we write $\theta(w)$ instead of $\theta_T(w)$. Canonical representatives satisfy $\theta(w)=_G w$ and $[\theta(w)]^{-1}=\theta(w^{-1})$, and most importantly they are combinatorially *stable* (see Theorem 3.11 in [@RS95]); that is, if three elements $w_1, w_2, w_3$ satisfy the triangular relation $w_1w_2w_3=1$, and the cylinders corresponding to the three geodesic sides of the thin triangle agree in balls around the vertices of the triangle. then the canonical representatives coincide inside slightly smaller balls around the vertices of the triangle. Also essential is the fact that canonical representatives are ($\lambda, \mu$)-quasigeodesics, with $\lambda$ and $\mu$ depending only on $\delta$. \[canrep\_qg\] There are constants $\lambda {\geqslant}1$ and $\mu {\geqslant}0$ depending only on $\delta$ such that for any criterion $T$ and any element $g \in G$ the canonical representative $\theta_T(g)$ of $g$ is a ($\lambda, \mu$)-quasigeodesic. Proposition 3.4[@DahmaniIsrael] uses different terminology and applies to the more general setting of relatively hyperbolic groups, which makes it more involved than our case, so we sketch here briefly the proof of Proposition \[canrep\_qg\], without insisting on the exact constants $\lambda$ and $\mu$, just showing their dependence on $\delta$ only. Recall that a canonical representative $p=\theta_T(g)$ for $g$ consists, as a path, of the concatenation of short (${\leqslant}20\delta +1$) geodesics between the centres of slices of a cylinder, and by Proposition \[prop\_slice\] each slice is contained in a ball of radius $10\delta$. So without loss of generality we may take $q_{-}$ and $q_{+}$ in to be centres separated by $n$ slices in the decomposition of a cylinder. Then $\ell ( q ) {\leqslant}(20\delta +1)n$ by the triangle inequality. By Definition \[def\_diff\] we have $diff(q_{-},q_{+}){\geqslant}n$, so at least one of the terms in $diff(q_{-},q_{+})$ is greater than $n/4$. Suppose $|N_L^{g}(q_{-})\setminus N_L^{g}(g_{+})| {\geqslant}n/4.$ Then by Proposition \[prop\_nbhd\] (1) a cylinder is contained in the union of balls of radius $2\delta$ centred on a geodesic between $1$ and $g$ that intersects $N_L^{g}(q_{-})\setminus N_L^{g}(g_{+})$, so if we let $M=|B(2\delta)|$, we get that $d(q_{-},q_{+})M {\geqslant}|N_L^{g}(q_{-})\setminus N_L^{g}(g_{+})| {\geqslant}n/4$. This shows that $n {\leqslant}4 d(q_{-},q_{+})M$, so $\ell ( q ) {\leqslant}(20\delta +1)4 d(q_{-},q_{+})M$ and therefore $p$ is a quasigeodesic. We also state the result below, due to Rips and Sela in [@RS95], which is instrumental in getting the solutions in torsion-free hyperbolic groups from free groups. Let us first mention that $\lambda(\Phi):=\lambda(\Phi)(\delta, q)$ is a constant depending on $\delta$ and linearly on $q$, and its explicit formula can be found on page 502 in [@RS95]. \[CylStab\] Let $G$ be a torsion-free $\delta$-hyperbolic group generated by set $S$, and let $\Phi$ be a system of equations of the form $$z_{i(j,1)}z_{i(j,2)}z_{i(j,3)}=1,$$ where $1{\leqslant}j {\leqslant}q$. There exists an effectively computable set of criteria $\{T_1, \dots, T_{\lambda(\Phi)} \}$ and a constant $p:=p(\delta, q)$ depending on $\delta$ and linearly on $q$ such that: If $(g_1, \dots, g_l) \in \text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$, then there exists an index $m_0 \in \{1, \dots, \lambda(\Phi) \}$ and there exist $y_a^j, c_a^j \in F(S)$, $1 {\leqslant}j {\leqslant}q, 1{\leqslant}a{\leqslant}3$, such that $|c_a^j| {\leqslant}p$ and $c_1^jc_2^jc_3^j=_G 1$, for which $$\theta_{T_{m_0}}(g_{i(j,1)})=y_1^jc_1^j (y_2^j)^{-1},$$ $$\theta_{T_{m_0}}(g_{i(j,2)})=y_2^jc_2^j (y_3^j)^{-1},$$ $$\theta_{T_{m_0}}(g_{i(j,3)})=y_3^jc_3^j (y_1^j)^{-1}.$$ Now suppose $(g_1, \dots, g_l) \in \text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$. Then by Theorem \[CylStab\] there is a tuple $(w_1, \dots, w_l)$, $w_a \in S^*$ a canonical representative of $g_a$ which has the form $y_a^jc_a^j (y_{a+1}^j)^{-1}$ with $y_a^j, c_a^j \in F(S)$, and all the $y_a^j$ are solutions to one of the systems $\Psi_i$ in Step 3 of the algorithm. Thus to any solution of $\text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$ there is at least one tuple of words in $\mathcal{S}$ which projects to it. Additional material for Section \[sec:torsion\] {#appendix:torsion} =============================================== For any metric space $X$ and constant $d$, the [*Rips complex*]{} with parameter $d$ is the simplicial complex whose vertices are the points of $X$ and whose simplices are the finite subsets of $X$ whose diameter is at most $d$. More specifically, we will need the Rips complex which is based on the Cayley graph of a hyperbolic group, as follows. Let $G$ be a hyperbolic group with finite generating set $X$. For a fixed constant $d$, the Rips complex $\mathcal{P}_d(G)$ is a simplicial complex defined as the collection of sets with diameter (with respect to the $X$-distance in the Cayley graph of $G$) less than $d$: $$\mathcal{P}_d(G):=\{Y\subset G \mid Y\neq \emptyset, \textrm{ \ diam}_X(Y) {\leqslant}d\},$$ where each set $Y \in \mathcal{P}_d(G)$ of cardinality $k+1$ is identified with a $k$-simplex whose vertex set is $Y$. The Rips complex of a hyperbolic group has several important properties, some of which are relevant to this paper. The group $G$ acts properly discontinuously on the Rips complex $\mathcal{P}_d(G)$, the quotient $\mathcal{P}_d(G)/G$ is compact, and $\mathcal{P}_d(G)$ is contractible. The fact that $\mathcal{P}_d(G)/G$ is compact is essential to showing the group of paths $V$ in Section \[sec:torsion\] is a finite graph of finite groups, and therefore virtually free. 1. For a simplex $\tau=\{v_0, v_1, \dots, v_q\}$ of dimension $q$ in Euclidean space, we define its *barycentre* to be the point $b_{\tau}:= \frac{1}{q+1}(v_0+ \dots v_q)$. 2. For two simplices $\alpha, \beta$ in Euclidean space we write $\alpha<\beta$ to denote that $\alpha$ is a face of $\beta$. 3. The *barycentric subdivision* $B_{\sigma}$ of a simplicial complex $\sigma$ is the collection of all simplices whose vertices are $b_{\sigma_0}, \dots, b_{\sigma_r}$ for some sequence $\sigma_0 < \dots <\sigma_r$ in $\sigma$. Thus the set of vertices in $B_{\sigma}$ is the set of all barycentres of simplices of $\sigma$, $B_{\sigma}$ has the same dimension as $\sigma$, and any vertex in $B_{\sigma} \setminus \sigma$ is connected to a vertex in $\sigma$. Let $P_{50\delta}(G)$ be Rips complex whose set of vertices is $G$, and whose simplices are subsets of $G$ of diameter at most $50\delta$. Then let $\mathcal{B}$ be the barycentric subdivision of $P_{50\delta}(G)$ and let $\mathcal{K}:=\mathcal{B}^1$ the $1$-skeleton of $\mathcal{B}$. Thus by construction the vertices of $\mathcal{K}$ (and $\mathcal{B}$) are in $1$-to-$1$ correspondence with the simplices of $P_{50\delta}(G)$, so we can identify $G$, viewed as a set of $0$-simplices in $\mathcal{B}$, with a subset of vertices of $\mathcal{K}$. \[rmkKG\] By construction, the graphs $\mathcal{K}$ and $\Gamma(G,S)$ are quasi-isometric, and any vertex in $\mathcal{K}$ that is not in $G$ is at distance one (in $\mathcal{K}$) from a vertex in $G$. \[prop:K\] Let $G$ be a hyperbolic group, $\mathcal{K}$ as above, and $\Phi$ a system of triangular equations. Let $\lambda_0$ a constant depending on $\delta$, $\mu_0=8$ and $b$ a constant depending on $\delta$ and the number of equations in $\Phi$. If $(g_1, \dots, g_l) \in \text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$, then for any variable $z$ and corresponding solution $g_z$ there exists a $(\lambda_0,\mu_0)$-quasigeodesic path $\gamma_z$ joining $1$ to $g_z$ in $\mathcal{K}$ such that $\gamma_{z^{-1}}=^{g_z^{-1}}\overline{\gamma_z}$ and for each equation $z_1z_2z_3=1$ there is a decomposition of the paths $\gamma_{z_i}$ into subpaths: $$\gamma_{z_i}=l_{z_i} c_{z_i} r_{z_i}, \ \ \ l_{z_{i+1}}=^{g_{z_i}^{-1}}\overline{r_{z_i}}$$ where $i+1$ is computed modulo $3$, and $l(c_{z_i}){\leqslant}b$. For $\lambda_0, \mu_0$ as in Proposition \[prop:K\], let $\lambda_1, \mu_1$ be such that any path $\alpha \gamma \alpha'$ in $\mathcal{K}$ is a $(\lambda_1, \mu_1)$-quasigeodesic, where $l(\alpha)=l(\alpha')=1$ and $\gamma$ is a $(\lambda_0, \mu_0)$-guasi-geodesic. Then define $$\label{qgK} \mathcal{Q}\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_1, \mu_1}(V):=\{[\gamma] \in V \mid \gamma \textrm{\ is a reduced \ } (\lambda_1, \mu_1)-\textrm{quasigeodesic in \ } \mathcal{K}\},$$ and for any $L>0$ let $V_{{\leqslant}L}:=\{[\gamma] \in V\mid \gamma \textrm{\ reduced\ and\ } \ell_{\mathcal{K}}(\gamma){\leqslant}L \}.$ \[prop:V\] Let $G$ be a hyperbolic group, $\mathcal{K}$, $\lambda_1, \mu_1$ as above, and $\Phi$ a system of triangular equations. Let $\kappa$ be a constant that depends on $\delta$ and the number of equations. 1. If $(g_1, \dots, g_l) \in \text{Sol}_G(\Phi)$, then for any variable $z$ and corresponding solution $g_z \in G$ there exists $v_{z} \in \mathcal{Q}\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_1, \mu_1}(V)$ such that $f(v_{z})=g_z$ and for each equation $\mathcal{E}$, written $z_1z_2z_3=1$, there exist $l_i:=l_{z_i, \mathcal{E}} \in \mathcal{Q}\mathcal{G}_{\lambda_1, \mu_1}(V)$ and $c_i:=c_{z_i,\mathcal{E}} \in V_{{\leqslant}\kappa}$ such that $$v_{g_{z_i}}= l_i c_i l^{-1}_{i+1} \in V,$$ where $i+1$ is computed modulo $3$, and $f(c_1 c_2 c_3)=1$ in $G$. 2. Conversely, given any family of elements $v_z$ of $V$, for each variable $z$ in $\mathcal{E}$, and $l_i:=l_{z_i, \mathcal{E}} \in V$ and $c_i:=c_{z_i,\mathcal{E}} \in V_{{\leqslant}\kappa}$ such that $ v_{z_i}= l_i c_i l^{-1}_{i+1} \in V$ and $f(c_1 c_2 c_3)=_G1$, then $g_z=f(v_z)$ is a solution of the system $\mathcal{E}$ in $G$.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The study group on data preservation in high energy physics, DPHEP, is moving to a new collaboration structure, which will focus on the implementation of preservation projects, such as those described in the group’s large scale report published in 2012. One such project is the development of a validation framework, which checks the compatibility of evolving computing environments and technologies with the experiments software for as long as possible, with the aim of substantially extending the lifetime of the analysis software, and hence of the usability of the data. The framework is designed to automatically test and validate the software and data of an experiment against changes and upgrades to the computing environment, as well as changes to the experiment software itself. Technically, this is realised using a framework capable of hosting a number of virtual machine images, built with different configurations of operating systems and the relevant software, including any necessary external dependencies.' address: 'Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Notkestrasse 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany' author: - 'Dmitri Ozerov, David M. South' title: A Validation Framework for the Long Term Preservation of High Energy Physics Data --- Introduction: Data preservation in high energy physics ====================================================== The problem of data persistence and preservation is not new, but is becoming more prominent with the advent of so called big data, in particular within the applied sciences. However, until recently high energy physics (HEP) had little or no tradition or clear model of long-term preservation of data in a meaningful and useful way, and the data from the majority of older experiments have simply been lost. Attempts to preserve previous data sets have in general not been a planned initiative by the original collaboration but a push by knowledgeable people, usually at a later date. This is despite several clear scenarios where preservation of HEP data is beneficial for a number of reasons including: to allow the re-analysis of data taken at a unique centre of mass energy and/or with unique initial state particles, especially if new theoretical predictions or analysis techniques become available; to aid the combination of data sets between similar experiments; for verification of new phenomena found by another HEP experiment; and to allow the use of real HEP data in scientific training, education and outreach. The start of the 21st century saw the end of operation of several particle colliders including LEP ($e^{+}e^{-}$, where data taking ended in 2000), HERA ($e^{\pm}p$, 2007), PEP-II ($e^{+}e^{-}$, 2008), KEKB ($e^{+}e^{-}$, 2010) and the Tevatron ($p\bar{p}$, 2011), providing unique data sets in terms of initial state particles or centre of mass energy or both. As the experiments at each of these colliders continued to publish their final results and conclude their core physics programmes, the question of what should be done with the data naturally presented itself. Inspired by a lack of concrete solutions or guidelines to the problem of data preservation in HEP, an international study group on data preservation and long-term analysis in high-energy physics, DPHEP, was formed at the end of 2008 to address the issue in a systematic way. The composition of the group was initially driven by BaBar and the HERA experiments H1, ZEUS and HERMES, who were soon joined by Belle, BES-III and the Tevatron experiments CDF and D[Ø]{}. The LEP experiments are also represented in DPHEP and the LHC experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb joined the study group in 2011. The laboratories and associated computing centres at BNL, CERN, DESY, Fermilab, JLAB, KEK and SLAC are also all members of DPHEP, in addition to several funding agencies. A series of seven workshops have taken place since 2009 and DPHEP is officially endorsed with a mandate by the International Committee for Future Accelerators, ICFA. The initial findings of the study group are summarised in a short interim report released in 2009 and a full status report was published in 2012 [@blueprint]. The report contains: a tour of data preservation activities in other fields; an expanded description of the physics case; a guide to defining and establishing data preservation principles; and updates from experiments and joint projects, as well as person-power estimates for these and future projects. After many decades of neglect with respect to other scientific disciplines, data preservation is now a rapidly emerging field in HEP, where DPHEP is established as the coherent multi-laboratory, multi-experiment body to examine this issue. The DPHEP Study Group is now moving to a new organisational model, the DPHEP Collaboration and the formal signing procedure of the Collaboration Agreement has now commenced. In addition to the DPHEP Chair, a Project Manager position has now been established, which is initially based at CERN. Preservation models =================== If one thing may be learned from previous enterprises, it is that the conservation of tapes is not equivalent to data preservation, and that not only the hardware to access the data but also the software and environment to understand the data are the necessary and more challenging aspects. In addition to the data, the various software, such as simulation, reconstruction and analysis software need to be considered. If the experimental software is not available the possibility to study new observables or to incorporate new reconstruction algorithms, detector simulations or event generators is lost. Without a well defined and understood software environment the scientific potential of the data may be limited. Just as important are the various types of documentation, covering all facets of an experiment. Considering this inclusive definition of HEP data, the DPHEP Collaboration has established a series of data preservation levels, as summarised in table \[tab:levels\]. The levels are organised in order of increasing benefit, which comes with increasing complexity and cost. Each level is associated with use cases, and the preservation model adopted by an experiment should reflect the level of analysis expected to be available in the future. [[c]{}[l]{}[l]{}]{} Level & Preservation Model & Use Case\ 1 & Provide additional documentation & Publication related info search\ 2 & Preserve the data in a simplified format & Outreach, simple training analyses\ 3 & Preserve the analysis level software and & Full scientific analyses,\ & data format & based on the existing reconstruction\ 4 & Preserve the simulation and reconstruction & Retain the full potential of the\ & software as well as basic level data & experimental data\ The four levels represent three different areas, representing complementary initiatives: documentation (level 1), outreach and simplified formats for data exchange (level 2) and technical preservation projects (levels 3 and 4). Whereas most collaborations involved in DPHEP pursue some form of level 1 and 2 strategies, levels 3 and 4 are really the main focus of the data preservation effort: to maintain usable access to analysis level data, Monte Carlo and the analysis level software, in addition (in the case of level 4) to the reconstruction and simulation software. Previous data preservation experiences in HEP indicate that new analyses and complete re-analyses are only possible if all the necessary ingredients to retrieve, reconstruct and understand the data are accounted for. Only with the full flexibility provided by a level 4 preservation model does the full potential of the data remain. Most experiments in DPHEP plan for a level 4 preservation programme, although different approaches are employed concerning how this goal should be achieved. One option, typically realised using virtualisation, is to freeze the current system to keep the software and environment alive as long as possible. Although this will provide a workable solution for the medium-term future, the operability of the software and correctness of the results are not guaranteed. If changes are needed it will become more difficult the longer software is frozen and future compatibility issues may arise, in addition to the inevitable security concerns. The alternative approach employed at DESY is to adapt and validate the software and environment to future changes as and when they happen. In this way, the working version of the experimental software is actively migrated to more modern platforms and future-proof resources, substantially extending the lifetime of the software, and hence the data, whilst retaining the flexibility to apply any necessary changes. The success of such migrations depends on having a robust and complete set of validation tests. Virtualisation techniques are again used, in this case to provide a coherent platform to build and validate software and environments created according to the recipes provided by the experiments. The software preservation system at DESY ======================================== A generic validation suite, which includes automated software build tools and data validation, has been developed at DESY to automatically test and validate the software and data of an experiment against changes and upgrades to the environment, as well as changes to the experiment software itself. Technically, this is realised using a framework capable of hosting a number of virtual machine images, built with different configurations of operating systems (OS) and the relevant software, including any necessary external dependencies. {width="\textwidth"} \[fig:spsystem\] Inputs to the preservation system and work flow ----------------------------------------------- Three distinct categories are identified as separate inputs to the validation system, as illustrated in figure \[fig:spsystem\]: the experiment specific software, any external software dependencies and finally the operating system, including the compiler. The work flow of the validation framework, called the [*sp-system*]{}, is then as follows: 1. In an initial, preparatory phase, the experimental software should be consolidated, the OS migrated to the most recent release, and any unnecessary external dependencies removed. Any remaining, well-defined necessary dependencies are then also incorporated. Analysis and data validation tests should then be defined and prepared, examining each part of the experimental software deemed necessary in the preservation model adopted. 2. A regular build of the experimental software is done automatically according to the current prescription of the working environment, and the validation tests are performed. At regular intervals, new OS and software versions will then be integrated into the system, under the supervision of experts from the host IT department and experiment. 3. If the validation is successful, no further action must be taken. If a test fails, any differences compared to the last successful test are examined and problems identified. Intervention is then required either by the host of the validation suite or the experiment themselves, depending on the nature of the reported problem. 4. The final phase occurs either when no person-power is available from the experiment or IT side or the current system is deemed satisfactory for the long-term need or stable enough. At this point the last working virtual image is conserved and constitutes the last version of the experimental software and environment. It should be noted however, that this now frozen system is unlikely to persist in a useful manner much beyond this point. The sp-system is designed for software verification, validation and migration support only. Neither the hardware resources nor the interface are designed for mass production or large-scale analysis. The framework is rather used to establish the latest working version of the computing and software environment and it can help to prepare a production system by supplying the successfully validated recipe of the latest configuration. If a production system is required, then this recipe should be deployed on a suitable resource at the time: an institute cluster, grid, cloud, sky, quantum computer, and so on. Within the current sp-system there are virtual machines with five different configurations: SL5/32bit with gcc4.1 and gcc4.4, SL5/64bit with gcc4.1 and gcc4.4, SL6/64bit with gcc4.4. In addition, the set of external software required by the experiments is also installed, for example the ROOT versions used by the experiments: 5.26, 5.28, 5.30, 5.32, and 5.34. The sp-system is designed and constructed in a such a way that new client machines (as a virtual machine or a normal physical machine like a batch or grid worker node) can easily be added. The only requirement of a new machine is to have access to the common sp- system storage where the tests from the experiments as well as the test results are stored, as well as the ability to run a cron-job on the client. Validation tests as defined by the experiments ---------------------------------------------- In addition to the common infrastructure provided by the IT department, the development and implementation of the tests by the participating experiments requires significant investment, even if basic validation structures already exist. As a first step, the number and nature of the experimental tests is surveyed, the level of which reflects the DPHEP preservation level aimed at the participating collaboration. {width="80.00000%"} \[fig:tests\] Figure \[fig:tests\] details the results of this evaluation by the H1 Collaboration, which is implementing a full level 4 preservation programme, expected to comprise of up to 500 tests in total. The structure of the tests is divided into two parts. Firstly the compilation of approximately 100 individual H1 software packages and the identified external dependencies is carried out, where the resulting binaries are stored as tar-balls on the common storage within the sp-system. Secondly, a series of validation tests is performed on the full spectrum of the H1 software, using the compiled software. Whereas some of these tests examine the results of stand alone executables and are run in parallel, many are run sequentially and form discrete parts in one of several full analysis chains: from MC generation and simulation, through multi-level file production and ending with a full physics analysis and subsequent validation of the results. Validation results ------------------ Each test-job started in the sp-system is typically assigned a unique ID, and all scripts and input files used in the test as well as all output files are kept. This allows the validation of all versions against each other and ensures reproducibility of previous results. In addition to this unique ID, validation jobs may be tagged with a description, indicating which software versions were used, and the Unix time stamp of the execution to aid the bookkeeping. Script-based web pages are used to record and display available validation runs for a given description and indicate the status of the compilation for the individual packages or tests within table cells, which are linked to a corresponding output file. This file may be a simple yes/no, a text file, a histogram, a root file or even a link to a further page, depending on the nature of the test. In total more than 300 runs over sets of pre-defined tests have been performed within the sp-system by the HERA experiments. A summary of the current status of the validation tests is displayed in figure \[fig:results\], showing a coarse breakdown for ZEUS (orange), H1 (blue) and HERMES (red) tests and the different dependencies. The experiments are in the process of migrating to SL6/64bit, and the tests performed so far using the sp-system have already identified and helped to solve several long-standing bugs. The next challenges include the testing of the SL7 environment and checking the compatibility of the experiments software with ROOT 6. {width="80.00000%"} \[fig:results\] Current situation and opportunity for expansion =============================================== A software preservation system has been developed at DESY, supporting a series of validation tests defined by the HERA experiments, to ensure that these unique data are available for analysis for the next 10 years or more. The process of defining and implementing the complete set of validation tests for the whole chain of software to be preserved is still ongoing and is expected to take another year. From the IT side, the current version of the sp-system is very light for the user tests implemented so far and the common storage allows communication between the sp-system and the experiment tests using only a few shell variables. These variables describe for example the location of the input file of the tests, the test outputs and the external software on the client. Using thin layers of scripts, a separation of the user part from the details of the sp-system is possible, allowing already existing user tests to be integrated into the sp-system or tests developed within the sp-system to be ported to other test platforms. By design the sp-system is expandable and able to host and validate the requirements of multiple experiments, and can be thought of as a tool to aid migration in order to detect problems and incoherence, as well as identifying and reporting the reasons behind them. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [9]{} Akopov Z et al. (DPHEP Study Group) 2012 Status Report of the DPHEP Study Group: Towards a Global Effort for Sustainable Data Preservation in High Energy Physics [*Preprint*]{} arXiv:1205.4667

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The ability of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) to learn accurate patterns from large amount of data has spurred interest of many researchers and industrialists alike. The promise of ANNs to automatically discover and extract useful features/patterns from data without dwelling on domain expertise although seems highly promising but comes at the cost of high reliance on large amount of accurately labeled data, which is often hard to acquire and formulate especially in time-series domains like anomaly detection, natural disaster management, predictive maintenance and healthcare. As these networks completely rely on data and ignore a very important modality i.e. expert, they are unable to harvest any benefit from the expert knowledge, which in many cases is very useful. In this paper, we try to bridge the gap between these data driven and expert knowledge based systems by introducing a novel framework for incorporating expert knowledge into the network (KINN). Integrating expert knowledge into the network has three key advantages: (a) Reduction in the amount of data needed to train the model, (b) provision of a lower bound on the performance of the resulting classifier by obtaining the best of both worlds, and (c) improved convergence of model parameters (model converges in smaller number of epochs). Although experts are extremely good in solving different tasks, there are some trends and patterns, which are usually hidden only in the data. Therefore, KINN employs a novel residual knowledge incorporation scheme, which can automatically determine the quality of the predictions made by the expert and rectify it accordingly by learning the trends/patterns from data. Specifically, the method tries to use information contained in one modality to complement information missed by the other. We evaluated KINN on a real world traffic flow prediction problem. KINN significantly superseded performance of both the expert and as well as the base network (LSTM in this case) when evaluated in isolation, highlighting its superiority for the task.' author: - | Muhammad Ali Chattha^123^, Shoaib Ahmed Siddiqui^12^, Muhammad Imran Malik^34^,\ [**Ludger van Elst^1^, Andreas Dengel^12^, Sheraz Ahmed^1^**]{}\ ^1^German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Kaiserslautern, Germany.\ ^2^TU Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.\ ^3^School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (SEECS),\ National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan.\ ^4^Deep Learning Laboratory, National Center of Artificial Intelligence, Islamabad, Pakistan.\ bibliography: - 'bibfile.bib' title: 'KINN: Incorporating Expert Knowledge in Neural Networks' --- Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have revolutionized the domain of artificial intelligence by exhibiting incredible performance in applications ranging from image classification [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], playing board games [@silver2016mastering], natural language processing [@conneau2017supervised] to speech recognition [@hinton2012deep]. The biggest highlight of which was perhaps Google DeepMind’s AlphaGo system, beating one of the world’s best Go player, Lee Sedol in a 5 series match [@wang2016does]. Consequently, the idea of superseding human performance has opened a new era of research and interest in artificial intelligence. However, the success of DNNs overshadows its limitations. Arguably the most severe limitation is its high reliance on large amount of accurately labeled data which in many applications is not available [@sun2017revisiting]. This is specifically true in domains like anomaly detection, natural disaster management and healthcare. Moreover, training a network solely on the basis of data may result in poor performance on examples that are not or less often seen in the data and may also lead to counter intuitive results [@szegedy2013intriguing]. Humans tend to learn from examples specific to the problem, similar to DNNs, as well as from different sources of knowledge and experiences [@lake2015human]. This makes it possible for humans to learn just from acquiring knowledge about the problem without even looking at the data pertaining to it. Domain experts are quite proficient in tasks belonging to their area of expertise due to their extensive knowledge and understanding of the problem, which they have acquired overtime through relevant education and experiences. Hence, they rely on their knowledge when dealing with problems. Due to their deep insights, expert predictions even serve as a baseline for measuring the performance of DNNs. Nonetheless, it can not be denied that apart from knowledge, the data also contains some useful information for solving problems. This is particularly cemented by astonishing results achieved by the DNNs that soley rely on data to find and utilize hidden features contained in the data itself [@krizhevsky2012imagenet]. Therefore, a natural step forward is to combine both these separate streams of knowledge i.e. knowledge extracted from the data and the expert’s knowledge. As a matter of fact, supplementing DNNs with expert knowledge and predictions in order to improve their performance has been actively researched upon. A way of sharing knowledge among classes in the data has been considered in zero-shot-learning [@rohrbach2011evaluating], where semantic relatedness among classes is used to find classes related to the known ones. Although such techniques employ knowledge transfer, they are restricted solely to the data domain and the knowledge is extracted and shared from the data itself without any intervention from the expert. Similarly, expert knowledge and opinions are incorporated using distillation technique where expert network produces soft predictions that the DNN tries to emulate or in the form of posterior regularization over DNN predictions [@hinton2015distilling]. All of these techniques try to strengthen DNN with expert knowledge. However, cases where the expert model is unreliable or even random have not been considered. Moreover, directly trying to mimic expert network predictions has an implicit assumption regarding the high quality of the predictions made by the expert. We argue that the ideal incorporation of expert network would be the one where strengths of both networks are promoted and weaknesses are suppressed. Hence, we introduce a step in this direction by proposing a novel framework, Knowledge Integrated Neural Network (KINN), which aims to constructively integrate knowledge in a residual scheme residing in heterogeneous sources in the form of predictions. KINN’s design allows it to be flexible. KINN can successfully integrate knowledge in cases where either the predictions of the expert and the DNN aligns, or are completely disjoint. Finding state-of-the-art DNN or expert model is not the aim here but rather, the aim is to devise a strategy that facilitates integration of expert knowledge with DNNs in a way that the final network achieves the best of both worlds. The residual scheme employed in KINN to incorporate expert knowledge inside the network has three key advantages: (a) Significant reduction in the amount of data needed to train the model, since the network has to learn a residual function instead of learning the complete input to output space projection, (b) a lower bound on the performance of KINN based on the performance of the two subsequent classifiers achieving the best of both worlds, and (c) improvements in convergence of the model parameters as learning a residual mapping makes the optimization problem significantly easier to tackle. Moreover, since the DNN itself is data driven, this makes KINN robust enough to deal with situations where the predictions made by the expert model are not reliable or even useless. The rest of the paper is structured as follows: We first provide a brief overview of the work done in the direction of expert knowledge incorporation in the past. We then explain the proposed framework, KINN, in detail. After that, we present the evaluation results regarding the different experiments performed in order to prove the efficacy of KINN for the task of expert knowledge incorporation. Finally, we conclude the paper with the conclusion. Related Work ============ Integrating domain knowledge and experts opinion into the network is an active area of research and even dates back to the early 90s. Knowledge-based Artificial Neural Networks (KBANN) was proposed by [@towell1994knowledge]. KBANN uses knowledge in the form of propositional rule sets which are hierarchically structured. In addition to directly mapping inputs to outputs, the rules also state intermediate conclusions. The network is designed to have a one-to-one correspondence with the elements of the rule set, where neurons and the corresponding weights of their connections are specified by the rules. Apart from these rule based connections and neurons, additional neurons are also added to learn features not specified in the rule set. Similar approach has also been followed by [@tran2018deep]. Although such approaches directly incorporates knowledge into the network, but they also limit the network architecture by forcing it to have strict correspondence with the rule base. As a result, this restricts the use of alternate architectures or employing network that does not directly follow the structure defined by the rule set. [@hu2016harnessing] integrated expert knowledge using first order logic rules which is transferred to the network parameters through iterative knowledge distillation [@hinton2015distilling]. The DNN tries to emulate soft predictions made by the expert network, instilling expert knowledge into the network parameters. Hence, the expert network acts as a teacher to the DNN i.e. the student network. The objective function is taken as a weighted average between imitating the soft predictions made by the teacher network and true hard label predictions. The teacher network is also updated at each iteration step with the goal of finding the best teacher network that fits the rule set while, at the same time, also staying close to the student network. In order to achieve this goal, KL-divergence between the probability distribution of the predictions made by the teacher network and softmax output layer of the student network is used as the objective function to be minimized. This acts as a constraint over model posterior. The proposed framework was evaluated for classification tasks and achieved superior results compared to other state-of-the-art models at that time. However, the framework strongly relies on the expert network for parametric optimization and does not cater for cases where expert knowledge is not comprehensive. Expert knowledge is incorporated for key phrase extraction by [@gollapalli2017incorporating] where they defined label-distribution rules that dictates the probability of a word being a key phrase. For example, the rule enunciates that a noun that appears in the document as well as in the title is 90% likely to be a key phrase and thus acts as posterior regularization providing weak supervision for the classification task. Similarly, KL-divergence between the distribution given by the rule set and the model estimates is used as the objective function to be used for the optimization. Again, as the model utilizes knowledge to strengthen the predictions of the network, it shifts the dependency of the network from the training data to accurate expert knowledge which might just be an educated guess in some cases. Similarly,  [@xu2017semantic] incorporated symbolic knowledge into the network by deriving a semantic loss function that acts as a bridge between the network outputs and the logical constraints. The semantic loss function is based on constraints in the form of propositional logic and the probabilities computed by the network. During training, the semantic loss is added to the normal loss of the network and thus acts as a regularization term. This ensures that symbolic knowledge plays a part in updating the parameters of the network. [@wu2016knowledge] proposed a Knowledge Enhanced Hybrid Neural Network (KEHNN). KEHNN utilizes knowledge in conjunction with the network to cater for text matching in long texts. Here, knowledge is considered to be the global context such as topics, tags etc. obtained from other algorithms that extracts information from multiple sources and datasets. They employed the twitter LDA model [@zhao2011comparing] as the prior knowledge which was considered useful in filtering out noise from long texts. A special gate known as the knowledge gate is added to the traditional bi-directional Gated Recurrent Units (GRU) in the model which controls how much information from the expert knowledge flows into the network. KINN: The Proposed Framework ============================ Problem Formalization --------------------- Time-series forecasting is of vital significance due to its high impact, specifically in domains like supply chain [@fildes2015information], demand prediction [@pacchin2017comparison], and fault prediction [@baptista2018forecasting]. In a typical forecasting setting, a sequence of values $\{x_{t-1}, x_{t-2}, ..., x_{t-p}\}$ from the past are used to predict the value of the variable at time-step $t$, where $p$ is the number of past values leveraged for a particular prediction, which we refer as the window size. Hence, the model is a functional mapping from past observations to the future value. This parametric mapping can be written as: $$\hat{x}_{t} = \phi([x_{t-1}, x_{t-2},..., x_{t-p}]; \mathcal{W})$$ where $\mathcal{W} = {\{W_l, b_l\}}_{l=1}^{L}$ encapsulates the parameters of the network and $\phi:\mathbb{R}^{p} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ defines the map from the input space to the output space. The optimal parameters of the network $\mathcal{W}^{*}$ are computed based on the empirical risk computed over the training dataset. Using MSE as the loss function, the optimization problem can be stated as: $$\label{unconditionedOptimProblem} \mathcal{W}^{*} = {\underset{\mathcal{W}}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|} \sum_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} (x_{t} - \phi([x_{t-1},..., x_{t-p}]; \mathcal{W}))^2$$ where $\mathcal{X}$ denotes the set of training sequences and $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{p+1}$. Solving this optimization problem, comprising of thousands if not millions of parameters, requires large amount of data to successfully constrain the parametric space so that a reliable solution is obtained. Humans on the other hand, leverage their real-world knowledge along with their past-experiences in order to make predictions about the future. The aim of KINN is to inject this real-world knowledge in the form of expert into the system. However, as mentioned, information from the expert may not be reliable, therefore, KINN proposes a novel residual learning framework for the incorporation of expert knowledge into the system. The residual framework conditions the prediction of the network on the expert’s opinion. As a result, the network acts as a correcting entity for the values generated by the expert. This decouples our system from complete reliance on the expert knowledge. Dataset ------- We evaluated KINN on Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data. The data contains records of sensor readings that measure the flow of vehicular traffic on California Highways. Since the complete PeMS dataset is enormous in terms of its size comprising of records from multiple highways, we only considered a small fraction of it for our experiments i.e. the traffic flow on Richards Ave, from January 2016 till March 2016[^1]. The dataset contains information regarding the number of vehicles passing on the avenue every 30 seconds. PeMS also contains other details regarding the vehicles, however, we only consider the problem of average traffic flow forecasting in this paper. The data is grouped into 30 minute windows. The goal is to predict average number of vehicles per 30 seconds for the next 30 minutes. Fig. \[fig:data\] provides an overview of the grouped dataset. The data clearly exhibits a seasonal component along with high variance for the peaks. ![Traffic flow data grouped into 30 minute windows[]{data-label="fig:data"}](data.png){width="\linewidth"} Baseline Expert and Deep Models ------------------------------- LSTMs have achieved state-of-the-art performance in a range of different domains comprising of sequential data such as language translation [@weiss2017sequence], and handwriting and speech recognition [@zhang2018drawing; @chiu2018state]. Since we are dealing with sequential data, hence, LSTM was a natural choice as our baseline neural network model. Although the aim of this work is to find a technique to fuse useful information contained in the two different modalities irrespective of their details, we nonetheless spent significant compute time to discover the optimal network hyperparameters through grid-search confined to a reasonable hyperparameter space. The hyperparameter search space included number of layers in the network, number of neurons in each layer, activation function for each layer, along with the window size $p$. Partial auto-correlation of the series was also analyzed to identify association of the current value in the time-series with its lagged version as shown in Fig. \[fig:pacf\]. As evident from the figure, the series showed strong correlation with its past three values. This is also cemented by the result of the grid-search that chose the window size of three. The final network consisted of three hidden LSTM layers followed by a dense regression layer. Apart from the first layer, which used sigmoid, Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) [@glorot2011deep] was employed as the activation function. Fig. \[fig:NN\_model\] shows the resulting network architecture. The data is segregated into train, validation and test set using 70/10/20 ratio. MSE was employed as the corresponding loss function to be optimized. The network was trained for 600 epochs and the parameters producing the best validation score were used for generating predictions on the test set. ![Partial auto-correlation of time-series[]{data-label="fig:pacf"}](pacf.png){width="\linewidth"} ![Neural network architecture[]{data-label="fig:NN_model"}](arch_2.png){width="1\linewidth"} Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) is widely used by experts in time-series modelling and analysis. Therefore, we employed ARIMA as the expert opinion in our experiments. Since the data demonstrated a significant seasonal component, the seasonal variant of ARIMA (SARIMA) was used, whose parameters were estimated using the Box-Jenkins approach [@box2015time]. Fig. \[fig:pred\] demonstrates the predictions obtained by employing the LSTM model as well as the expert (SARIMA) model on the test set. The overall predictions made by both the LSTM as well as the expert network seems plausible as shown in Fig. \[fig:pred\_all\]. However, it is only through thorough inspection and investigation on a narrower scale that the strengths and weaknesses of each of the networks are unveiled as shown in Fig. \[fig:pred\_zoom\]. The LSTM tends to capture the overall trend of the data but suffered when predicting small variations in the time-series. SARIMA on the other hand was more accurate in predicting variations in the time-series. In terms of MSE, LSTM model performed considerably worse when compared to the expert model. For this dataset, the discovered LSTM model achieved a MSE of 5.90 compared to 1.24 achieved by SARIMA on the test set. KINN: Knowledge Integrated Neural Network ----------------------------------------- Most of the work in the literature [@hu2016harnessing; @gollapalli2017incorporating] on incorporating expert knowledge into the neural network focuses on training the network by forcing it to mimic the predictions made by the expert network, ergo updating weights of the network based on the expert’s information. However, they do not cater for a scenario where expert network does not contain information about all possible scenarios. Moreover, these hybrid knowledge based network approaches are commonly applied to the classification scenario where output vector of the network corresponds to a probability distribution. This allows KL-divergence to be used as the objective function to be minimized in order to match predictions of the network and the expert network. In case of time-series forecasting, the output of the network is a scalar value instead of a distribution which handicaps most of the prior frameworks proposed in the literature. The KINN framework promotes both the expert model as well as the network to complement each other rather than directly mimicking the expert’s output. This allows KINN to successfully tackle cases where predictions from the expert are not reliable. Finding the best expert or neural network is not the focus here but instead, the focus is to incorporate expert prediction, may it be flawed, in such a way that the neural network maintains its strengths while incorporating strengths of the expert network. There are many different ways through which knowledge between an expert and the network can be integrated. Let $\hat{x}^{p}_{t} \in \mathbb{R}$ be the prediction made by the expert. We incorporate the knowledge from the expert in a residual scheme inspired by the idea of ResNet curated by [@he2016deep]. Let $\phi: \mathbb{R}^{p+1} \mapsto \mathbb{R}$ define the mapping from the input space to the output space. The learning problem from Eq. \[unconditionedOptimProblem\] after availability of the expert information can be now be written as: $$\hat{x}_{t} = \phi([x_{t-1}, x_{t-2},..., x_{t-p}, \hat{x}^{p}_{t}]; \mathcal{W}) + \hat{x}^{p}_{t}$$ $$\label{conditionedOptimProblem} \begin{aligned} \mathcal{W}^{*} = {\underset{\mathcal{W}}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|} \sum_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} (x_{t} - (\phi([x_{t-1},..., x_{t-p}, \hat{x}^{p}_{t}]; \mathcal{W}) \\+ \hat{x}^{p}_{t}))^2 \end{aligned}$$ Instead of computing a full input space to output space transform as in Eq. \[unconditionedOptimProblem\], the network instead learns a residual function. This residual function can be considered as a correction term to the prediction made by the expert model. Since the model is learning a correction term for the expert’s prediction, it is essential for the model prediction to be conditioned on the expert’s prediction as indicated in Eq. \[conditionedOptimProblem\]. There are two simple ways to achieve this conditioning for the LSTM network. The first one is to append the prediction at the end of the sequence as indicated in the equation. Another possibility is to stack a new channel to the input with repeated values for the expert’s prediction. The second case makes the optimization problem easier as the network has direct access to the expert’s prediction at every time-step. Therefore, results in minor improvements in terms of MSE. The system architecture for KINN is shown in Fig. \[fig:my\_model\]. Incorporating expert knowledge in this residual fashion serves a very important purpose in our case. In cases where the expert’s predictions are inaccurate, the network can generate large offsets in order to compensate for the error while the network can essentially output zero in cases where the expert’s predictions are extremely accurate. With this flexibility built into the system, the system can itself decide its reliance on the expert’s predictions. {width="\linewidth"} Evaluation ========== =3px [|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & & &\ **Experiment** & **Description** & **% of training data used** & **DNN** & **Expert Network** & **KINN**\ 1 & Full training set and accurate expert & 100 & 5.90 & 1.24 & **0.74**\ 2 & Reduced training set (50%) and accurate expert & 50 & 6.36 & 1.52 & **0.89**\ & Reduced training set (10%) and accurate expert & 10 & 6.68& 2.67 & **1.53**\ 3 & Full training set and noisy expert & 100 & 5.90 & 7.81 & **3.09**\ 4 & Reduced training set and noisy expert & 10 & 6.68 & 7.81 & **3.73**\ 5 & Full training set and Zero expert pred. & 100 & 5.90 & 621.00 & **5.92**\ & Full training set and Delayed expert pred. & 100 & 5.90 & 9.04 & **5.91**\ We curated a range of different experiments each employing KINN in a unique scenario in order to evaluate its performance under varied conditions. We compare KINN results with the expert as well as the DNN in terms of performance to highlight the gains achieved by employing the residual learning scheme. To ensure a fair comparison, all of the preprocessing and LSTM hyperparameters were kept the same when the model was tested in isolation and when integrated as the residual function in KINN. In the first setting, we tested and compared KINN’s performance in the normal case where the expert predictions are accurate and the LSTM is trained on the complete training set available. We present the results from this normal case in experiment \# 01. In order to evaluate KINN’s performance in cases where the amount of training data available is small or the expert is inaccurate, we established two different sets of experiments starting from the configuration employed in the first experiment. In the first case, we reduced the amount of training data provided to the models for training. We present the findings from this experiment in experiment \# 02. In the second case, we reduced the reliability of the expert predictions by injecting random noise. The results from this experiment are summarized in experiment \# 03. A direct extension of the last two experiments is to evaluate KINN’s performance in cases where both of these conditions hold i.e. the amount of training data is reduced as well as the expert is noisy. We summarize the results for this experiment in experiment \# 04. Finally, we evaluated KINN’s performance in cases where the expert contained no information. We achieved this using two different ways. We first evaluated the case where the expert always predicted the value of zero. In this case, the target was to evaluate the impact (if any) of introducing the residual learning scheme since the amount of information presented to the LSTM network was exactly the same as the isolated LSTM model in the first experiment. We then tested a more realistic scenario, where the expert model replicated the values from the last time-step of the series. We elaborate the findings from this experiment (for both settings) in experiment \# 05. Experiment \# 01: Full training set and accurate expert {#sec:accExpFullData} ------------------------------------------------------- We first tested both the LSTM as well as the expert model in isolation in order to precisely capture the impact of introducing the residual learning scheme. KINN demonstrated significant improvements in training dynamics directly from the start. KINN converged faster as compared to the isolated LSTM. As opposed to the isolated LSTM which required more training time (epochs) to converge, KINN normally converged in only one fouth of the epochs taken by the isolated LSTM, which is a significant improvement in terms of the compute time. Apart from the compute time, KINN achieved a MSE of 0.74 on the test set. This is a very significant improvement in comparison to the isolated LSTM model that had a MSE of 5.90. Even compared to the expert model, KINN demonstrated a relative improvement of 40% in terms of MSE. Fig. \[fig:normal\_plot\] showcases the predictions made by KINN along with the isolated LSTM and the expert network on the test set. It is evident from the figure that KINN caters for the weaknesses of each of the two models involved using the information contained in the other. The resulting predictions are more accurate than the expert network on minimas and also captures the small variations in the series which were missed by the LSTM network. In order to further evaluate the results, error at each time-step is compared for the isolated models along with KINN. To aid the visualization, step-wise error for first 100 time-steps of the test set is shown in Fig. \[fig:normal\_plot\]. The plot shows that the step-wise prediction error of KINN is less than both the expert model as well as the LSTM for major portion of the time. However, there are instances where predictions made by KINN are slightly worse than those of the baseline models. In particular, the prediction error of KINN exceeded the error of the expert network for only 30% of the time-steps and only 22% of the time-steps in case of the LSTM network. Nevertheless, even in those instances, the performance of KINN was still on par with the other models since on 99% of the time-steps, the difference in error is less than 1.5. Experiment \# 02: Reduced training set and accurate expert {#sec:accExpReducedData} ---------------------------------------------------------- One of the objectives of KINN was to reduce dependency of the network on large amount of labelled data. We argue that the proposed model not only utilizes expert knowledge to cater for shortcomings of the network, but also helps in significantly reducing its dependency on the data. To further evaluate this claim, a series of experiments were performed. KINN was trained again from scratch using only 50% of the data in the training set. The test set remained unchanged. Similarly, the LSTM network was also trained with the same 50% subset of the training set. The LSTM network trained on the 50% subset of the training data attained a MSE of 6.36 which is slightly worse than the MSE of network trained on the whole training set. Minor degradation was also observed in the performance of the expert network which achieved a MSE of 1.52. Despite of this reduction in the dataset size, KINN achieved significantly better results compared to both the LSTM as well as the expert model achieving a MSE of 0.89. Fig \[fig:50\_plot\] visualizes the corresponding prediction and error plots of the models trained on 50% subset of the training data. We performed the same experiment again with a very drastic reduction in the training dataset size by using only 10% subset of the training data. Fig. \[fig:10\_plot\] visualizes the results from this experiment in the same way, by first plotting the predictions from the models along with the error plot. It is interesting to note that since the LSTM performed considerably poor due to extremely small training set size, the network shifted its focus to the predictions of the expert network and made only minor corrections to it as evident from Fig. \[subfig:10\_pred\]. This highlights KINN’s ability to decide its reliance on the expert predictions based on the quality of the information. In terms of the MSE, LSTM model performed the worst. When trained on only the 10% subset of the training set, the LSTM model attained a MSE of 6.68, whereas the expert model achieved MSE of 2.67. KINN on the other hand, still outperformed both of these models and achieved a MSE of 1.53. Experiment \# 03: Full training set and noisy expert {#sec:noisyExpFullData} ---------------------------------------------------- In all of the previous experiments, the expert model was relatively better compared to the LSTM model employed in our experiments. The obtained results highlights KINN’s ability to capitalize over the information obtained from the expert model to achieve significant improvements in its prediction. KINN also demonstrated amazing generalization despite of drastic reduction in the amount of training data, highlighting KINN’s ability to achieve accurate predictions in low data regimes. However, in conjunction to reducing dependency of the network on data, it is also imperative that the network does not become too dependent on the expert knowledge making it essential to be accurate/perfect. This is usually not catered for in most of the prior work. We believe that the proposed residual scheme enabled the network to handle erroneous expert knowledge efficiently by allowing it to be smart enough to realize weaknesses in the expert network and adjust accordingly. In order to verify KINN’s ability to adjust with poor predictions from the expert, we performed another experiment where random noise was injected into the predictions from the expert network. This random noise degraded the reliability of the expert predictions. To achieve this, random noise within one standard deviation of the average traffic flow was added to the expert predictions. As a result, the resulting expert predictions attained a MSE of 7.81 which is considerably poor compared to that of the LSTM (5.90). We then trained KINN using these noisy expert predictions. Fig. \[fig:noisy\_preds\] visualizes the corresponding prediction and error plots. As evident from Fig. \[fig:noisy\_pred\], KINN still outperformed both the expert as well as the LSTM with a MSE of 3.09. Despite the fact that neither the LSTM, nor the expert model was accurate, KINN still managed to squeeze out useful information from both modalities to construct an accurate predictor. This demonstrates true strength of KITNN as it not only reduces dependency of the network on the data but also adapts itself in case of poorly made expert opinions. KINN achieved a significant reduction of 48% in the MSE of the LSTM network by incorporating the noisy expert prediction in the residual learning framework. Experiment \# 04: Reduced training set and noisy expert {#sec:noisyExpReducedData} ------------------------------------------------------- As a natural followup to the last two experiments, we introduced both conditions at the same time i.e. reduced training set size and noisy predictions from the expert. The training set was again reduced to 10% subset of the training data for training the model while keeping the testing set intact. Fig. \[fig:noisy\_10preds\] demonstrates that despite this worst condition, KINN still managed to outperform both the LSTM as well as the noisy expert predictions. Experiment \# 05: Full training set and poor expert {#sec:noExpFullData} --------------------------------------------------- As the final experiment, we evaluated KINN’s performance in cases where the expert predictions are not useful at all. We achieved this via two different settings. In the first setting, we considered that the expert network predicts zero every time. In the second setting the expert network was made to lag by a step of one resulting in mismatch of the time step with the predictions. Putting zero in place of $\hat{x}^{p}_{t}$ in Eq. \[conditionedOptimProblem\] yields: $$\hat{x}_{t} = \phi([x_{t-1}, x_{t-2},..., x_{t-p}, 0]; \mathcal{W}) + 0$$ $$\label{conditionedOptimProblemWithNoExp} \begin{aligned} \mathcal{W}^{*} = {\underset{\mathcal{W}}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|} \sum_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} (x_{t} - (\phi([x_{t-1},..., x_{t-p}, 0]; \mathcal{W}) \\+ 0))^2 \\ \mathcal{W}^{*} = {\underset{\mathcal{W}}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;} \frac{1}{|\mathcal{X}|} \sum_{\mathbf{x} \in \mathcal{X}} (x_{t} - (\phi([x_{t-1},..., x_{t-p}, 0]; \mathcal{W}))^2 \end{aligned}$$ This is almost equivalent to the normal unconditioned full input to output space projection learning case (Eq. \[unconditionedOptimProblem\]) except a zero in the conditioning vector. However, in case of lagged predictions by the expert network, since we stack the expert prediction $\hat{x}^{p}_{t}$ in a separate channel, the network assigns a negligible weight to this channel, resulting in exactly the same performance as the normal case. Table \[table:1\] provides the details regarding the results obtained for this experiment. It is clear from the table that in cases where the expert network either gave zero as its predictions or gave lagged predictions, which is useless, the network performance was identical to the normal case since the network learned to ignore the output from the expert. These results highlight that KINN provides a lower bound on the performance based on the performance of the two involved entities: expert model and the network. Discussion ---------- These thorough experiments advocates that the underlying residual mapping function learned by KINN is successful in combining the network with the prediction made by the expert. Specifically, KINN demonstrated the ability to recognize the quality of the prediction made by both of the base networks and shifted its reliance according to it. In all of the experiments that we have conducted, MSE of the predictions made by KINN never exceeded (disregarding insignificant changes) the MSE of the predictions achieved by the best among the LSTM and the expert model except in case of completely useless expert predictions, where it performed on par with the LSTM network. Table \[table:1\] provides a summary of the results obtained from all the different experiments performed. It is interesting to note that even with a huge reduction in the size of the training set, the MSE does not drastically increase as one would expect. This is due to the strong seasonal component present in the dataset. As a result, even with only 10% subset of the training data, the algorithms were able to learn the general pattern exhibited by the sequence. It is only in estimating small variations that these networks faced difficulty when training on less data. Conclusion ========== We propose a new architecture for incorporating expert knowledge into the deep network. It incorporates this expert knowledge in a residual scheme where the network learns a correction term for the predictions made by the expert. The knowledge incorporation scheme introduced by KINN has three key advantages. The first advantage is regarding the relaxation of the requirement for a huge dataset to train the model. The second advantage is regarding the provision of a lower bound on the performance of the resulting classifier since KINN achieves the best of both worlds by combining the two different modalities. The third advantage is its robustness in catering for poor/noisy predictions made by the expert. Through extensive evaluation, we demonstrated that the underlying residual function learned by the network makes the system robust enough to deal with imprecise expert information even in cases where there is a dearth of labelled data. This is because the network does not try to imitate predictions made by the expert network, but instead extracts and combines useful information contained in both of the domains. Acknowledgements ================ This work is supported by Higher Education Commission (Pakistan), Continental and BMBF project DeFuseNN (Grant 01IW17002). [^1]: http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/ clarkf/

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the formation of early-type galaxies (ETGs) through mergers with a sample of 70 high-resolution numerical simulations of binary mergers of disc galaxies. These simulations encompass various mass ratios, initial conditions and orbital parameters. We find that binary mergers of disc galaxies with mass ratios of 3:1 and 6:1 are nearly always classified as Fast Rotators according to the ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$ criterion: they preserve the structure of the input fast rotating spiral progenitors. Major disc mergers (mass ratios of 2:1 and 1:1) lead to both Fast and Slow Rotators. Most of the Slow Rotators hold a stellar Kinematically Distinct Core (KDC) in their 1-3 central kilo-parsec: these KDCs are built from the stellar components of the progenitors. The mass ratio of the progenitors is a fundamental parameter for the formation of Slow Rotators in binary mergers, but it also requires a retrograde spin for the progenitor galaxies with respect to the orbital angular momentum. The importance of the initial spin of the progenitors is also investigated in the library of galaxy mergers of the GalMer project.' author: - 'Maxime Bois$^{1}$, Eric Emsellem$^{2}$, Frédéric Bournaud$^{3}$, Katherine Alatalo$^4$, Leo Blitz$^4$, Martin Bureau$^5$, Michele Cappellari$^5$, Roger L. Davies$^5$, Timothy A. Davis$^5$, P. T. de Zeeuw$^{2,6}$, Pierre-Alain Duc$^{3}$, Sadegh Khochfar$^7$, Davor Krajnović$^2$, Harald Kuntschner$^{8}$, Pierre-Yves Lablanche$^{2}$, Richard M. McDermid $^{9}$, Raffaella Morganti$^{10,11}$, Thorsten Naab$^{12}$, Tom Oosterloo$^{10,11}$, Marc Sarzi$^{13}$,Nicholas Scott$^5$, Paolo Serra$^{10}$, Anne-Marie Weijmans$^{14}$ and Lisa M. Young$^{15}$' title: 'Simulations of binary galaxy mergers and the link with Fast Rotators, Slow Rotators, and Kinematically Distinct Cores' --- Introduction ============ Numerical simulations have clearly shown that the global characteristics of the remnants of binary mergers between two equal-mass spiral galaxies, called major mergers, resemble those of Early-Type Galaxies (*i.e* ellipticals & lenticulars), hereafter ETGs [@1992ApJ...393..484B]. Modern work tends to quantify in detail the properties of major and minor merger remnants, together with thorough comparisons with observed properties of ETGs . In this paper, we further examine the role of the initial conditions (mass ratios, impact parameters, relative velocities, inclinations and spins of the progenitors) on the morphology and the kinematics of the remnants of binary galaxy mergers. We build two-dimensional momentum (intensity, velocity and velocity dispersion) maps of the merger remnants and analyse their apparent properties, directly linked with their orbital structures [@2005MNRAS.360.1185J]. Using two-dimensional maps enables us to compare our merger remnants directly with the complete, volume-limited sample of 260 local ETGs from the ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$ survey [@2011MNRAS.413..813C]. Sample of simulations ===================== ![$\lambda_R - \epsilon$ diagram for all simulations of binary mergers of disc galaxies. The different mass ratios are labelled on top of each panels. The red symbols are for the projection which maximizes the ellipticity for a given remnant. The limit defining the slow/fast categories from ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$ is plotted as the solid black line.[]{data-label="fig1"}](bois_fig1.ps){width="\columnwidth"} We use the particle-mesh code described in @2008MNRAS.389L...8B and references therein. The softening lenght is 58 pc and the number of particles is 2 $\times$ 10$^6$ for each components (gas, stars and dark matter) for each galaxies. This resolution is required to resolve properly the fluctuations of the gravitational potential during the merger, *i.e* violent relaxation, which can significantly impact the morphology and kinematics of merger remnants [@2010MNRAS.406.2405B]. We have simulated binary mergers of spiral galaxies with mass ratios of 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 and 6:1. The first progenitor, which is defined as the most massive for unequal-mass mergers, has a baryonic mass of 1.3 $\times$ 10$^{11}$ M$_{\odot}$. The bulge fraction is $B/T = 0.20$ and the gas fraction in the disc is usually 10 per cent (33 per cent in some 2:1 mergers). This initial galaxy is representative for a *Sb* spiral galaxy. The other progenitor has its total mass determined by the mass ratio and a gas fraction of 10 per cent. The main difference with the first progenitor is the lower bulge fraction with $B/T = 0.12$. This second progenitor galaxy is denoted as the *Sc* spiral progenitor. We simulate 70 galaxy mergers with different initial conditions. We vary five parameters to study their importance on the properties of the final remnant: the mass ratio, the inclination of the spiral *wrt* the orbital plane, the impact parameter, the relative velocity of the spirals and the orientation of the spin of the spirals. The spin of the spirals can be then either direct (parallel) or retrograde (anti-parallel) *wrt* the orbital spin. Populations of fast and slow rotators ===================================== ![**Left:** Fraction of slow/fast rotators as a function of the inclination of the main progenitor with respect to the merger orbital plane for mass ratio 1:1, 2:1g10, 2:1g33. The negative inclination occurs when the spin of the Sb progenitor and the spin of the orbital angular momentum are anti-parallel. **Right:** $\lambda_R - \epsilon$ diagram for the GalMer merger remnants. In white symbols the spiral progenitors have a direct spin, in black symbols the spirals have a retrograde spin *wrt* the orbital spin.[]{data-label="fig2"}](bois_fig2.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} ![**Left:** Fraction of slow/fast rotators as a function of the inclination of the main progenitor with respect to the merger orbital plane for mass ratio 1:1, 2:1g10, 2:1g33. The negative inclination occurs when the spin of the Sb progenitor and the spin of the orbital angular momentum are anti-parallel. **Right:** $\lambda_R - \epsilon$ diagram for the GalMer merger remnants. In white symbols the spiral progenitors have a direct spin, in black symbols the spirals have a retrograde spin *wrt* the orbital spin.[]{data-label="fig2"}](bois_fig3.ps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} To quantify the global kinematics of each system, using the velocity and velocity dispersion maps, we measure the $\lambda_R$ parameter, which is a robust proxy for the stellar projected angular momentum defined in @2007MNRAS.379..401E. This parameter is used to separate ETGs in two families: the fast rotators and the slow rotators [see @2011MNRAS.414.2923K; @2011MNRAS.414..888E for detailed properties on these families]. To quantify the morphology, we measure the ellipticity $\epsilon = 1 -b/a$ where $a$ and $b$ are the semi major- and minor-axes, respectively. To compute these two parameters, we project our simulated merger remnants over 200 differents viewing angles to obtain statistically representative results. High-resolution simulations --------------------------- Figure \[fig1\] shows the $\lambda_R - \epsilon$ diagram for the 70 high-resolution simulations of binary mergers for their 200 projections. All projected galaxies which are above (*resp.* below) the black line are classified as fast rotators (*resp.* slow rotators). We first note that almost all the merger remnants formed with a 3:1 or 6:1 are classified as fast rotators. They preserved the structure of the input fast rotating spiral progenitors. Major spiral mergers (with mass ratios of 1:1 and 2:1) lead to both fast and slow rotators. A look at their velocity maps reveals that most of the slow rotators hold a stellar Kinematically Distinct Core (KDC) in their 1-3 central kilo-parsec: these KDCs are built from the stellar components of the progenitors. The mass ratio is then a fundamental parameter for the formation of slow rotators in binary mergers. The left panel of Figure \[fig2\] shows the number of fast and slow rotators for the 1:1 and 2:1 mergers as a function of the inclination of the *Sb* spiral progenitor (a negative inclination occurs when the spin of the spiral is retrograde *wrt* the orbital spin). The formation of the slow rotators requires a retrograde spin for the *Sb* spiral with respect to the orbital angular momentum. Due to its massive bulge, the spin of the *Sb* spiral is preserved during the merger while the *Sc* spiral (with a lower bulge) always acquires the direct spin of the orbit. It thus forms a merger remnant with two contributions in counter-rotation and forms, in our simulations, an apparent KDC. These slow rotating merger remnants are then representative of the 2-$\sigma$ galaxies observed in the ATLAS$^{\rm 3D}$ survey [@2011MNRAS.414.2923K; @2011MNRAS.414..888E]. The properties of these observed galaxies indicate that they are composed of two counter-rotating components and could have been formed via a single binary merger [see also @crocker09]. The GalMer simulations ---------------------- The GalMer project consists of one of the largest publicly available sample of numerical simulations of interacting galaxies [@chili10]: with a high number of simulations but a relatively low resolution (a total number of particles of 1.2 $\times$ 10$^5$ and a softening length of 280 pc). To confirm the importance of the spins’ orientation of the progenitors, we have selected in the GalMer database the simulations of 1:1 spiral – spiral mergers. The right panel of Figure \[fig2\] shows the $\lambda_R - \epsilon$ diagram for the edge-on view of the merger remnants. This plot confirms our previous findings: merging spirals with a retrograde orientation *wrt* the orbital spin produces a remnant with a lower angular momentum content. However, there is a large scatter in the $\lambda_R$ values of these simulated galaxies. This is probably due to the lower resolution of the simulations: a look at the velocity maps of the merger remnants reveals a high level of numerical noise. Barnes J. E, 1992, ApJ, 393, 484 Bois M., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 2405 Bournaud F., Jog C. J., Combes F., 2005, A&A, 437, 69 Bournaud F., Duc P.-A., Emsellem E., 2008, MNRAS, 389, 8 Cappellari M., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 813 Chilingarian I. V., et al., 2010, A&A, 518, 61 Crocker A. F., et al., 2009, MNRAS, 393, 1255 Emsellem E., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 401 Emsellem E., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 888 Jesseit R., Naab T., Burkert A., 2005, MNRAS, 360, 1185 Krajnovi[ć]{} D., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2923

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We investigate various aspects of operator quantum error-correcting codes or, as we prefer to call them, subsystem codes. We give various methods to derive subsystem codes from classical codes. We give a proof for the existence of subsystem codes using a counting argument similar to the quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound. We derive linear programming bounds and other upper bounds. We answer the question whether or not there exist $[[n,n-2d+2,r>0,d]]_q$ subsystem codes. Finally, we compare stabilizer and subsystem codes with respect to the required number of syndrome qudits.' author: - 'Salah A. Aly, Andreas Klappenecker and Pradeep Kiran Sarvepalli[^1] [^2]' title: '**[ Subsystem Codes]{}** ' --- INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro} ============ Quantum error-correcting codes are seen as being indispensable for building a quantum computer. There are three predominant approaches to quantum error-correction: stabilizer codes, noiseless systems, and decoherence free subspaces. Recent advances in the theory of quantum error-correction have shown that all these apparently disparate approaches are actually the same. This unification goes under the name of operator quantum error-correction codes [@kribs05; @kribs05b; @kribs05c; @poulin05; @knill06; @bacon06], though we will prefer to use the shorter and more descriptive term *subsystem codes*. Subsystem codes provide a common platform for comparing the various different types of quantum codes and make it possible to treat active and passive quantum error-correction within the same framework. Apart from the fact that subsystem codes give us more control over the degree of passive error-correction, there have been claims that subsystem codes can make quantum error-correction more robust and practical. For example, it has been claimed that subsystem codes make it possible to derive simpler error recovery schemes in comparison to stabilizer codes. Furthermore, it is conjectured that certain subsystem codes are self-correcting [@bacon06]. Subsystem codes are relatively new and promise to be a fruitful area for quantum error-correction. Until now, there are few concrete examples of such codes and even fewer systematic code constructions. Little is known about the parameters of subsystem codes, so it is difficult to judge the performance of such codes. In a recent work [@pre7], we derived a character-theoretic framework for the construction of subsystem codes. We were able to show that there exists a correspondence between the subsystem codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and classical additive codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$. In this paper, we investigate basic properties of subsystem codes, establish further connections to classical codes, and derive bounds on the parameters of subsystem codes. We report first results on a fair comparison between stabilizer codes and subsystem codes. The paper is structured as follows. After a brief introduction to subsystem codes in Section \[sec:classical\], we recall some results about the relations between subsystem codes and classical codes. Then we give some simple constructions of subsystem codes which parallel the common constructions of stabilizer codes. In Section \[sec:lBounds\], we give a nonconstructive proof of the existence of subsystem codes. In Section \[sec:uBounds\], we derive linear programming upper bounds on the parameters of subsystem codes. For pure subsystem codes (to be defined later) we can also derive analytical upper bounds which resemble the quantum Singleton and Hamming bounds. Armed with these results on bounds we make a rigorous comparison of stabilizer codes and subsystem codes, that makes precise when subsystem codes can do better. [*Notation:*]{} We assume that $q$ is the power of a prime $p$ and ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ denotes a finite field with $q$ elements. By qudit we mean a $q$-ary quantum bit. The symplectic weight of an element $w=(x_1,\ldots,x_n,y_1,\ldots,y_n)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ is defined as $\operatorname{swt}(w)=|\{(x_i,y_i)\neq (0,0)\mid 1\leq i\leq n \} |$. The trace-symplectic product of two elements $u=(a|b),v=(a'|b')$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ is defined as $\langle u|v \rangle_s = \operatorname{tr}_{q/p}(a'\cdot b-a\cdot b')$, where $x\cdot y$ is the usual euclidean inner product. The trace-symplectic dual of a code $C\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ is defined as $C^{{\perp_s}}=\{ v\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}\mid \langle v|w \rangle_s =0 \mbox{ for all } w\in C\}$. For vectors $x,y$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n$, we define the hermitian inner product $\langle x|y\rangle_h =\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^qy_i$ and the hermitian dual of $C\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n$ as $C^{{\perp_h}}= \{x\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n\mid \langle x|y \rangle_h=0 \mbox{ for all } y\in C \}$. The trace alternating form of two vectors $u,w$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n$ is defined as $\langle u|v\rangle_a=\operatorname{tr}_{q/p}[(\langle u|v\rangle_h - \langle v|u\rangle_h)/(\beta^{2}-\beta^{2q})]$, where $\{\beta,\beta^q\}$ is a normal basis of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$. If $C\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n$, then the trace alternating dual of $C$ is defined as $C^{{\perp_a}}=\{x\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n\mid \langle x|y\rangle_a =0\mbox{ for all } y\in C\}$. SUBSYSTEM CODES AND CLASSICAL CODES {#sec:classical} =================================== Let $\mathcal{H}={\mathbb{C}}^q\otimes {\mathbb{C}}^q\otimes \cdots \otimes {\mathbb{C}}^q ={\mathbb{C}}^{q^n}$. An orthonormal basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^{q^n}$ is $B=\{{|x\rangle}\mid x\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^n \}$. The vector ${|x\rangle} ={|x_1\rangle}\otimes{|x_2\rangle}\otimes\cdots\otimes {|x_n\rangle}$. The elements of $\mathcal{H}$ are of the form $$v=\sum_{x\in {\mathbb{F}}_q^n} v_x {|x\rangle} \mbox{ where $v_x \in {\mathbb{C}}$ and } \sum_{x\in{\mathbb{F}}_q^n}|v_x|^2 = 1.$$ We define the following unitary operators on ${\mathbb{C}}^q$ $$X_a{|x\rangle}={|x+a\rangle} \mbox{ and } Z_b{|x\rangle} = \omega^{\operatorname{tr}_{q/p}(bx)}{|x\rangle},$$ where $\omega=e^{j2\pi/p}$. The set of errors $\mathcal{E}= \{ X_a Z_b\mid a,b\in {\mathbb{F}}_q \}$ form a basis for errors on a single qudit. Every error on a single qudit can be expressed as linear combination of the elements in $\mathcal{E}$. If we assume that the errors are independent on each qudit, we need only consider the error group $E=\{\omega^c e_1\otimes e_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes e_n \mid c\in {\mathbb{F}}_p, e_i\in \mathcal{E}\}$, where each of the $e_i$ is a single qudit error. The weight of an error is the number of qudits that are in error. For further details on the error model and the actual structure of the error group we refer the reader to [@pre3]. A quantum error-correcting code $Q$ is a subspace in $\mathcal{H}={\mathbb{C}}^{q^n}$ such that $\mathcal{H}=Q\oplus Q^\perp$, where $Q^\perp$ is the orthogonal complement of $Q$. In a subsystem code, the subspace $Q$ further decomposes into a tensor product of two vector space $A$ and $B$, that is, $$Q = A\otimes B.$$ The vectors spaces $A$ and $B$ are respectively called the subsystem and the co-subsystem of the code $Q$. The information to be protected is stored in the subsystem $A$, whence the name subsystem code. If $\dim A=K$, $\dim B=R$ and $Q$ is able to detect all errors in $E$ of weight less than $d$ on subsystem $A$, then we say that $Q$ is an $((n,K,R,d))_q$ subsystem code. We call $d$ the minimum distance of the subsystem $A$ or, by slight abuse of language, the minimum distance of the subsystem code $Q$ (when the tensor decomposition $Q=A\otimes B$ is understood from the context). We write $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ for an $((n,q^k,q^r,d))_q$ subsystem code. Sometimes we will say that an $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code has $r$ virtual gauge qudits, which is simply another way of saying that the dimension of the co-subsystem is $q^r$; it should be stressed that the gauge qudits typically do not correspond to physical qudits. Subsystem Codes From Classical Codes ------------------------------------ We recall the following results from [@pre7] which relate quantum subsystem codes to classical codes. \[th:oqecfq\] Let $X$ be a classical additive subcode of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ such that $X\neq \{0\}$ and let $Y$ denote its subcode $Y=X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}$. If $x=|X|$ and $y=|Y|$, then there exists subsystem code $C= A\otimes B$ such that $\dim A = q^n/(xy)^{1/2}$, $\dim B = (x/y)^{1/2}$. The minimum distance of subsystem $A$ is given by $d=\operatorname{swt}((X+X^{{\perp_s}})-X)=\operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}}-X)$. Thus, the subsystem $A$ can detect all errors in $E$ of weight less than $d$, and can correct all errors in $E$ of weight $\le \lfloor (d-1)/2\rfloor$. See [@pre7 Theorem 5]. Recall that $|X^{{\perp_s}}|=q^{2n}/|X|$. Therefore, the dimension of the subsystem $A$ can also be calculated as $\dim A=(|X^{{\perp_s}}|/|Y|)^{1/2}$. It is also possible to construct subsystem codes via codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ using $\langle\,\cdot\,|\,\cdot\,\rangle_a$, the trace alternating form [@pre3] which gives us the following theorem. The proof can be found in [@pre7 Theorem 6]. \[th:oqecfq2\] Let $X$ be a classical additive subcode of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^{n}$ such that $X\neq \{0\}$ and let $Y$ denote its subcode $Y=X\cap X^{{\perp_a}}$. If $x=|X|$ and $y=|Y|$, then there exists subsystem code $C= A\otimes B$ such that $\dim A = q^n/(xy)^{1/2}$, $\dim B = (x/y)^{1/2}$. The minimum distance of subsystem $A$ is given by $$d=\operatorname{wt}((X+X^{{\perp_a}})-X)=\operatorname{wt}(Y^{{\perp_a}}-X),$$ where $\operatorname{wt}$ denotes the Hamming weight. Thus, the subsystem $A$ can detect all errors in $E$ of Hamming weight less than $d$, and can correct all errors in $E$ of Hamming weight $\lfloor (d-1)/2\rfloor$ or less. This follows from Theorem \[th:oqecfq\] and the fact that there exists a weight-preserving isometric isomorphism from $({\mathbb{F}}_{q}^{2n},\langle\,\cdot\,|\,\cdot\,\rangle_s)$ and $({\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^{n},\langle\,\cdot\,|\,\cdot\,\rangle_a)$, see [@pre3]. Theorem \[th:oqecfq2\] has the advantage that the weights of the codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ is measured using the usual Hamming distance. We are now going to derive some particularly important special cases of the above two theorems as a consequence. Before stating these results, we recall the following simple fact. \[th:dirsumdual\] Let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be two ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear codes of length $n$. The product code $C_1\times C_2 = \{ (a|b) \,|\, a\in C_1, b\in C_2\}$ has length $2n$ and its trace-symplectic dual is given by $$(C_1\times C_2)^{{\perp_s}}= C_2^\perp\times C_1^\perp.$$ If $(a|b)\in C_1\times C_2$ and $(a'|b')\in C_2^\perp\times C_1$, then $ \operatorname{tr}_{q/p}(b\cdot a' - b'\cdot a)= 0;$ hence, $C_2^\perp\times C_1^\perp\subseteq (C_1\times C_2)^{{\perp_s}}$. Comparing dimensions shows that equality must hold. The first consequence uses the euclidean inner product, that is, the usual dot inner product on ${\mathbb{F}}_q^n$ to construct subsystem codes. In the special case of stabilizer codes, this yields the well-known CSS construction (for instance, see [@calderbank98 Theorem 9]). \[th:cssoqec\] Let $C_i \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_q^n$, be $[n,k_i]_q$ linear codes where $i\in \{1,2\}$. Then there exists an $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code with $k=n-(k_1+k_2+k')/2$, $r=(k_1+k_2-k')/2$, and $d=\min \{ \operatorname{wt}((C_1^\perp\cap C_2)^\perp\setminus C_1), \operatorname{wt}((C_2^\perp\cap C_1)^\perp\setminus C_2) \}$, where $k'= \dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q}(C_1\cap C_2^\perp)\times (C_1^\perp\cap C_2)$. Let $C=C_1\times C_2$, then by Lemma \[th:dirsumdual\], $C^{{\perp_s}}=C_2^\perp\times C_1^\perp$, and $D=C\cap C^{{\perp_s}}= (C_1\cap C_2^\perp)\times (C_2\cap C_1^\perp)$. Again by Lemma \[th:dirsumdual\], $D^{{\perp_s}}= (C_2\cap C_1^\perp)^\perp \times (C_1\cap C_2^\perp)^\perp$. Let $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q} D= k'$. Then $|C||D|=q^{k_1+k_2+k'}$ and $|C|/|D|=q^{k_1+k_2-k'}$. By Theorem \[th:oqecfq\], the code $C$ defines an $[[n,n-(k_1+k_2+k')/2,(k_1+k_2-k')/2,d]]_q$ subsystem code. The distance of the code is given by $$\begin{array}{lcl} d&=&\operatorname{swt}(D^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C)\\ &=& \operatorname{swt}((C_2\cap C_1^\perp)^\perp \times (C_1\cap C_2^\perp)^\perp \setminus (C_1\times C_2)). \end{array}$$ The latter expression can be simplified to $$d=\min\{ \operatorname{wt}((C_2\cap C_1^\perp)^\perp\setminus C_1), \operatorname{wt}((C_1\cap C_2^\perp)^\perp\setminus C_2)\},$$ which proves the claim. Setting $C_2=C_1$ in the previous construction simplifies the computation of the code parameters. Then we have an $[[n,n-k-k', k-k', \operatorname{wt}((C_1\cap C_1^\perp)^\perp\setminus C_1)]]_q$ code, where $k'=\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_q} C_1\cap C_1^\perp$. Therefore, any family of classical codes where the dimension of $C_1\cap C_1^\perp$ and the minimum distance of the dual of $C_1\cap C_1^\perp$ is known, will provide us with a family of subsystem codes. The codes that arise when $C_1=C_2$ will also arise as a special case of the next construction. \[th:oqecHerm\] Let $C \subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n$ be an ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$-linear $[n,k,d]_{q^2}$ code such that $D=C\cap C^{{\perp_h}}$ is of dimension $k'=\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}} D$. Then there exists an $$[[n,n-k-k',k-k',\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_h}}\setminus C)]]_q$$ subsystem code. If $C$ is linear, then $C^{{\perp_a}}=C^{{\perp_h}}$ by [@pre7 Lemma 18]. It follows that $q^n/\sqrt{|D||C|}=q^{n-k'-k}$ and $\sqrt{|C|/|D|}=q^{k-k'}$. Let $d=\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_h}}\setminus C)$. Then, by Theorem \[th:oqecfq2\], there exists an $[[n,n-k-k',k-k',d]]_q$ subsystem code. The subsystem codes can be easily constructed with the help of a computer algebra system. The following example gives some subsystem codes constructed using MAGMA [@magma]. \[ex:herm\] The binary subsystem codes in Table \[bchtable\] were derived from BCH codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_{4}$ via Corollary \[th:oqecHerm\]. ---------------------- ---------------------- ---- $[[15,1,2,5]]_2$ $[15,8,6]_{2^2}$ 6 $[[15,5,2,3]]_2$ $[15,6,7]_{2^2}$ 7 $[[17,8,1,4]]_2 $ $ [17,5,9]_{2^2}$ 4 $[[21,6,3,3]]_2$ $ [21,9,7]]_{2^2}$ 6 $[[21 ,7 ,2 ,3 ]]_2$ $ [21 ,8 ,9 ]_{2^2}$ 8 $[[31,10,1,5]]_2$ $[31,11,11]_{2^2} $ 8 $[[31 ,20,1 ,3 ]]_2$ $ [31 ,6 ,15]_{2^2}$ 12 ---------------------- ---------------------- ---- : BCH Subsystem Codes[]{data-label="bchtable"} Codes constructed with the help of Corollaries \[th:cssoqec\] and \[th:oqecHerm\] will lead to ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear and ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$-linear subsystem codes respectively. Though in some cases Corollary \[th:cssoqec\] can lead to ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$-linear codes. So when we refer to a subsystem code as being ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear, it could be also ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$-linear. In this paper, we will call a subsystem code that can be constructed with the help of Theorems \[th:oqecfq\] and \[th:oqecfq2\] and their corollaries, a *Clifford subsystem code*. Ten years ago, Knill suggested a generalization of stabilizer codes that became known as Clifford codes (because their construction uses a part of representation theory known as Clifford theory). Recently, we realized that a special case of Knill’s construction leads to a very natural construction of subsystem codes. Clifford theory is the natural tool in the construction of these subsystem codes, whence the name. LOWER BOUNDS ON SUBSYSTEM CODES {#sec:lBounds} =============================== In this section we give a simple nonconstructive proof for the existence of subsystem codes. The proof is based on a counting argument similar to the quantum Gilbert-Varshamov bound for stabilizer codes [@pre3]. We will need the following simple fact. \[l:addcode\] Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$. Let $r$ and $s$ be nonnegative integers such that $p^{r+2s}\leq q^{2n}$. Then there exists an additive subcode $X$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ such that $|X|=p^{r+2s}$ and $|X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}|=p^r$. Let $m$ denote the integer such that $q=p^m$. We may regard ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ as an $2nm$-dimensional vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. Then ${\langle \cdot\mid \cdot\rangle_s}$ is a nondegenerate skew-symmetric bilinear form on this vector space. Therefore, there exists a direct sum decomposition of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}\cong {\mathbb{F}}_p^{2nm}=V_1\oplus\cdots \oplus V_{nm}$, where $V_k$ is a 2-dimensional subspace with basis $\{x_k,z_k\}$ such that ${\langle x_k\mid x_\ell\rangle_s}=0={\langle z_k\mid z_\ell\rangle_s}$ for $1\le k,\ell\le nm$, ${\langle x_k\mid z_k\rangle_s}\neq 0$, and ${\langle x_k\mid z_\ell\rangle_s}=0$ if $k\neq \ell$. Then $X=\langle z_1,\dots,z_r, x_{r+1},z_{r+1},\dots, x_{r+s},z_{r+s}\rangle$ is a code with the desired properties. \[th:gvoqec\] Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$. If $K$ and $R$ are powers of $p$ such that $1<KR\le q^n$ and $d$ is a positive integer such that $$\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j (q^nKR-q^nR/K)<(p-1)(q^{2n}-1)$$ holds, then an $((n,K,R,\ge d))_q$ subsystem code exists. By Lemma \[l:addcode\], there exists an additive subcode $X$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ such that $x=|X|=q^nR/K$ and $y=|X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}|=q^n/(KR)$; the resulting subsystem code has a subsystem of dimension $q^n/(xy)^{1/2}=K$ and a co-subsystem of dimension $(x/y)^{1/2}=R$. Therefore, the multiset $\mathcal{X}$ given by $$\mathcal{X} = \left\{ (X+X^{{\perp_s}})-X\,\bigg|\, \begin{array}{l} X \text{ is an additive subcode of } \\ {\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n} \text{ such that } |X|=q^nR/K \\ \text{and } |X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}|=q^n/(KR) \end{array} \right\}$$ is not empty. Thus, an element of $\mathcal{X}$ corresponds to a subsystem code $C=A\otimes B$ with $\dim A=K$ and $\dim B=R$. The set difference $(X+X^{{\perp_s}})-X$ contains only nonzero vectors of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$. We claim that all nonzero vector in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ appear in the same number of sets in $\mathcal{X}$. Indeed, the symplectic group $\textup{Sp}(2n,{\mathbb{F}}_q)$ acts transitively on the set ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}^{2n}\setminus \{ 0\}$, see [@grove01 Proposition 3.2], which means that for any nonzero vectors $u$ and $v$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ there exists $\tau\in \textup{Sp}(2n,{\mathbb{F}}_q)$ such that $v=\tau u$. Therefore, $u$ is contained in $(X+X^{{\perp_s}})-X$ if and only if $v$ is contained in the element $(\tau X+(\tau X)^{{\perp_s}})-\tau X$ of $\mathcal{X}$. Since $|(X+X^{{\perp_s}})-X|=q^nKR-q^nR/K$, we can conclude that any nonzero vector of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ occurs in $|\mathcal{X}|(q^nKR-q^nR/K)/(q^{2n}-1)$ elements of $\mathcal{X}$. Furthermore, a nonzero vector and its ${\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$-multiples are contained in the exact same sets of $\mathcal{X}$. Therefore, if we delete all sets from $\mathcal{X}$ that contain a nonzero vector with symplectic weight less than $d$, then we remove at most $$\frac{\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j}{p-1} |\mathcal{X}|\frac{(q^nKR-q^nR/K)}{q^{2n}-1}$$ sets from $\mathcal{X}$. By assumption, this number is less than $|\mathcal{X}|$; hence, there exists an $((n,K,R,\ge d))_q$ subsystem code. The lower bound has important implications for comparing stabilizer codes with subsystem codes as we shall see in Section \[sec:stabVsoqec\]. Further, we obtain the following lower bound for stabilizer codes as a simple corollary, when $R=1$ (see also [@pre3]). \[th:gvstab\] Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$ and $1<K\leq q^n$ a power of $p$. If $$\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j <(p-1)\frac{(q^{2n}-1)}{(q^nK-q^n/K)}$$ holds, then an $((n,K,\ge d))_q$ stabilizer code exists. A stronger result showing the existing of linear stabilizer codes was shown in [@pre3 Lemma 31]. UPPER BOUNDS FOR SUBSYSTEM CODES {#sec:uBounds} ================================ We want to investigate some limitations on subsystem codes that can be constructed with the help of Theorem \[th:oqecfq\] (or, equivalently, Theorem \[th:oqecfq2\]). To that end, we will investigate some upper bounds on the parameters of subsystem codes. Linear Programming Bounds ------------------------- \[th:lp\] If an $((n,K,R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code with $K>1$ exists, then there exists a solution to the optimization problem: maximize $\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} A_j$ subject to the constraints 1. $A_0=B_0=1$ and $0\le B_j \le A_j$ for all $1\le j\le n$; 2. ${\displaystyle}\sum_{j=0}^n A_j = q^{n}R/K$; ${\displaystyle}\sum_{j=0}^n B_j = q^{n}/KR$; 3. $A_j^{{\perp_s}}= {\displaystyle}\frac{K}{q^{n}R} \sum_{r=0}^n K_j(r)A_r$ holds for all $j$ in the range $0\le j \le n $; 4. $B_j^{{\perp_s}}= {\displaystyle}\frac{KR}{q^{n}} \sum_{r=0}^n K_j(r)B_r$ holds for all $j$ in the range $0\le j \le n $; 5. $A_j=B_j^{{\perp_s}}$ for all $j$ in $0\le j<d$ and $A_j\le B_j^{{\perp_s}}$ for all $d\le j\le n$; 6. $B_j=A_j^{{\perp_s}}$ for all $j$ in $0\le j<d$ and $B_j\le A_j^{{\perp_s}}$ for all $d\le j\le n$; 7. $(p-1)$ divides $A_j$, $B_j$, $A_j^{{\perp_s}}$, and $B_j^{{\perp_s}}$ for all $j$ in the range $1\le j\le n$; where the coefficients $A_j$ and $B_j$ assume only integer values, and $K_j(r)$ denotes the Krawtchouk polynomial $$K_j(r) = \sum_{s=0}^j (-1)^s (q^2-1)^{j-s}\binom{r}{s}\binom{n-r}{j-s}.$$ If an $((n,K,R,d))_q$ subsystem code exists, then the weight distribution $A_j$ of the associated additive code $X$ and the weight distribution $B_j$ of its subcode $Y =X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}$ obviously satisfy 1). By Theorem \[th:oqecfq\], we have $K=q^n/\sqrt{|X||Y|}$ and $R=\sqrt{|X|/|Y|}$, which implies $|X|=\sum A_j = q^nR/K$ and $|Y|=\sum B_j =q^n/KR$, proving 2). Conditions 3) and 4) follow from the MacWilliams relation for symplectic weight distribution, see [@pre3 Theorem 23]. As $X$ is an ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-linear code, for each nonzero codeword $c$ in $X$, $\alpha c$ is again in $X$ for all $\alpha$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$; thus, condition 7) must hold. Since the quantum code has minimum distance $d$, all vectors of symplectic weight less than $d$ in $Y^{{\perp_s}}$ must be in $X$, since $Y^{{\perp_s}}-X$ has minimum distance $d$; this implies 5). Similarly, all vectors in $X^{{\perp_s}}\subseteq X+X^{{\perp_s}}$ of symplectic weight less than $d$ must be contained in $X$, since $(X+X^{{\perp_s}})-X$ has minimum distance $d$; this implies 6). We can use the previous theorem to derive bounds on the dimension of the co-subsystem. If the optimization problem is not solvable, then we can immediately conclude that a code with the corresponding parameter settings cannot exist. Perhaps one of the most striking features of subsystem codes is the potential reduction of syndrome measurements. Recall that an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n,k,d]]_q$ stabilizer code requires $n-k$ syndrome measurements. On the other hand, an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ Clifford subsystem code requires just $n-k-r$ syndrome measurements. Poulin [@poulin05] asked whether we can have $[[5,1,r>0,3]]_2$ Clifford subsystem code. Of course, such a code would be preferable over the $[[5,1,3]]_2$ stabilizer code. After an exhaustive computer search, he concluded that such a subsystem code does not exist. This result can be obtained very easily with the linear programming bounds. In fact, our investigations for small lengths revealed that not only a $[[5,1,r>0,3]]_2$ code does not exist, but neither does any code with parameters given in the next example. \[ex:lp\] Theorem \[th:lp\] shows that it is not possible to construct subsystem codes with $r>0$ and parameters shown in Table \[lptable\]. --------------------------- ----------------------------------- \[-2ex\] ${\mathbb{F}}_2$ $ [[4,2,r,2]]_2$, $[[5,1,r,3]]_2$ $[[4,2,r,2]]_3$, $[[5,1,r,3]]_3$, ${\mathbb{F}}_3$ $[[9,3,r,4]]_3$, $[[9,5,r,3]]_3$, $[[10,6,r,3]]_3$ $[[4,2,r,2]]_4$, $[[5,1,r,3]]_4$, ${\mathbb{F}}_4$ $[[9,3,r,4]]_4$, $[[9,5,r,3]]_4$, $[[10,6,r,3]]_4$ --------------------------- ----------------------------------- : []{data-label="lptable"} The previous example is motivated by the fact that one can improve upon Shor’s $[[9,1,3]]_2$ quantum stabilizer code by allowing three additional gauge qubits, that is, there exists a $[[9,1,3,3]]_2$ subsystem code, see [@poulin05]. The practical relevance is that the $9-1=8$ syndrome measurements that are required for Shor’s code are reduced to $9-1-3=5$ syndrome measurements in the subsystem code. Since we allow nonbinary alphabets in this paper, a natural generalization of Poulin’s question is whether one can find an $[[n,n-2d+2,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code with $r>0$. The above example shows that such subsystem codes with such parameters do not exist for certain small lengths and small alphabet sizes. We will fully answer this question in the subsequent sections. In the search for an answer to this problem, we were prompted to define the notion of pure subsystem codes. The notion of purity proved to be fruitful in deducing this and other results. Pure Subsystem Codes -------------------- Let $X$ be an additive subcode of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q}^{2n}$ and $Y=X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}$. By Theorem \[th:oqecfq\], we can obtain an $((n,K,R,d))_q$ subsystem code $Q$ from $X$ that has minimum distance $d=\operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}}- X)$. The set difference involved in the definition of the minimum distance makes it harder to compute the minimum distance. Therefore, we introduce pure codes that are easier to analyze. We say that the subsystem code $Q$ is *pure to $d'$* if $d'\leq \operatorname{swt}(X)$. The code is *exactly pure to $d'$* if it is pure to $d'$ but not to $d'+1$; then $\operatorname{swt}(X)=d'$. Any subsystem code is always exactly pure to $d'=\operatorname{swt}(X)$. We call $Q$ a pure subsystem code if it is pure to $d'\geq d$; otherwise, we call $Q$ an impure subsystem code. Pure codes do not require us to compute the minimum distance of the difference set $Y^{{\perp_s}}- X$. We can compute the distance of the code as $d=\operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}})$, which is comparatively simpler task though it is also computationally hard. The purity of codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ is defined in a similar way. \[ex:pure\] The nonbinary subsystem codes given in Table \[tab:RS\] are all pure and were derived from primitive narrowsense Reed-Solomon codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$. -------------------------- ----------------------- -- $[[15,1,10,3]]_4$ $[15 ,12 ,4 ]_{4^2}$ $[[15 ,1 ,8 ,3 ]]_4$ $[15 ,11 ,5]_{4^2}$ $[[15 ,1 ,6 ,3 $[15 ,10 ,6]_{4^2}$ ]]_4$ $[[15 ,2 ,5 ,3 ]] _4$ $ [15 ,9 ,7]_{4^2}$ $[[24,1,17,4]]_5$ $[24,20,5]_{5^2}$ $[[24,2,10,4]]_5 $ $[24,16,9]_{5^2}$ $[[24 ,4 ,10,4 ]]_5$ $[24,15,10]_{5^2}$ $ [[24,16,2,4]]_5$ $[24,5,20]_{5^2}$ $[[24,17 ,1,4 ]]_5 $ $[24,4,21]_{5^2}$ $[[24,19,1,3]]_5$ $[24,3,22]_{5^2}$ $[[48 ,1 ,37 ,6 ]]_7$ $[48 ,42 ,7 ]_{7^2}$ $[[48 ,2 ,26 ,6 ]]_7 $ $[48 ,36 ,13 ]_{7^2}$ -------------------------- ----------------------- -- : Reed-Solomon Subsystem codes[]{data-label="rstable"} \[tab:RS\] It is curious that the distance of many of these subsystem codes is equal to $q-1$. We conjecture that, in general, the distance of a subsytem code constructed from a Reed-Solomon code over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^{q^2-1}$ cannot exceed $q-1$. Upper Bounds for Pure Subsystem Codes ------------------------------------- In this subsection, we establish a number of basic results concerning pure subsystem codes. The next lemma is a key result that associates to a pure subsystem code a pure stabilizer code. \[th:stabcode\] If a pure $((n,K,R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code $Q$ exists, then there exists a pure $((n,KR,d))_q$ stabilizer code. Let $X$ be a classical additive subcode of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$ that defines $Q$, and let $Y=X\cap X^{{\perp_s}}$. Furthermore, Theorem \[th:oqecfq\] implies that $KR=q^n/|Y|$. Since $Y\subseteq Y^{{\perp_s}}$, there exists an $((n,q^n/|Y|,d'))_q$ stabilizer code with minimum distance $d'=\operatorname{wt}(Y^{{\perp_s}}- Y)$. The purity of $Q$ implies that $\operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}}- X) = \operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}})=d$. As $Y\subseteq X$, it follows that $d'=\operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}}- Y)=\operatorname{swt}(Y^{{\perp_s}})=d$; hence, there exists a pure $((n,KR,d))_q$ stabilizer code. As a consequence of the preceding lemma, it is straightforward to obtain the following bounds on pure subsystem codes. \[th:pureBound\] Any pure $((n,K,R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code satisfies $KR\leq q^{n-2d+2}$. By Lemma \[th:stabcode\], there exists a pure $((n,KR,d))_q$ stabilizer code. By the quantum Singleton bound, we have $KR\leq q^{n-2d+2}$. A pure $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ Clifford subsystem code satisfies $ k+ r\leq n-2d+2$. \[ex:mds\] All the following codes constructed from Reed-Solomon codes over ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ are pure and meet the bound in Theorem \[th:pureBound\]. These codes are in that sense optimal subsystem codes. ------------------------- ---------------------- -- $[[15,1,10,3]]_4$ $[15 ,12 ,4 ]_{4^2}$ $[[15,9,2,3]]_4$ $[15,4,12]_{4^2}$ $[[15,10,1,3]]_4$ $[15,3,13]_{4^2}$ $[[24,1,17,4]]_5$ $[24,20,5]_{5^2}$ $ [[24,16,2,4]]_5$ $[24,5,20]_{5^2}$ $[[24,17 ,1,4 ]]_5 $ $[24,4,21]_{5^2}$ $[[24,19,1,3]]_5$ $[24,3,22]_{5^2}$ $[[48 ,1 ,37 ,6 ]]_7$ $[48 ,42 ,7 ]_{7^2}$ ------------------------- ---------------------- -- : Optimal Pure Subsystem Codes[]{data-label="opttable"} We can also show that the pure subsystem codes obey a quantum Hamming bound like the stabilizer codes. We skip the proof as it is along the same lines as Theorem \[th:pureBound\]. A pure $((n,K,R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code satisfies $$\sum_{j=0}^{\lfloor\frac{d-1}{2} \rfloor}\binom{n}{j}(q^2-1)^j \leq q^n/KR.$$ SUBSYSTEM CODE CONSTRUCTIONS {#sec:const} ============================ In this section, we give new constructions for pure subsystem codes. We begin with a proof of the simple, yet surprising, observation that one can always exchange information qudits and gauge qudits in the case of pure subsystem codes. If there exists a pure $((n,K,R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code, then there also exists an $((n,R,K, \mbox{$\ge$}\,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code that is pure to $d$. By Theorem \[th:oqecfq2\], there exist classical codes $D\subseteq C\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n$ with the parameters $(n,q^nR/K)_{q^2}$ and $(n,q^n/KR)_{q^2}$. Furthermore, since the subsystem code is pure, we have $\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_a}}\setminus C) = \operatorname{wt}( D^{{\perp_a}})= d$. Let us interchange the roles of $C$ and $C^{{\perp_a}}$, that is, now we construct a subsystem code from $C^{{\perp_a}}$. The parameters of the resulting subsystem code are given by $$((n, \sqrt{|D^{{\perp_a}}|/|C^{{\perp_a}}|},\sqrt{|C^{{\perp_a}}|/|D|},\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_a}}\setminus C^{{\perp_a}}) ))_q.$$ We note that $\sqrt{|D^{{\perp_a}}|/|C^{{\perp_a}}|} =\sqrt{|C|/|D|} =R$ and $\sqrt{|C^{{\perp_a}}|/|D|}= \sqrt{|D^{{\perp_a}}|/|C|}=K$. The minimum distance $d'$ of the resulting code satisfies $d' = \operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_a}}\setminus C^{{\perp_a}}) \geq \operatorname{wt}( D^{{\perp_a}}) = d$; the claim about the purity follows from the fact that $\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_a}})=d$. Before proving our next result, we need the following fact from linear algebra. \[l:hyperbolic\_basis\] Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$. Let $C$ denote an additive subcode of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^{2n}$. There exists an ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-basis $B$ generating the code $C$ that is of the form $$B=\{z_1,x_1;\dots;z_r,x_r;z_{r+1},\dots,z_{r+j}\}$$ where ${\langle x_k\mid x_\ell\rangle_s}=0={\langle z_k\mid z_\ell\rangle_s}$ and ${\langle x_k\mid z_\ell\rangle_s}=\delta_{k,\ell}$. In particular, $D=C\cap C^{{\perp_s}}=\langle z_{r+1},\dots,z_{r+s}\rangle$. It is possible to choose $B$ such that it contains a vector $z_k$ of minimum weight $\operatorname{swt}(C)$. Choose a basis $\{z_1,\dots,z_{r+j}\}$ of a maximal isotropic subspace $C_0$ of $C$. If $C_0\neq C$, then we can choose a codeword $x_1$ in $C$ that is orthogonal to all of the $z_k$ except one, say $z_1$ (renumbering if necessary). By multiplying with a scalar in ${\mathbb{F}}_p^\times$, we may assume that ${\langle z_1\mid x_1\rangle_s}=1$. If $\langle C_0,x_1\rangle\neq C$, then one can repeat the process a finite number of times by choosing an $x_k$ that is orthogonal to $\{x_1,\dots,x_{k-1}\}$ until a basis of the desired form is found. A subset $\{z_k,x_k\}$ of $C$ with ${\langle z_k\mid x_k\rangle_s}=1$ is called a hyperbolic pair. Thus, in the proof of the previous lemma, one chooses in each step a hyperbolic pair that is orthogonal to the previously chosen hyperbolic pairs. \[th:gaugeReduction\] Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be a finite field of characteristic $p$. An $((n,K,R>1,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code $Q$ implies the existence of an $((n,K,R/p,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code $Q_s$. If $Q$ is exactly pure to $d'$, then the subsystem code $Q_s$ can be chosen such that it is exactly pure to $d'$ as well. By Theorem \[th:oqecfq\], there exists an additive code $C\le {\mathbb{F}}_{q}^{2n}$ with subcode $D=C\cap C^{{\perp_s}}$ such that $K=q^n/(|D||C|)^{1/2}$, $R=(|C|/|D|)^{1/2}$, $d=\operatorname{swt}(D^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C)$, and $d'=\operatorname{swt}(C)$. By Lemma \[l:hyperbolic\_basis\], one can find a ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-basis $B$ of the form $ B=\{z_1,x_1;\dots;z_r,x_r;z_{r+1},\dots,z_{r+j}\}$ such that ${\langle x_k\mid x_\ell\rangle_s}=0={\langle z_k\mid z_\ell\rangle_s}$ and ${\langle x_k\mid z_\ell\rangle_s}=\delta_{k,\ell}$. Notice that $D=C\cap C^{{\perp_s}}=\langle z_{r+1},\dots,z_{r+j}\rangle$ by Lemma \[l:hyperbolic\_basis\]. Let $C_s$ be the additive subcode of $C$ given by $C_s = \operatorname{span}_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(B\setminus\{x_r\}).$ Then $D_s=C_s\cap C_s^{{\perp_s}}=\langle z_{r},\dots,z_{r+j}\rangle$. It follows that $|C_s|=|C|/p$ and $|D_s|=p|D|$. Therefore, $C_s$ defines a subsystem code $Q_s=A_s\otimes B_s$ such that $\dim A_s = q^n/(|C_s||D_s|)^{1/2}=K$ and $\dim B_s = (|C_s|/|D_s|)^{1/2} =R/p$. Since $D_s^{{\perp_s}}\subset D^{{\perp_s}}$, any minimum weight codeword $c\in D_s^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C_s$ must be either in $D^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C$ or $C$. If it is in $D^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C$, then $\operatorname{swt}(c)\geq d$. If it is in $C$, then it is a linear combination of elements in $B\setminus \{x_r\}$, since $x_r \not\in D_s^{{\perp_s}}$. This implies that $c$ is contained in $C_s$, contradicting our assumption that $c$ is in $D_s^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C_s$. Therefore, $\operatorname{swt}(D_s^{{\perp_s}}\setminus C_s )\geq d$ and we can conclude that $Q_s$ has minimum distance $\ge d$. For the purity statement, recall that $D\subset D_s\subseteq C_s\subset C$. The subsystem code $Q$ is exactly pure to $d'=\operatorname{swt}(C)$. If $\operatorname{swt}(D)=d'$, then $\operatorname{swt}(C_s)=d'$; otherwise, $\operatorname{swt}(C\setminus D)=d'$ and we can choose $z_{r+1}$ such that $\operatorname{swt}(z_{r+1})=d'$. Then the subsystem code $Q_s$ is exactly pure to $\operatorname{swt}(C_s)=d'$. \[th:oqec2stab\] An $((n,K,R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code that is exactly pure to $d'$ implies the existence of an $((n,K,\geq d))_q$ stabilizer code that is (exactly) pure to $d'$. The corollary follows by repeatedly applying Theorem \[th:gaugeReduction\] to the $((n,K,R,d))_q$ code and the derived code until the dimension of the gauge subsystem is reduced to one. We know that the MDS stabilizer codes arise from classical MDS codes. In fact, the stabilizer code is MDS if and only if the associated classical code is MDS. We can therefore hope that good subsystem codes can be obtained from classical MDS codes. We show that the resulting subsystem codes must be pure. If an $((n,K>1,R>1,d))_q$ subsystem code is constructed from an MDS code, then the resulting code is pure. Assume that $C\subseteq {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^n $ is an $[n,k,n-k+1]_{q^2}$ code. If $C^{{\perp_a}}\subseteq C$, then $K=1$ contrary to our assumption. So assume that $C^{{\perp_a}}\not\subseteq C$. Let $k>n-k$. Then $D=C\cap C^{{\perp_a}}$ must be smaller than $C^{{\perp_a}}$. And $\dim D \leq n-k-1$. Hence $\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_a}}) \leq (n-k-1)+1 =n-k <n-k+1=\operatorname{wt}(C)$. Hence the subsystem code is pure. Now assume that $k\leq n-k$. Now it is possible that $C\subseteq C^{{\perp_a}}$. If $C\subseteq C^{{\perp_a}}$, then $R=1$. So $C\not\subseteq C^{{\perp_a}}$. Now $\dim D \leq k-1$ from which it follows that $\operatorname{wt}(D^{{\perp_a}})\leq k \leq n-k<n-k+1=\operatorname{wt}(C)$. It follows that the subsystem code is pure. STABILIZER VERSUS SUBSYSTEM CODES {#sec:stabVsoqec} ================================= In this section, we make a rigorous comparison between stabilizer codes and subsystem codes. Strictly speaking, subsystem codes contain the class of stabilizer codes; thus, in this section, we assume that the subsystem codes have a co-subsystem of dimension greater than 1. Clearly, there are difficulties in comparing the two classes of codes. Our “rain on your parade” theorem shows that Clifford subsystem codes cannot have higher distances than stabilizer codes. Their main edge lies in simpler error recovery schemes. We can quantify this in terms of the number of syndrome measurements required for error-correction. This is not necessarily the best method to compare the decoding complexity. However, it is certainly a reasonable measure if both codes use table lookup decoding. In the absence of any special algorithms for subsystem codes, we will proceed with this as the metric for comparison. Improving Upon Quantum MDS Codes -------------------------------- In this subsection, we want to settle whether or not there exist subsystem code with parameters $[[n,n-2d+2,r>0,d]]_q$. It turns out that the bounds that we have derived in Section \[sec:uBounds\] will help in answering this question. Our best bounds are restricted to pure codes. Fortunately, it turns out that all subsystem codes with parameters $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R,d))_q$ are pure. \[th:mdsPurity\] Any $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R,d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code is pure. If $R=1$, then the claim follows from the fact that quantum MDS codes are pure, see[@rains99]. Seeking a contradiction, we assume that there exists an impure subsystem code with parameters $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R,d))_q$, exactly pure to $d'<d$ and $R>1$. It follows from Corollary \[th:oqec2stab\] that it is possible to construct a stabilizer code with distance $\geq d$ that is (exactly) pure to $d'$. Then the resulting stabilizer code has the parameters $((n,q^{n-2d+2},d))_q$ and is impure. But we know that all quantum MDS codes are pure [@rains99], see also [@pre3 Corollary 60]. This implies that $d'\geq d$ contradicting the fact that $d'<d$; hence, every $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R,d))_q$ code is pure. The next theorem explains why Poulin did not have any luck in finding an $[[5,1,r>0,3]]_2$ subsystem code. There do not exist any Clifford subsystem codes with parameters $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R>1,d))_q$. In particular, there do not exist any $[[n,n-2d+2,r>0,d]]_q$ Clifford subsystem codes. Seeking a contradiction, we assume that a subsystem code with parameters $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R>1,d))_q$ exists. By Theorem \[th:mdsPurity\], an $((n,q^{n-2d+2},R,d))_q$ subsystem code must be pure. It follows from Theorem \[th:pureBound\] that a pure subsystem code with these parameters must satisfy $$q^{n-2d+2}R\leq q^{n-2d+2}.$$ Therefore, we must have $R=1$, contradicting our assumption $R>1$. Better Than Quantum MDS Codes ----------------------------- In this subsection, we compare once again quantum MDS stabilizer codes against subsystem codes. We require that both codes are able to encode the same amount of information and have the same distance. However, this time, we do not restrict the length of the codes. Our goal is to determine whether the subsystem code can improve upon an optimal quantum MDS stabilizer code by fewer syndrome measurements. We insist that the codes are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear, since in this case the number of syndrome measurements can be directly obtained from the code parameters. Indeed, recall that an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code requires $n-k-r$ syndrome measurements, and an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n',k',d']]_q$ stabilizer code requires $n'-k'$ syndrome measurements. \[th:betterQMDS\] If there exists an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[k+2d-2,k,d]]_q$ quantum MDS stabilizer code, then an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code satisfying $$\label{eq:length} k+r\leq n-2d+2$$ cannot require fewer syndrome measurements than the stabilizer code. \[We remark that any pure $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code satisfies the inequality (\[eq:length\]) by Theorem \[th:pureBound\].\] Seeking a contradiction, we assume that the subsystem code requires fewer syndrome measurements than the quantum MDS code, that is, we assume that $k+2d-2-k>n-k-r$. This implies that $k+r > n-2d+2$, contradicting our assumption that $k+r\leq n-2d+2$. Now, we can partially answer the question when an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code will lead to better error recovery schemes than the quantum MDS codes. Suppose that an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[k+2d-2,k,d]]_q$ quantum MDS code $Q$ exists. Then an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code that beats the the stabilizer code $Q$ must be impure and must satisfy $k+r> n-2d+2$. We know from Theorem \[th:pureBound\] that all pure $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ codes satisfy $k+r\leq n-2d+2$. But Theorem \[th:betterQMDS\] implies that such a code cannot have fewer syndrome measurements than the ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear MDS code. Hence, the subsystem code, if it is better, must be impure and have $k+r>n-2d+2$. Better Than Optimal non-MDS Stabilizer Codes -------------------------------------------- We know that MDS codes do not exist for all lengths, so it is reasonable to consider optimal stabilizer codes that are non-MDS. In this case, the comparison is slightly more complicated. An $[[n,k,r,d]]_q$ subsystem code could be better than an optimal $[[n',k,d]]_q$ stabilizer code. That in itself does not guarantee that the class of subsystem codes is superior to the class of stabilizer codes. For instance, the shortest code to encode $2$ qubits with distance $3$ is $[[8,2,3]]_2$ (see [@calderbank98]). Suppose that an $[[8,2,1,3]]_2$ code exists. This subsystem code requires only $8-2-1=5$ syndrome measurements as against the $8-2=6$ measurements of the optimal stabilizer code. To conclude that the subsystem codes are better than stabilizer codes would be premature, for there exists an $[[8,3,3]]_2$ code (cf. [@calderbank98]) that requires $8-3=5$ syndrome measurements and encodes one more qubit than the subsystem code. It is therefore necessary to compare the subsystem code with all optimal $[[n',k'\geq k ,d]]_q$ stabilizer codes, where $n'$ ranges from $n-r$ to $n$. Only if the subsystem code requires fewer syndrome measurements in each case, then we can conclude that the class of subsystem codes leads to better error recovery schemes. We do not know precisely the properties of such subsystem codes. For instance, we do not know if such subsystem code is required to be impure or if it must satisfy $k+r>n-2d+2$. Next, we turn our attention to a slightly different question which shows that in general whenever good subsystem codes exist, good stabilizer codes also exist. Subsystem Codes and Stabilizer Codes of Comparable Performance --------------------------------------------------------------- The reader will perhaps wonder why one cannot simply discard the gauge subsystem to obtain a shorter quantum code without sacrificing distance or dimension. The reason why we cannot do so is because, in general, there is no one to one correspondence between the gauge qudits and the physical qudits. Yet, our intuition is not entirely misguided as the following result will show. Let ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ be finite field of characteristic $p$ and $1< q^k \leq q^n$ a power of $p$. Let $r$ be an integer such that $0<r<n$, and $$\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j (q^{n+k+r}-q^{n+r-k})<(p-1)(q^{2n}-1)$$ holds, then there exist both an $((n,q^k,q^r,\geq d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code and an $((n-r,q^k,\geq d))_q$ stabilizer code. By hypothesis $$\sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j <(p-1)\frac{(q^{2n}-1)}{(q^{n+k+r}-q^{n+r-k})}$$ holds and Theorem \[th:gvoqec\] implies the existence of an $((n,q^k,q^r,\geq d))_q$ Clifford subsystem code. We can rewrite the RHS of the inequality as $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{RHS}& =&(p-1) \frac{q^{n-r}-q^{-n-r}} {q^k-q^{-k}},\\ &=& (p-1) \frac{q^{n-r}-q^{-n+r}}{ q^k-q^{-k}}+(p-1)\frac{q^{-n+r} -q^{-n-r} }{ q^k-q^{-k}} ,\\ & = & (p-1) \frac{q^{n-r}-q^{-n+r}}{ q^k-q^{-k}}+ \underbrace{(p-1)\frac{q^{-n+r} -q^{-n-r} }{ q^k-q^{-k}}}_{\leq 1,\mbox{ if } r>0}.\end{aligned}$$ Now under the assumption $r<n$, we obtain a lower bound for LHS as follows. $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \binom{n}{1}(q^2-1) &+ \sum_{j=2}^{d-1} \binom{n-r}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j \\ &= \sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n-r}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j +r(q^2-1),\\ \ & \leq \sum_{j=1}^{d-1} \binom{n}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j = \mbox{LHS}. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Since we know that $\mbox{LHS}<\mbox{RHS}$ we can write $$\begin{aligned} \begin{split} \sum_{j=1}^{d-1} &\binom{n-r}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j +\underbrace{r(q^2-1)}_{>1,\mbox{ if } r>0} \\ &< (p-1) \frac{q^{n-r}-q^{-n+r}}{ q^k-q^{-k}}+ \underbrace{(p-1)\frac{q^{-n+r} -q^{-n-r} }{ q^k-q^{-k}}}_{\leq 1, \mbox{ if } r>0},\\ \sum_{j=1}^{d-1} & \binom{n-r}{j}(q^{2}-1)^j < (p-1) \frac{q^{n-r}-q^{-n+r}}{ q^k-q^{-k}}. \end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Then by Corollary \[th:gvstab\], there exists an $((n-r,q^k,\geq d))_q$ stabilizer code. While they might differ in their distance, the preceding theorem indicates that in many cases, whenever a good subsystem code exists, then there will also exist a good stabilizer code encoding as much information and having comparable distance and of shorter length. The assumption of integral $r$ may not be much of a restriction in light of Theorem \[th:gaugeReduction\]. In comparing the complexity of the error recovery schemes for the two codes, we run into a small problem since we do not know if the codes are ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear. Actually, if we use the stronger result of [@pre3 Lemma 31] and insist that $n\equiv k\bmod 2$, then we can show that the stabilizer code is ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear. This guarantees that the stabilizer code will require $n-k-r$ syndrome measurements which is comparable to that of an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear subsystem code. It appears then, quite often, subsystem codes do not offer any gains in error recovery, as there will exist a corresponding stabilizer code that encodes as many qudits, of similar distance and equal complexity of decoding. CONCLUSION ========== In this paper we investigated subsystem codes and their connections to classical codes. We derived lower and upper bounds on the parameters of the subsystem codes. We settled the question whether or not there exist $[[n,n-2d+2,r>0,d]]_q$ subsystem codes exist. We showed that pure ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear subsystem codes do not lead to any reduction in complexity of error recovery as compared with an ${\mathbb{F}}_q$-linear MDS stabilizer code of equal capability. As a consequence we concluded that the subsystem codes that outperform the quantum MDS codes must be impure. Further, we showed that quite often the existence of a subsystem code implies the existence of a stabilizer code of comparable performance and complexity of error recovery. [10]{} D. Bacon. Operator quantum error correcting subsystems for self-correcting quantum memories. , 73(012340), 2006. W. Bosma, J.J. Cannon, and C. Playoust. The [M]{}agma algebra system [I]{}: [T]{}he user language. , 24:235–266, 1997. A.R. Calderbank, E.M. Rains, P.W. Shor, and N.J.A. Sloane. Quantum error correction via codes over [GF]{}(4). , 44:1369–1387, 1998. L.C. Grove. . Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 2001. A. Ketkar, A. Klappenecker, S. Kumar, and P.K. Sarvepalli. Nonbinary stabilizer codes over finite fields. To appear in IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, November, 2006. A. Klappenecker and P. K. Sarvepalli. Clifford code constructions of operator quantum error-correcting codes. 2006. E. Knill. On protected realizations of quantum information. Eprint: quant-ph/0603252, 2006. D. W. Kribs. A brief introduction to operator quantum error correction. Eprint: math/0506491, 2005. D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, and D. Poulin. Unified and generalized approach to quantum error correction. , 94(180501), 2005. D. W. Kribs, R. Laflamme, D. Poulin, and M. Lesosky. Operator quantum error correction. Eprint: quant-ph/0504189, 2005. D. Poulin. Stabilizer formalism for operator quantum error correction. , 95(230504), 2005. E.M. Rains. Nonbinary quantum codes. , 45:1827–1832, 1999. [^1]: This research was supported by NSF grant CCF-0622201, NSF CAREER award CCF-0347310, and a TITF project. [^2]: The authors are with the Department of Computer Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA [email:{salah,klappi,pradeep}@cs.tamu.edu]{}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Recent studies of the global phase diagram of quantum-critical heavy-fermion metals prompt consideration of the interplay between the Kondo interactions and quantum fluctuations of the local moments alone. Toward this goal, we study a Bose-Fermi Kondo model (BFKM) with Ising anisotropy in the presence of a local transverse field that generates quantum fluctuations in the local-moment sector. We apply the numerical renormalization-group method to the case of a sub-Ohmic bosonic bath exponent and a constant conduction-electron density of states. Starting in the Kondo phase at zero transverse-field, there is a smooth crossover with increasing transverse field from a fully screened to a fully polarized impurity spin. By contrast, if the system starts in its localized phase, then increasing the transverse field causes a continuous, Kondo-destruction transition into the partially polarized Kondo phase. The critical exponents at this quantum phase transition exhibit hyperscaling and take essentially the same values as those of the BFKM in zero transverse field. The many-body spectrum at criticality varies continuously with the bare transverse field, indicating a line of critical points. We discuss implications of these results for the global phase diagram of the Kondo lattice model.' author: - Emilian Marius Nica - Kevin Ingersent - 'Jian-Xin Zhu' - Qimiao Si title: 'Quantum critical Kondo destruction in the Bose-Fermi Kondo model with a local transverse field' --- Introduction {#Sec:Intro} ============ Heavy fermions form a class of rare-earth based intermetallic compounds that has attracted sustained attention.[@si_science10] Recent years have seen intensive effort, both in theory and experiment, to understand the unusual properties exhibited by these materials over a temperature range above a quantum critical point (QCP).[@stewart; @gegenwart_natphys08; @HvL] The most typical cases involve a zero-temperature transition from an antiferromagnetically ordered state to a paramagnetic heavy Fermi-liquid. A particularly notable feature of the quantum-critical regime is the non-Fermi liquid behavior, which has been observed in transport, thermodynamic, and other properties in a number of compounds. Two fundamentally different classes of quantum critical points have been proposed theoretically. The spin-density-wave QCPs[@hertz] represent the quantum-mechanical extension of the classical Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson framework, describing criticality solely in terms of fluctuations of a magnetic order parameter. By contrast, the locally critical picture[@lcqpt:01; @lcqpt:03; @colemanetal] is “beyond-Landau” in that it invokes the destruction of the heavy quasiparticles at the transition. Such a Kondo destruction introduces new critical degrees of freedom beyond order-parameter fluctuations. A microscopic theory of local quantum criticality[@lcqpt:01; @lcqpt:03] has been formulated in terms of extended dynamical mean-field theory (EDMFT),[@SmithSi; @Chitra:00] in which the Kondo lattice model is mapped to an effective quantum impurity problem: the Bose-Fermi Kondo model (BFKM) with self-consistently determined densities of states for the fermionic conduction band and for the bosonic bath. Experimental evidence for local quantum criticality has come from systematic studies in several heavy-fermion materials. In YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ and CeRhIn$_5$, the large Fermi surface of the paramagnetic metal phase has been shown to collapse at the antiferromagnetic QCP,[@paschen04; @friedemann10; @shishido] providing direct evidence for a critical destruction of the Kondo effect. The critical dynamical spin susceptibility at the QCP in Au-doped CeCu$_6$ departs drastically from the predictions of the spin-density-wave picture, instead satisfying $\omega/T$ scaling and displaying a fractional exponent in the frequency and temperature dependence over a large region of the Brillouin zone.[@schroder] Such scaling properties have been captured in EDMFT calculations for Kondo lattice models.[@lcqpt:01; @lcqpt:03; @Grempel.03; @ZhuGrempelSi; @Glossop.07; @Zhu.07] More recently, the notion of Kondo destruction has been incorporated into a global zero-temperature phase diagram for heavy fermions.[@Si:10+06] The phase diagram, proposed for the Kondo lattice model, is shown in Fig. \[figg1\], where the abscissa represents the Kondo exchange coupling between local moments and conduction electrons, while the ordinate G parameterizes quantum fluctuations of the local moments. Three different sequences of quantum phase transitions can connect a Kondo-destroyed antiferromagnet to the Kondo-entangled paramagnetic heavy-fermion state. This diagram provides a framework for understanding not only the examples of local quantum-critical behavior described above, but also the detachment of the Kondo destruction transition from the antiferromagnetic transition as evidenced[@11; @12; @13] in Ge- and Ir-doped YbRh$_2$Si$_2$ and in YbAgGe. The global phase diagram has recently been employed to understand the dimensional tuning of the quantum-critical behavior in heavy-fermion systems,[@custers12] and has served as a motivation for a recent flurry of experiments on heavy-fermion materials with geometrically frustrated lattices.[@kim_aronson13; @mun13; @fritsch13; @Khalyavin13] ![(Color online) Schematic $T=0$ phase diagram proposed for heavy-fermion metals described by a Kondo lattice.[@Si:10+06] $J_K$ is the antiferromagnetic Kondo coupling between local moments and conduction electrons, while $G$ parameterizes increasing magnetic frustration or spatial dimensionality. Solid lines indicate phase boundaries. Dashed lines labeled I, II, and III represent three different types of route between the paramagnetic heavy Fermi-liquid phase having a large Fermi surface (P$_{\textrm{L}}$) and an antiferromagnetic Kondo-destroyed phase with a small Fermi surface (AF$_{\textrm{S}}$)](KL_phase_diagram_T_0){width="1.0\columnwidth"} . \[figg1\] The key feature of the global phase diagram for heavy fermions is the interplay between quantum fluctuations related to the Kondo effect and those associated with the local moments alone. Consider the Kondo lattice Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{KL}} = H_c + H_I + H_K$, where $H_c$ and $H_I$ represent a conduction-electron band and a lattice of exchange-coupled local moments, respectively, and $H_K$ specifies the Kondo coupling between these two sectors. In situations where the local moments exhibit Ising (easy-axis) anisotropy, quantum fluctuations of these moments can readily be generated through application of a transverse magnetic field. For example, in the stand-alone transverse-field Ising model described by $H = H_I = \sum_{ij} I_{ij} S_i^z S_j^z + \Delta \sum_i S_i^x$, the transverse field $\Delta$ introduces quantum fluctuations and sufficiently large values of $\Delta$ suppress any magnetic order. In other words, $\Delta$ provides a realization of the parameter $G$ in Fig. \[figg1\]. Within the EDMFT treatment of $H_{\mathrm{KL}}$, this interplay of fluctuations can be described using a self-consistent BFKM with a static transverse magnetic field. As a nontrivial first step towards solving this problem, we are led to consider the impurity version of this problem without the imposition of self-consistency. This paper reports numerical renormalization-group (NRG) results for the BFKM in the presence of a local transverse magnetic field $\Delta$. The conduction-electron density of states is taken to be structureless, while the bosonic bath is assumed to be characterized by a spectral exponent $s$ that takes a sub-Ohmic value $0<s<1$. For $\Delta=0$, this model exhibits a Kondo-destruction QCP separating a Kondo or strong-coupling phase, in which the impurity spin is completely quenched at temperature $T=0$, from a localized phase in which spin-flip exchange scattering is suppressed and the impurity exhibits a local moment with a Curie magnetic susceptibility.[@Zhu:02; @Zarand:02; @Glossop:05+07] For any combination of Kondo and bosonic couplings that, at $\Delta=0$, places the system within the Kondo phase, increasing the transverse field produces a smooth crossover to a fully polarized impurity spin without the appearance of a quantum phase transistion. For couplings that localize the impurity spin in the absence of a transverse field, increasing such a field eventually causes a continuous, Kondo-destruction transition into the partially polarized Kondo phase. The critical exponents at this quantum phase transition are found, for the particular case of bosonic bath exponent $s=0.8$, to exhibit hyperscaling and to take essentially the same values as those of the BFKM in zero transverse field. The critical NRG spectrum varies continuously with the bare transverse field, indicating a line of critical points. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II defines the model and briefly describes the NRG solution method. Section III demonstrates the existence of a Kondo-destruction transition in the BFKM at particle-hole symmetry in the presence of a bosonic bath characterized by a sub-Ohmic spectral exponent $s=0.8$. In Sec. IV we interpret the critical spectra reached for different values of the transverse field as evidence for a line of renormalization-group (RG) fixed points. The accuracy of our calculated critical exponents is addressed in an Appendix. Model, Qualitative Expectations and Solution Method {#Sec:Model} =================================================== Bose-Fermi Kondo model with a transverse field ---------------------------------------------- The Hamiltonian for the Ising-anisotropic BFKM with a transverse field can be written $$\begin{gathered} \label{H_BFKM} H_{\mathrm{BFKM}} = \sum_{{\mathbf{k}},\sigma} \epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}} c_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma }^{\dag} c_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + \frac{J_K}{2} \, \mathbf{S} \cdot \!\!\! \sum_{{\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{k}}',\sigma,\sigma'} \!\!\! c_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}^{\dag} \bm{\sigma}_{\sigma\sigma'} c_{{\mathbf{k}}'\sigma'}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} \\ +\sum_q \omega_q \phi_q^{\dag} \phi_q^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + S_z \sum_q g_q \bigl( \phi_q^{{\phantom{\dag}}}+\phi_{-q}^{\dag} \bigr) + \Delta S_x,\end{gathered}$$ where $\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}$ is the dispersion for a band of noninteracting conduction electrons, $J_K>0$ is the antiferromagnetic Kondo coupling between a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ local moment $\mathbf{S}$ and the spin density of conduction electrons at the impurity site, $g_q$ is the coupling of the impurity spin $z$ component to a bosonic degree of freedom with annihilation operator $\phi_q$, and $\Delta\ge 0$ is the transverse field. We work in units where $g\mu_B=k_B=\hbar=1$. Throughout the paper, we assume a featureless metallic conduction electron band described by the density of states $$\label{rho:def} \rho(\epsilon) = \sum_{{\mathbf{k}}} \delta(\epsilon-\epsilon_{{\mathbf{k}}}) = \rho_0 \, \Theta(D-\vert \epsilon\vert) ,$$ where $D$ is the half-bandwidth and $\Theta$ is the Heaviside step function, allowing definition of a dimensionless exchange coupling $\rho_0 J_K$ between the band and the impurity spin. We denote by $T_{K}^{0}$ the Kondo temperature associated with this exchange in the absence of any bosonic coupling. The bosonic spectral function is taken to be $$\label{B:def} B\left(\omega \right) \equiv \pi \sum_{q} g_q^2 \delta\bigl( \omega -\omega_q \bigr) = B_0 \, \omega_0^{1-s} \omega^s \, \Theta(\omega) \, \Theta(\omega_0-\omega) ,$$ where $\omega_0$ is a high-energy cutoff and $B_0$ is a dimensionless effective coupling between the impurity spin and the bosonic bath. Previous studies[@Zhu:02; @Glossop:05+07; @27] have taken $g_q = g$, in which case $B_0 = {(K_0g)}^{2}$ with $K_0$ being determined by the bath density of states. Henceforth, we refer to $B_0$ as the effective coupling to the dissipative bath. Values of the exponent $s < 1$, $s=1$ and $s > 1$ correspond to sub-Ohmic, Ohmic and super-Ohmic baths, respectively. Qualitative Considerations {#Sec:Qualitative} -------------------------- The BFKM with $\Delta=0$ and a sub-Ohmic bath exponent $0<s<1$ features an unstable fixed point lying on a separatrix in the $B_0$-$J_{\perp}$ plane \[see Fig. \[figg2\](a)\]. ![(Color online) (a) Schematic of the projected RG flows for the BFKM and the spin-boson model in a three-dimensional space spanned by the Kondo spin-flip coupling $J_{\perp}$, the bosonic coupling $B_0$, and the transverse field $\Delta$. (The flow of the longitudinal Kondo coupling $J_z$ is not shown.) Arrows on solid lines show the direction of RG flow and circles represent unstable fixed points. Arrows on dashed lines indicate the tuning of the bare couplings. (b) Schematic representation of the procedure of parameter tuning outlined in the text. (c) Schematic $B_0$-$T$ phase diagram for BFKM systems. The upper range of the quantum-critical (QC) regime is set by $T_K^0$, the Kondo temperature scale associated with the $B_0=0$ problem. The boundary between the LM and K phases as shown in (a) and (b) is parameterized by $ \mathbf \mu =( B_{0,c}, \Delta_{c}(B_{0,c}))$ for fixed $\rho_0 J_K=0.5$. []{data-label="figg2"}](Flows_with_tuning_proc "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) (a) Schematic of the projected RG flows for the BFKM and the spin-boson model in a three-dimensional space spanned by the Kondo spin-flip coupling $J_{\perp}$, the bosonic coupling $B_0$, and the transverse field $\Delta$. (The flow of the longitudinal Kondo coupling $J_z$ is not shown.) Arrows on solid lines show the direction of RG flow and circles represent unstable fixed points. Arrows on dashed lines indicate the tuning of the bare couplings. (b) Schematic representation of the procedure of parameter tuning outlined in the text. (c) Schematic $B_0$-$T$ phase diagram for BFKM systems. The upper range of the quantum-critical (QC) regime is set by $T_K^0$, the Kondo temperature scale associated with the $B_0=0$ problem. The boundary between the LM and K phases as shown in (a) and (b) is parameterized by $ \mathbf \mu =( B_{0,c}, \Delta_{c}(B_{0,c}))$ for fixed $\rho_0 J_K=0.5$. []{data-label="figg2"}](Procedure "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![(Color online) (a) Schematic of the projected RG flows for the BFKM and the spin-boson model in a three-dimensional space spanned by the Kondo spin-flip coupling $J_{\perp}$, the bosonic coupling $B_0$, and the transverse field $\Delta$. (The flow of the longitudinal Kondo coupling $J_z$ is not shown.) Arrows on solid lines show the direction of RG flow and circles represent unstable fixed points. Arrows on dashed lines indicate the tuning of the bare couplings. (b) Schematic representation of the procedure of parameter tuning outlined in the text. (c) Schematic $B_0$-$T$ phase diagram for BFKM systems. The upper range of the quantum-critical (QC) regime is set by $T_K^0$, the Kondo temperature scale associated with the $B_0=0$ problem. The boundary between the LM and K phases as shown in (a) and (b) is parameterized by $ \mathbf \mu =( B_{0,c}, \Delta_{c}(B_{0,c}))$ for fixed $\rho_0 J_K=0.5$. []{data-label="figg2"}](Impurity_phase_diagram.pdf "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} This critical point governs the transition between the Kondo (K) phase and the Kondo-destroyed local-moment (LM) phase. A transverse field introduces spin flips into the impurity sector, thereby tending to disfavor the presence of a well-defined local moment. This leads one to consider whether there will be a quantum phase transition upon increasing $\Delta$ at fixed $J_K$ and $B_0$. To address this issue, it is instructive to recall that for $J_K=0$, the BFKM reduces to the spin-boson model (SBM), where increasing $\Delta$ is known to drive the system through a second-order quantum phase transition along a line in the $B_0$-$\Delta$ plane \[see Fig. \[figg2\](a)\]. It therefore seems highly probable for there to be a phase transition in the $B_0$-$\Delta$ plane at a fixed value $J_{\perp} > 0$, as indicated by the dashed lines in Fig.\[figg2\](a). The expected behavior shown in Fig. \[figg2\](a) also suggests that at a fixed $\Delta>0$, one should still anticipate encountering a Kondo-destruction quantum phase transition as $B_0$ is increased. This, in turn, raises intriguing questions about the relation between any Kondo-destruction critical points reached for nonzero $\Delta$ and the $\Delta=0$ BFKM fixed point, and in particular about the evolution of the critical properties with $\Delta$. Numerical renormalization-group method -------------------------------------- For $\Delta=0$, the BFKM has been treated successfully[@Zhu:02] using an analytical renormalization-group procedure based on an expansion in $\epsilon=1-s$. It proves to be very difficult to account for a transverse magnetic field under this approach. By contrast, Eq.  can be solved for arbitrary values of $\Delta$ using the Bose-Fermi extension[@Glossop:05+07] of the numerical renormalization group.[@Wilson:75] This section summarizes the Bose-Fermi NRG method and mentions a few details of its application to the present problem. The key elements of the method are (i) the division of the continua of band and bath states into logarithmic bins spanning energy ranges $\Lambda^{-m+1} < \pm\epsilon/D, \: \omega/\omega_0 < \Lambda^{-m}$ for $m = 0$, $1$, $2$, $\ldots$, with $\Lambda>1$ being the Wilson discretization parameter, (ii) an approximation of all states within each bin by a single representative state, namely, the particular linear combination of states that couples to the impurity and, (iii) mapping of the problem via the Lanczos method onto a problem in which the impurity couples only to the end sites of two nearest-neighbor tight-binding chains, one fermionic and the other bosonic, having hopping coefficients and on-site energies that decay exponentially along each chain. These steps yield a Hamiltonian that can be expressed as the limit $H_{\text{BFKM}}=\lim_{N\to\infty} \alpha \Lambda^{-N/2} D H_N$ of an iterative sequence of dimensionless, scaled Hamiltonians $$\begin{aligned} \label{H_N} H_N &= \Lambda^{1/2} H_{N-1} \notag \\ &+ \frac{\Lambda^{N/2}}{\alpha} \biggl\{ \sum_{\sigma} \Bigl[ \epsilon_N f_{N\sigma}^{\dag} f_{N\sigma}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + \tau_N \bigl( f_{N\sigma}^{\dag} f_{N-1,\sigma}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + \text{H.c.} \bigr)\Bigr] \notag \\ &+ \tilde{N} \, \frac{\omega_0}{D} \Bigl[ e_M b_{M}^{\dag} b_M^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + t_M \bigl( b_M^{\dag} b_{M-1}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + \text{H.c.} \bigr)\Bigr] \biggr\} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha =\frac{1}{2}{\Lambda }^{{1}/{2}}\left(1+{\Lambda }^{-1}\right)$, $\tilde{N} = N\bmod 2$, and $M=N/2$. For the flat conduction-band density of states in Eq. , $\epsilon_N = 0$ while $\tau_N\propto\Lambda^{-N/2}$ for $N\gg 1$, meaning that in Eq.  the combination $\Lambda^{N/2}\tau_N$ approaches $1$. By contrast, the bosonic tight-binding coefficients $e_M$ and $t_M$ both vary as $\Lambda^{-M}$ for $M\gg 1$. In order to treat similar fermionic and bosonic energy scales at the same stage of the calculation, one site is added to the end of the fermionic chain at each iteration, whereas the bosonic chain is extended by the addition of site $M$ only at even-numbered iteration $N=2M$. The iterative solution begins with the atomic limit described by $H_0$, where $$\begin{aligned} \label{H_0} \alpha H_0 &= \rho_0 J_0 \mathbf{S} \cdot \sum_{\sigma,\sigma'} f_{0\sigma}^{\dag} {\boldsymbol{\sigma}}_{\sigma,\sigma'} f_{0\sigma'}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + \sum_{\sigma} \epsilon_0 f_{0\sigma}^{\dag} f_{0\sigma}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} \\ &+ \frac{\omega_0}{D}\biggl[\biggl(\frac{B_0}{\pi(s\!+\!1)}\biggr)^{1/2}\!\!S_z \bigl( b_0^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + b_0^{\dag} \bigr) + e_0 b_0^{\dag} b_0^{{\phantom{\dag}}} \biggr] + \frac{\Delta}{D} \, S_x. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Many-body eigenstates of iteration $N-1$ are combined with basis states of fermionic chain site $N$ and (for $N=2M$) bosonic chain site $M$ to form a basis for iteration $N$. $H_N$ is diagonalized in this basis, and these eigenstates in turn are used to form a basis for iteration $N+1$. In order to maintain a basis of manageable dimension, only the $N_s$ eigenstates of lowest energy are retained after each iteration.[@Wilson:75] In Bose-Fermi problems,[@Glossop:05+07] one must also restrict the basis of each bosonic chain site to the $N_b+1$ number eigenstates $0\le b_M^{\dag} b_N^{\dag} \le N_b$. For further details, see Refs.  and . In the presence of a transverse magnetic field $\Delta$, no component of the total spin is conserved. However, $H_N$ commutes with the total “charge” operator $$\label{Q} \hat{Q} = \sum_{n=0}^N \bigl( f_{n{\uparrow}}^{\dag} f_{n{\uparrow}}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} + f_{n{\downarrow}}^{\dag} f_{n{\downarrow}}^{{\phantom{\dag}}} - 1 \bigr) ,$$ Since the conduction-band density of states in Eq.  is particle-hole symmetric, $H_N$ also commutes with $$\label{isospin} \hat{I}_+ = \sum_{n=0}^N (-1)^n f_{n{\uparrow}}^{\dag} f_{n{\downarrow}}^{\dag}$$ and its adjoint $\hat{I}_- = \hat{I}_+^{\dag}$. In such cases, U(1) charge conservation symmetry is promoted to an SU(2) isospin symmetry with generators $\hat{I}_{\pm}$ and $\hat{I}_z=\frac{1}{2} \hat{Q}$. This symmetry ensures that the many-body eigenstates of $H_N$ can be labeled with quantum numbers $(I,Q)$ and may be grouped into multiplets of degeneracy $2I+1$. Moreover, it allows the NRG calculations to be performed using a reduced basis of states with $Q=-2I$. Our computations took advantage of these symmetry properties to reduce the labor of obtaining the eigensolution. Throughout the remainder of this paper, all energies are expressed as multiples of the half-bandwidth $D=1$. The NRG results presented in the next section were all obtained for bath exponent $s=0.8$ and dimensionless Kondo coupling $\rho_0 J = 0.5$. All calculations were performed using a Wilson discretization parameter $\Lambda=9$, allowing up to $N_b=8$ bosons per site, and retaining up to $N_s=500$ isospin multiplets after each iteration; all values that were shown in Ref. yield reliable results for the BFKM without any transverse field. Kondo-Destruction Quantum Phase Transition {#Sec:QPT} ========================================== In this section, we determine the phase diagram of the Ising-anisotropic BFKM in the presence of a local transverse field. We focus attention on the Kondo-destruction quantum phase transition, which separates a Kondo (K) phase and a Kondo-destroyed local-moment (LM) phase. Critical Kondo Destruction -------------------------- We began by locating the quantum phase transition of the BFKM in the absence of a transverse field, expressed as a critical coupling to the bosonic bath $B_{0,c}(\Delta\!=\!0)$ (for the fixed value $\rho_0 J_K=0.5$ used throughout this work). The signature of proximity to a critical point is the flow of the NRG many-body eigenenergies over some finite range of intermediate iterations $N$ (corresponding to a window of temperatures $T\sim\Lambda^{-N/2}$) to new values distinct from the converged eigenenergies obtained for large $N$. The latter spectra describe the stable RG fixed points of the problem, which in this case govern the K and LM phases. As $B_0$ is tuned closer to $B_{0,c}(\Delta\!=\!0)$, the energies remain flat and close to the new values over an increasingly wide range of $N$. Once $B_{0,c}(\Delta\!=\!0)$ was determined, we considered a sequence of five larger bosonic couplings $$\label{eq42} B_0 = B_{0,c}(\Delta\!=\!0) + \delta_{B_0} ,$$ where $\delta_{B_0}=6\times 10^{-n}$ with $n = 1, \ldots, 5$. For each value of $\delta_{B_0}$, we increased the transverse field from zero until we reached a new critical point, again judged by examination of the many-body spectrum. Once the critical field $\Delta_c(\delta_{B_0})$ was established, we fixed $\Delta=\Delta_c$ and tuned $B_0$ around the value $B_{0,c}(\Delta_c)\equiv B_{0,c}(0) + \delta_{B_0}$ in order to calculate the critical properties associated with the finite-$\Delta$ transition. The procedure is illustrated schematically in Fig. \[figg2\](b). Since all values of $\delta_{B_0}$ show qualitatively the same behavior, we concentrate below on the representative case ${\delta }_{B_0}=6\times{10}^{-3}$. The charge $Q$ defined in Eq. (\[Q\]) is a good quantum number, so it can be used to label the different NRG many-body eigenstates. To begin with, we consider states having $Q=0$. (The $Q=1$ states are discussed in detail in Sec. IV.) Figure  \[fig3\] shows the energy of the lowest excited $Q=0$ state as a function of iteration number for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times{10}^{-3}$. The spectrum is different for odd $N$, not only due to the alternation properties of fermions on finite tight-binding chains, but also because bosons are added only at even iterations.[@Glossop:05+07] Since the many-body ground state shares the quantum number $Q=0$, we provisionally interpret the lowest excited state of the same charge as having bosonic character. ![The lowest bosonic ($Q=0$) eigenenergy as a function of even iteration number for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times{10}^{-3}$. The energies converging to $E \ \simeq 0.39$ correspond to effective bosonic couplings $-9.45\times 10^{-6}\le B_0-B_{0,c}\le -8.5\times 10^{-7}$, while the energies converging to $E=0$ span the range $8.5\times 10^{-7}\le B_0-B_{0,c} \le 9.45\times 10^{-6}$. []{data-label="fig3"}](Lowest_boson){width="1.1\columnwidth"} From Fig. 3, one can clearly distinguish the quantum-critical regime at intermediate values of $N$ and the crossover for large $N$ to either the K or the fixed LM point. For $B_0 < B_{0,c}$, the first bosonic excitation energy eventually approaches the value $E\simeq 0.39$ that it takes in the free-boson spectrum obtained for $B_0=0$. For $B_0 > B_{0,c}$, the first bosonic excitation energy eventually vanishes, reflecting the two-fold degeneracy of the ground state in the LM phase. In the quantum-critical regime, the excitation energy takes a distinct value $E\simeq 0.11$ that can be considered a characteristic of the QCP. The crossover to the spectrum of either the LM or the K fixed point can be used to estimate the crossover scale $T^*\sim\Lambda^{-N^*/2}$, where $N^*$ is the iteration at which the difference of the eigenvalues from their critical values exceeds a predetermined threshold. The lowest bosonic eigenvalue in Fig. \[fig3\] shows that $T^*$ vanishes at the critical point from both sides since $N^*\to\infty$ as $B_0\to B^{\pm}_{0,c}$. The schematic $B_0$-$T$ phase diagram is shown in Fig. \[figg2\](c). The local magnetization, defined as $$\label{eq43} M_z=\mathop{\lim}_{h\to 0,\ T\to 0} \left\langle S_{z}\right\rangle$$ where $h$ is a longitudinal magnetic field, is nonzero in the LM phase, vanishes continuously as $B_0\to B^+_{0,c}$, and remains zero throughout the K phase, as shown in Fig. \[fig4\](a). ![(a) Local magnetization $M_z$ vs $B_0$ across the quantum phase transition. (b) Zero-temperature longitudinal susceptibility $\chi_{\mathrm{loc},z}$ in the Kondo phase near the critical point. (c) $\chi_{\mathrm{loc},z}$ vs $T$ for $B_0$ values at (dashed line) and near (symbols) $B_{0,c}$. All data are for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Sz "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![(a) Local magnetization $M_z$ vs $B_0$ across the quantum phase transition. (b) Zero-temperature longitudinal susceptibility $\chi_{\mathrm{loc},z}$ in the Kondo phase near the critical point. (c) $\chi_{\mathrm{loc},z}$ vs $T$ for $B_0$ values at (dashed line) and near (symbols) $B_{0,c}$. All data are for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Chi_loc_G "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![(a) Local magnetization $M_z$ vs $B_0$ across the quantum phase transition. (b) Zero-temperature longitudinal susceptibility $\chi_{\mathrm{loc},z}$ in the Kondo phase near the critical point. (c) $\chi_{\mathrm{loc},z}$ vs $T$ for $B_0$ values at (dashed line) and near (symbols) $B_{0,c}$. All data are for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Chi_loc_T "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} Critical Exponents ------------------ The local susceptibility in the $z$-direction defined as $$\label{eq44} \chi_{loc,z}\left(T;\omega =0\right)=-{\left.\frac{\partial \left\langle S_z\right\rangle }{\partial h}\right|}_{h=0}={\mathop{\lim }_{h\to 0} \left(-\frac{\left\langle S_z\right\rangle }{h}\right)\ }$$ diverges at $T=0$, $B_0\to B^-_{0,c}$ as shown in Fig. \[fig4\](b). The distinctions between the LM, K and QC regimes \[see Fig. \[figg2\](c)\] can also be seen by analyzing $\chi_{loc,z}(B_0,T)$ in the corresponding regimes. Figure \[fig4\](c) shows $\chi_{loc,z}(B_0,T)$ for values of $B_0$ below, above and close to $B_{0,c}$. For $T>T^*$, flows from both $B_0<B_{0,c}$ and $B_0>B_{0,c}$ behave the same way by scaling as $T^{-x}$, while for $T<T^*$, the K fixed point is characterized by a constant Pauli susceptibility and the LM fixed point susceptibility follows a $1/T$ Curie-Weiss form. We have extracted critical exponents for all five investigated values. The crossover scale $T^*$ vanishes from both the LM and K phases as $$\label{eq45} T^*\propto {\left|B_0-B_{0,c}\right|}^{\nu z}$$ with $z=1$ for an impurity problem. $T^*$ was estimated from the crossover iteration number $N^*$ as explained in Sec. III.A. Figures \[fig5\](a) and \[fig5\](b) show the scaling of $T^*$ with distance from $B_{0,c}\ $from the K and LM sides, respectively. It is apparent that for all values of ${\delta }_{B_0}$ considered, $\nu $ is essentially the same. ![ Scaling of $T^*$ with $B_0$ on the K side (a) and on the LM side (b) of the QCP.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Nu_SCM "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![ Scaling of $T^*$ with $B_0$ on the K side (a) and on the LM side (b) of the QCP.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Nu_LM "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} It is found that $M_z(T=0)$ decays as a power law on the LM side: $$\label{eq46} M_z(h\to 0, T\to 0,\ \Delta \to {\Delta }_c)\propto {\left(B_0-B_{0,c}\right)}^{\beta },$$ where $h\ $is an infinitesimal field applied along the $z$ direction as can be seen in Fig. \[fig6\](a) for all ${\delta }_{B_0}$. It also scales with $h$ at $B_0\simeq B_{0,c}$: $$\label{eq47} M_z(h,\ B_0=B_{0,c},T=0)\ \propto {\left|h\right|}^{1/\delta}.$$ This is shown in Fig. \[fig6\](b) for all ${\delta }_{B_0}$increments. ![(a) Scaling of $M_{z}$ with $B_0$ from LM side. (b) Scaling of $M$ with $h$ at $B_0=B_{0,c}$. []{data-label="fig6"}](Beta_LM "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![(a) Scaling of $M_{z}$ with $B_0$ from LM side. (b) Scaling of $M$ with $h$ at $B_0=B_{0,c}$. []{data-label="fig6"}](Delta_at_crit "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} The local susceptibility in the $z$ direction diverges on approach to the QCP from the K side at $T=0$: $$\label{eq48} {{\rm \chi}}_{loc,z}(B_0<B_{0,c},T=0)\propto {\left(B_{0,c}-B_0\right)}^{-\gamma }$$ and scales with temperature as $$\label{eq49} {{\rm \chi}}_{loc,z}(B_0=B_{0,c},T>T^*\ )\propto T^{-x},$$ as illustrated in Figs. \[fig7\](a) and \[fig7\](b) respectively. ![(a) Scaling of ${{\rm \chi}}_{loc,z}$ with $B_0$ on the K side of the QCP. (b) Scaling of $\chi_{loc,z}$ with $T$ at $B_0=B_{0,c}$. []{data-label="fig7"}](Chi_SCM "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![(a) Scaling of ${{\rm \chi}}_{loc,z}$ with $B_0$ on the K side of the QCP. (b) Scaling of $\chi_{loc,z}$ with $T$ at $B_0=B_{0,c}$. []{data-label="fig7"}](X "fig:"){width="1.1\columnwidth"} The values of all the calculated critical exponents for all values of ${\delta }_{B_0}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig8\]. The parameter $ \mathbf \mu =( B_{0,c}, \Delta_{c}(B_{0,c}))$ defines the boundary between the LM and K phases for fixed $\rho_0 J_K=0.5$ as shown in Figs. \[figg2\](a) and \[figg2\](b).  and 2(b). The ordinate $\mu_1$ corresponds to $ \delta_{B_0} = 6 \times 10^{-5} $, $ \mu_2 $ to $ \delta_{B_0} = 6 \times 10^{-4} $, and so on. The dashed lines show the corresponding exponents for the $\Delta=0$ BFKM, with $x$ and $\beta$ being NRG results and the remaining exponents derived assuming hyperscaling.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Critical_exponents_v1){width="1.1\columnwidth"} We note that the critical exponents are virtually the same as those for the $\Delta=0$ BFKM, indicated using dashed lines in Fig. 8. It was previously found[@Glossop:05+07] that the exponents obey the hyperscaling relations derived from the ansatz $$\label{eq50} F_{crit}=Tf\left(\frac{\left|\Delta -{\Delta }_c\right|}{T^{1/\nu}},\ \frac{\left|h\right|}{T^b}\right),$$ namely $$\label{eq51} \delta =\frac{1+x}{1-x},$$ $$\label{eq52} \beta =\frac{1}{2}\nu \left(1-x\right),$$ $$\label{eq53} \gamma =\nu x$$ Since the $\Delta>0$ critical exponents coincide for all the values of $\delta_{B_0}$ with their $\Delta=0$ counterparts, hyperscaling also holds in the presence of a transverse field. We also stress that these conclusions are restricted to the case of bath exponent $s=0.8$ treated in this paper. Studies for other values of $s$ will be reported elsewhere. The error estimates and other related issues are discussed in the Appendix. Line of Kondo-destruction fixed points {#Sec:LFP} ====================================== Having established the existence of Kondo-destruction transitions in the presence of a transverse local magnetic field $\Delta$, we turn next to the relationship among the critical points for different values of $\Delta$. One possibility is that the RG flows are away from the $\Delta {\rm =0\ }$BFKM **** critical fixed point towards a different unstable fixed point, which effectively governs the transitions for all the ${\delta }_{B_0}$considered. A plausible conjecture is that these flows take the system from the critical fixed point of the $\Delta=0$ BFKM to the critical fixed point of the SBM \[See Fig. \[figg2\](a)\]. The true asymptotic critical behavior will be that associated with the SBM model, where the transverse field is solely responsible for quantum-mechanical tunneling with a critical suppression of Kondo tunneling (${\rho J}^*_{\bot }=0)$. Other related scenarios are of course possible [*a priori.*]{} A second possibility is that there is a line of unstable fixed points extending from the original $\Delta {\rm =0\ }$BFKM. In this case, we expect that each of the trial ${\delta }_{B_0}$ **** is tuned to its own unstable fixed point. We believe this is the correct picture. An indication in favor of the second possibility comes from the critical many-body NRG spectrum extracted from the flows on the verge of crossing over to either stable fixed point. The many-body spectrum can be decomposed into a superposition of distinct fermionic and bosonic excitations at any of the two stable fixed points.[@Glossop:05+07] Here, the lowest $Q=1$ excitations correspond to single-particle charged fermionic excitations, while the lowest $Q=0$ excitations are single boson excitations. Note also that in both of the above cases, one can have higher energy charge $0$ particle-hole excitations. The excitation energy can be written as $E_{Exc}=E_{Fermion}+E_{Boson}$. At the LM fixed point $E_{Boson}$ consists of a superposition of free-boson excitations, while $E_{Fermion}$ is an energy from the spectrum of fermions undergoing spin-dependent potential scattering. At the K fixed point, $E_{Boson}$ is given by free-boson excitations and $E_{Fermion}$ is the energy of one or more Kondo-like quasiparticles. Such a sharp distinction cannot be established rigorously from the flows close to the critical point. The flows for the lowest six states closest to the critical point for ${\delta }_{B_0}=6\times{10}^{-3\ }$are shown in Fig. \[fig9\] for $Q=1$. ![Eigenenergy $E$ vs iteration number $N$ for the six lowest $Q=1$ states near the critical couplings for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times 10^{-3}$, showing flow away from the critical spectrum to the LM (solid) and K (dashed) sides.[]{data-label="fig9"}](Q_1_both_sides_gc){width="1.1\columnwidth"} The figure shows the flows for values of the coupling slightly below, and above the critical point. For $B_0<\ B_{0,c}$ the flows approach a plateau characteristic of the slow variation close to the unstable fixed point and eventually move away to the K fixed point. For $B_0>\ B_{0,c}$ we see the same critical values, which then move towards the LM fixed point. Notice that in this latter regime the states tend to become doubly degenerate and can be fitted to a spin-dependent potential scattering term corresponding to a finite ${\rho J}^*_z\ $term. This is also consistent with the full suppression of any tunneling term. Half of the flows tend to diverge quickly beyond $N \simeq 34$ and are truncated in the figure. This lifting of the degeneracy is a purely numerical artifact in the LM regime and we do not expect it to have any significant bearing on our conclusions. In the critical regime, $N \simeq 24 $ , the $Q=1$ states show a splitting due to an effective finite ${\Delta }^*\ $term which is absent in the $\Delta {\rm =0}$ BFKM case. Formally, a nonzero bare $\Delta $ **** implies that the total spin projection along the z-axis is not conserved. To see all this we show the lowest six estimated $Q=1$ critical eigenvalues ($N \simeq 24$) for all ${\delta }_{B_0}$ trials in Fig. \[fig10\]. ![Lowest $Q=1$ eigenvalues closest to the critical point ($N \simeq 24 ) $ for each case $\mu_1$ to $\mu_5$ defined in the caption of Fig. 8. The dashed lines track the evolution of the splitting between the two lowest states.[]{data-label="fig10"}](Q_1_spectrum){width="1.1\columnwidth"} In Figs. \[fig8\], \[fig10\], and  \[fig12\], $ \mu_1 $ corresponds to the critical couplings found for $ \delta_{B_0} = 6 \times 10^{-5} $, $ \mu_2 $ to that for $ \delta_{B_0} = 6 \times 10^{-4} $ and so on. Referring to the lowest two values in Fig. \[fig10\], one can clearly see that the splitting increases continuously with ${\delta }_{B_0\ }$. For higher states, it becomes very difficult to follow the trend due to possible level crossings. The $Q=0$ flows are shown in Fig. \[fig11\] for $B_0$ **** around **** $B_{0,c}$. It is well known [@Weiss:1999; @41] that the truncation of the bosonic Hilbert space results in improperly converged boson eigenvalues at the LM fixed point. However, NRG truncation does not affect the critical bosonic spectrum. Figure \[fig12\] shows the estimates for the lowest few $Q=0$ critical eigenvalues. One sees that some of these critical flows do not change with ${\delta }_{B_0}$. For the rest, it is more difficult to determine if the eigenvalues are indeed changing continuously as in the $Q=1$ sector. It is possible that the $ Q=0 $ eigenvalues which are changing are those associated with the fermionic excitation, while the constant values correspond to an unchanging purely bosonic sector. ![Eigenenergy $E$ vs iteration number $N$ for the six lowest $Q=0$ states near the critical couplings for $\delta_{B_0}=6\times 10^{-3}$, showing flow away from the critical spectrum to the LM (solid) and K (dashed) sides.[]{data-label="fig11"}](Q_0_both_sides_gc){width="1.1\columnwidth"} ![Lowest $Q=0$ eigenvalues closest to the critical point ($N \simeq 24$) for each case $\mu_1$ to $\mu_5$ defined in the caption of Fig. 8.[]{data-label="fig12"}](Q_0_spectrum){width="1.1\columnwidth"} Although it is difficult at this stage to make strong statements about the nature of these critical excitations we can attest at least to the fact that in the $Q=1$ case they appear to change continuously with ${\delta }_{B_0}$. A reasonable scenario is that the extra dissipation provided by increased ${\delta }_{B_0}$ requires an increased renormalized effective ${\Delta }^*$ at the critical point. Some evidence for this is also provided since one requires an increasing bare ${\Delta }_c$ **** with increasing ${\delta }_{B_0}$ in order to bring the flows closer to the critical surface. The fact that the spectrum changes provides evidence that we are dealing with a line of unstable fixed points extending from the $\Delta {\rm =0}$ BFKM **** and having the same set of critical exponents as the former. In the alternate scenario alluded to above, a flow to a different unstable fixed point would produce essentially the same critical eigenvalues for all ${\delta }_{B_0}\ $cases. A schematic flow diagram for the transverse-field BFKM **** showing a line of critical fixed points extending from the $\Delta {\rm =0}$ **** case **** is given in Fig. \[fig13\]. ![Schematic flow diagram showing a line of unstable fixed points extending from the $\Delta {\rm =0}$ BFKM critical fixed point with a conjectured extension (dashed) to the the SBM critical point lying on the plane $J_{\perp} = 0$.[]{data-label="fig13"}](Line_of_fixed_points){width="1.05\columnwidth"} We stress that the many-body spectrum of the unstable fixed point reflects the universal properties of the critical point. Because of the non zero transverse field applied along the $x$ direction, a magnetization will be generated that is directed along the $x$ direction, as considered, [*e.g.*]{} in Ref. in the SBM; this magnetization does not contain any critical singularity. Nonetheless, the end result of tuning $\Delta$ is to make the many-body spectra of the unstable fixed points vary continuously, which is captured by the line of fixed points shown in Fig. \[fig13\]. We close this section by noting that the $ Q=1 $ eigenstates in the K phase do not recover the $ SU(2) $ symmetry characteristic of a simple Kondo singlet suggesting that there is a residual splitting due to the transverse field. As shown in Fig. \[fig9\], these splittings are larger in the converged K phase eigenvalues than in the critical regime suggesting that the effective $ \Delta $ increases with flows away from the critical points. At the same time, the $Q = 1$ eigenvalues for $B_0 > B_{0,c}$ recover the two fold degeneracy typical of the LM fixed point with vanishing tunneling amplitude $\Delta^*$ in all of the $\delta_{B_0}$ cases considered. Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions} =========== We have carried out numerical renormalization-group studies of the Bose-Fermi Kondo model in the presence of a transverse field $\Delta $ for different values of the coupling to a dissipative bosonic bath with a bath exponent $s{\rm =}{\rm 0.8}$. We found that the system can be tuned across a second-order quantum phase transition between a local-moment phase and a Kondo screened phase. We also found that the transition is characterized by critical exponents identical to those of the $\Delta {\rm =0\ }$BFKM for $s{\rm =} {\rm 0.8}$, and exhibits hyperscaling. A continuously varying critical spectrum suggests that these new fixed points are lying on a line of critical fixed points extending from the known $\Delta {\rm =0\ }$BFKM **** critical point. Our results are interesting in their own right. Furthermore, in the Ising-anisotropic Kondo lattice model, a transverse field introduces quantum fluctuations in the local-moment component. Through the extended dynamical mean field theory, a self-consistent Bose-Fermi Kondo model with Ising anisotropy and a transverse local field provides the means to study the Ising-anisotropic Kondo lattice model with a transverse field. The results reported here will therefore have implications for the Kondo-destruction transitions in the lattice model. In particular, our evidence for the line of unstable fixed points in the Bose-Fermi Kondo model suggests a line of Kondo-destruction quantum critical point in the lattice model, as in the proposed global phase diagram. Concrete studies of the lattice model will be undertaken in the future. We thank Stefan Kirchner, Jed Pixley and Jianda Wu for illuminating discussions. This work has been in part supported by NSF Grant Nos. DMR-1006985 and DMR-1107814, Robert A. Welch Foundation Grant No.C-1411, and by the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. DOE at LANL under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396 and the LANL LDRD Program. Accuracy in the determination of the critical exponents {#Appendix:Accuracy of the results} ======================================================= As a check on our estimates of critical exponents obtained by varying $B_0$ around $B_{0,c}$ at fixed $\Delta=\Delta_c$, we have also calculated these exponents by fixing $B_0=B_{0,c}$ and then tuning $\Delta$ through $\Delta_c$. Figure \[figg14\] **** compares the exponents obtained via these two methods, in each case retaining 500 isospin multiplets in the NRG calculations. ![Comparison of critical exponents obtained by tuning through the critical point by varying $B_0$ and by varying $\Delta$, showing results for each case $\mu_1$ to $\mu_5$ defined in the caption of Fig. 8.[]{data-label="figg14"}](Critical_exponents_both_Del_G){width="1.1\columnwidth"} There is some mismatch between the estimated exponents for the $\Delta $ and $B_0 $ tuning cases. This is especially pronounced for ${\nu }_{LM}$ and ${\nu }_K $ with the smallest and largest ${\delta }_{B_0} $ corresponding to cases $\mu_1 $ and $\mu_5 $, respectively, in Fig. \[figg14\]. The discrepancies in the first case may be attributable to a vanishing $ \Delta^* $ at the unstable fixed point parameterized by $\mu_1 $. For small changes in the bare $ \Delta $ close to ${\Delta }_c\ $ the change to the RG flow is particularly small due to proximity to the critical point, making it difficult to accurately determine the scaling property. The second, larger discrepancy in $\nu $ is noticed for $\mu_5 $. We observe in this case that the many-body eigenvalues approach the critical plateau at higher-numbered iterations and leave this vicinity sooner than all the other cases considered. This suggests that the flows do not come as close to an unstable fixed point as in the other cases. Excluding these sources of error, it is clear that the exponents found by tuning $\Delta $ are the same as those found by tuning $B_0 $. The error in the critical exponents is estimated to be of ${\rm O}\left({10}^{-1}\right)$ for $\nu $ which was determined from the eigenvalue flows and of$\ {\rm O}({10}^{-2}$) for the thermodynamic critical exponents. [99]{} Q. Si and F. Steglich, Science, **329**, 1161 (2010). G. R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys, **73**, 797 (2001). P. Gegenwart, Q. Si and F. Steglich, Nature Phys., **4**, 186 (2008). H. v. Löhneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, and P. Wölfle, Rev. Mod. Phys. **79** 1015 (2007). J. A. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B **14**, 1165 (1976); A. J. Millis, ibid. **48**, 7183 (1993) ; T. Moriya, *Spin Fluctuations in Itinerant Electron Magnetism* (Springer, Berlin, 1985). Q. Si, S. Rabello, K. Ingersent and J. L. Smith, Nature (London) **413**, 804 (2001). Q. Si, S. Rabello, K. Ingersent and J. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 115103 (2003). P. Coleman, C. Pepin, Q. Si and R. Ramazashvili, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **13**, R723 (2001). J. L. Smith and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 5184 (2000); Q. Si and J.L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 3391 (1996). R. Chitra and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **84**, 3678 (2000). S. Paschen,T. Lühmann, S. Wirth, P. Gegenwart, O. Trovarelli, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, P. Coleman, and Q. Si, Nature (London) **432**, 881 (2004). S. Friedemann, N. Oeschler, S. Wirth, C. Krellner, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, S. Paschen, S. Kirchner, and Q. Si, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. **[107]{}**, 14547 (2010). H. Shishido, R. Settai, H. Harima, and Y. Ōnuki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **74**, 1103 (2005). A. Schroeder, G. Aeppli, R. Coldea, M. Adams, O. Stockert, H. v. Lohneysen, E. Bucher, R. Ramazshvili, and P. Coleman, Nature (London) **407**, 351 (2000). D. R. Grempel and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 026401 (2003). J.-X. Zhu, D. R. Grempel, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 156404 (2003). M. T. Glossop and K. Ingersent, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 227203 (2007). J.X. Zhu, S. Kirchner, R. Bulla, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 227204 (2007). Q. Si, Phys. Status Solidi B **247**, 476 (2010); Physica B **378**, 23 (2006). S. Friedmann, T. Westerkamp, M. Brando, N. Oeschler, S. Wirth, P. Gegenwart, C. Krellner, C. Geibel and F. Steglich, Nat. Phys. **B**, 465 (2009). J. Custers, P. Gegenwart, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, P. Coleman, and S. Paschen, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 186403 (2010). S. L. Bud’ko, E. Morosan, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 054408 (2005). J. Custers et al., Nat. Mater. **11**, 189 (2012). M. S. Kim and M. C. Aronson, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 017201 (2013). E. D. Mun et al., Phys. Rev. B **87**, 075120 (2013). V. Fritsch et al., arXiv:1301.6062. D. D. Khalyavin et al., Phys. Rev. B 87, 220406(R) (2013). L. Zhu and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 024426 (2002). G. Zaránd and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. B **66**, 024427 (2002). M. T. Glossop, and K. Ingersent, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 067202 (2005); Phys. Rev. B **75**, 104410 (2007). A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. **59**, 1 (1987). K. G. Wilson, Rev. Mod. Phys. **47**, 773 (1975). R. Bulla, H. J. Lee, N. H. Tong, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 045121 (2005); R. Bulla, N. H. Tong, and M. Vojta, Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 170601 (2003). U. Weiss, *Quantum Dissipative Systems* (World Scientifc, Singapore, 1999). K. Le Hur, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) **323**, 2208 (2008).

ArXiv

--- address: | Department of Statistics\ Indiana University\ Bloomington, Indiana 47408-3825\ USA\ author: - title: Special section on modern multivariate analysis --- A critically challenging problem facing statisticians is the identification of a suitable framework which consolidates data of various types, from different sources, and across different time frames or scales (many of which can be missing), and from which appropriate analysis and subsequent inference can proceed. Special Section Guest Editor Susan Holmes has assembled four articles that demonstrate the power of the duality diagram approach for analyzing data of different formats. The first article by De la Cruz and Holmes introduces the duality diagram and provides examples of familiar multivariate approaches (e.g., principal components, correspondence analysis) that fit into this framework. In the second article, Dray and Jombart use this approach both to understand covariation structures and to identify spatial patterns in sociological data; this spatial application (crimes in France) requires the incorporation of spatial constraints into the framework. Thioulouse in the third article considers ecological data, which arise as sets of matrices for different species and different time points, in search of ecological changes in relationships between species and the environment. In the fourth article, Purdom develops an approach based on the duality diagram to combine genomic data with network information. We hope that these articles will lead to the identification of further problems where the power of the duality diagram approach can be realized to deepen the analyses of data from multiple sources, types, and dimensions. We invite future submissions in this area that further develop the ideas in these articles and illustrate their advantages on real data.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Observations of six luminous blue compact galaxies (BCGs) and two star forming companion galaxies were carried out with the CIGALE scanning Fabry-Perot interferometer attached to the ESO 3.6m telescope on La Silla. The observations were made in the H$\alpha$ emission line which is prominent in BCGs. A velocity sampling of 5 km/s and a pixel size of 0.9 arcseconds were used. In this paper we present the observations and the data together with the velocity fields and the derived rotation curves. In addition we provide rough estimates of the total dynamical mass and of the ionised gas mass for each galaxy. All galaxies display rotation, but while the companion galaxies have regular velocity fields, those of the BCGs are complex and appear perturbed. This is the most extensive study to date of the optical velocity fields of BCGs. The interpretation of these results will be presented in a forthcoming paper (Paper II).' author: - 'Göran Östlin [^1]' - Philippe Amram - Josefa Masegosa - Nils Bergvall - Jacques Boulesteix date: 'Received &lt;date&gt; / Accepted &lt;date&gt;' subtitle: 'I. The data, velocity fields and rotation curves [^2][^3]' title: | Dynamics of blue compact galaxies,\ as revealed by their H$\alpha$ velocity fields : --- Introduction ============ A Blue Compact Galaxy (BCG) is characterised by its blue optical colours, an region like emission line spectrum (therefore sometimes also referred to as an galaxy) and compact appearance on photographic sky survey plates. BCGs have small to intermediate sizes (as measured e.g. by $R_{25}$). Optical spectroscopy of BCGs in general reveal high star formation rates and low chemical abundances (Searle and Sargent [@searle:sargent], Lequeux et al. [@lequeux:etal], French [@french], Kunth and Sargent [@kunth:sargent], Masegosa et al. [@masegosa]). Moreover most BCGs are rich in neutral hydrogen (Thuan and Martin [@thuan:martin]), a requisite for the intense star formation generally seen. However, the gas consumption time-scale is generally much shorter than the age of the universe, indicating that the high star formation rate must be transient. Such a galaxy is commonly referred to as a starburst galaxy. Thus BCGs are either genuinely young galaxies, or old galaxies that, for some reason, have resumed to form stars at a prodigious rate (Searle and Sargent [@searle:sargent], Searle et al. [@searle]). It is believed that BCGs undergo short (on the order of a few times 10 Myr) starbursts intervened by longer (on the order of a Gyr) passive periods. A cyclic scenario has been proposed and may result from statistical effects (Searle et al. [@searle], Gerola et al. [@gerola]). Another possibility is that supernova driven winds halt star formation by expelling the gas. Later, the lost gas might accrete back on the galaxy and create a new starburst (Dekel and Silk [@dekel], Silk et al. [@silk], and Babul and Rees [@babul:rees]). Other ideas incorporate galaxy interactions as the triggering mechanism behind starburst activity (cf. e.g. Lacey et al. [@lacey], Sanders et al. [@sanders]). Most BCGs are found outside galaxy clusters and in general seems to be fairly isolated, although there are indications that HI-companions, sometimes without obvious optical counterparts, may be common (Taylor [@taylor]). These different scenarios have been quite widely debated over the years, and while there is now ample evidence that most BCGs contain old stars indicating that the present burst is not the first one (for references see Paper II), there is no consensus on the process(es) that trigger the bursts of star formation now evident. Most arguments have been based on photometry alone. On the other hand the dynamics of these systems are not well explored, still the creation of an energetic event like a sudden burst of star formation is likely to have dynamical causes and impacts. To improve our understanding of the dynamics and the triggering mechanisms behind the starburst activity we have obtained H$\alpha$ velocity fields, using scanning Fabry-Perot (FP) interferometry, of a sample of BCGs. With a FP it is possible to achieve a two dimensional velocity field with both high spatial and spectral (velocity) resolution. Thus we can get a much better view of the gas motions as compared to long slit spectroscopy. The velocity fields can also be used to estimate the dynamical masses of the galaxies, and from the H$\alpha$ intensities it is possible to estimate the mass of ionised gas. Previous integral field studies of BCGs at high spectral resolution are rare. Thuan et al. ([@thuan:etal]) used Fabry-Perot interferometry to study two BCGs, both fainter than ours (, M$_B = -13.5$, and , M$_B = -17.3$). While VII Zw403 showed no well ordered large scale motion, I Zw49 to some degree did. Petrosian et al. ([@petrosian]) studied ($M_B = -13.9$) and found indications of solid body rotation and asymmetric line profiles, which they interpreted to be caused by gas motions in the core of the galaxy. [lll]{} Observations & Telescope & ESO 3.6m\ & Location & La Silla, Chile\ & Equipment & CIGALE at Cassegrain focus\ & Date & August 30 to September 2, 1995\ & Seeing & $\sim 1.2 \arcsec$\ Calibration & Neon line & $\lambda$ 6598.95   Å\ Detector & Photon Counting Camera (IPCS) & Time resolution 1/50 s\ Spatial Sampling & Pixel size & $0.91\arcsec$\ & Total Field & $230\arcsec \times 230\arcsec$ (256 $\times$ 256 pixels)\ Temporal Sampling & Elementary scanning exposure time & 5 s per channel\ Fabry-Perot interferometer no. 1 (FP1) & Interference Order & 796 at H$\alpha_0$ (6562.78 Å)\ & Free Spectral Range & 388 km/s\ & Finesse at H$\alpha$ & 11\ & Number of Scanning Steps & 24\ & Scanning Step & 0.36 Å (16.15 km/s)\ & Spectral resolution & $ R \ge 9000$   (34 km/s)\ Fabry-Perot interferometer no. 2 (FP2) & Interference Order & 2604 at H$\alpha_0$ (6562.78 Å)\ & Free Spectral Range at H$\alpha_0$& 117 km/s\ & Finesse at H$\alpha_0$ & 10\ & Number of Scanning Steps & 24\ & Scanning Step & 0.105 Å (4.80 km/s)\ & Spectral resolution & $R \ge 26000$   (12 km/s)\ In this paper we will present the FP observations of six luminous BCGs. These were selected to be bright in H$\alpha$ emission. Two of the galaxies have un-catalogued but confirmed star forming companion galaxies and these were also observed. Most galaxies are from the sample by Bergvall and Olofsson ([@bergvall:olofsson]) and a newer extended version of it. In addition, one galaxy has been taken from the catalogue by Terlevich et al. ([@terlevich:etal]). In this paper (Paper I) we will present the observations (Sect. 2), reductions (Sect. 3) and the results: the derived H$\alpha$ images, velocity fields and continuum images (Sect. 4). In Sect. 5 we describe how the rotation curves (RCs) were constructed and provide rough mass estimates based on these. In Sect. 6 we give comments on the velocity fields and RCs of the individual target galaxies. In Sect. 7 we give a short summary of the results presented in this paper. Throughout this paper we will use a Hubble constant of $H_0 = 75$ km/s/Mpc. In paper II (Östlin et al. [@ostlin:cigale2]) we will discuss the interpretation of these results and their implications on the masses and dynamics of the galaxies and the triggering mechanism behind their starbursts. Observations ============ Eight galaxies were selected (see Sect. 1) for observations on the three dark nights allocated at the ESO 3.6m telescope on La Silla, from August 30 to September 2 1995. Observing conditions were photometric all nights. The seeing (measured at the telescope) was slightly above one arcsecond. The exposure times ranged between 24 minutes (1 minute per channel) and 160 minutes (almost 7 minutes per channel), plus calibration exposures. The used instrument was CIGALE, attached to the Cassegrain focus of the telescope. CIGALE is basically composed of a focal reducer (bringing the original f/8 focal ratio of the Cassegrain focus to f/3), a scanning Fabry-Perot interferometer, an interference filter (to isolate the emission line and suppress the sky brightness) and an IPCS detector (2-D photon-counting system). The basic principles of this instrument were described in Amram et al. ([@amram:1991]). The pixel size, projected on the sky, is 0.91$\arcsec$ with a resulting field of view of $\sim$ 4$\arcmin$. The IPCS, with a time resolution of 1/50 seconds and zero readout noise makes it possible to scan the interferometer rapidly, avoiding problems with varying sky transparency, airmass and seeing during long exposures; and thus has several advantages over a CCD for this application. Narrow band interference filters were used to isolate the region around the redshifted H$\alpha$ line. Different interference filters were used for observing galaxies with different radial velocities, see Table \[table2\]. Only in two cases ( and ) the \[\]${\lambda 6548 \rm \AA}$ line might be partly transmitted. This line is however observed to be very weak as compared to H$\alpha$ in the two galaxies (Bergvall & Östlin [@bergvall:ostlin], Terlevich et al. [@terlevich:etal]) so there is no risk that this affect our results. In order to save observing time and to increase the the spectral resolution, with respect to the small velocity range of the observed galaxies, we decided to use a high order Fabry-Perot interferometer (hereafter simply referred as to FP2 for Fabry-Perot interferometer number 2, see Table \[table1\]) giving at H$\alpha_0$ a mean finesse of 10, a free spectral range (FSR) of 117 km/s, and a scanning step of 4.8 km/s. The FSR is the separation between two consecutive interference orders and is therefore the maximum wavelength (velocity) range that can be observed before wavelength overlap occurs. The finesse is effectively the ratio between the FSR and the width of the Airy function. The Airy function (or apparatus function) is the instrumental line profile. Thus by scanning the FSR in a number of steps that equals at least twice the finesse, adequate spectral sampling is obtained. The spectral resolution, $R$, given in Table 1 is calculated from the width of the apparatus function, but for high signal to noise (S/N) the effective $R$ will be higher. One galaxy was also observed using a lower order Fabry-Perot interferometer (hereafter simply referred to as FP1, see Table \[table1\]), which gave oss the possibility to check the consistency of our results. Calibrations were obtained by scanning a narrow neon line before and after the observations of each galaxy. Table 1 lists some characteristics of the set-up used for the observations. Table 2 gives the target names and some parameters for the observed galaxies. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------------- ------- Target Name Other Name R.A. Decl. $m_{\rm V}$ $v_{\rm hel,obs}$ Obs. date Obs. time Filter/[FWHM]{} note/ (1950) (1950) km/s hours Å ref. 00 34 26 -33 49 54 14.2 6175 30 Aug. 1995 2.27 6691/22.5 1 02 52 33 -25 18 42 14.7 4710 31 Aug. 1995 2.43 6670/20 1 19 24 29 -41 40 24 13.6 2820 30 Aug. 1995 2.33 6621/8.5 1,2          "    & & & & & & 30 Aug. 1995 & 1.00 && 1,3\ && 19 24 03 & -41 45 00 &15.0 & 2925 & 31 Aug. 1995 & 2.40 &6630/9.5 & 9\ && 19 41 00 & -54 22 18 &15.1 & 5625 &  1 Sept. 1995 & 2.66 &6691/22.5 & 4\ & & 20 34 31 & -35 39 54 & 14.4 & 5830 & 30 Aug. 1995 & 2.33 &6691/22.5& 5\ & & 20 34 41 & -35 40 12 & 15.7 & 5830 & 30 Aug. 1995 & 2.33 &6691/22.5& 5,6\ & & 03 41 03 & -40 45 29& 15.7 & 4500&  1 Sept. 1995 & 0.40 &6653/20.5& 7,8\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ------------- ------------------- -------------- ----------- ----------------- ------- \ Notes/references:\ 1. Position and velocity reference Bergvall and Olofsson (1986).\ 2. Observation made with FP2.\ 3. Observation made with FP1.\ 4. From an extension of the Bergvall and Olofsson sample. Position and velocity reference from NED.\ 5. and its companion were observed simultaneously, since their separation is only 3 arcminutes.\ 6. Companion to, position and velocity reference Bergvall and Jörsäter (1988).\ 7. Position and velocity reference Terlevich et al. (1991).\ 8. Quoted magnitude is in the R band.\ 9. Companion to , position and velocity reference Bergvall et al. (1998)\ Reductions ========== Reduction of the data cubes were performed using the CIGALE/ADHOC software (Boulesteix [@boulesteix]). The data reduction procedure has been extensively described in Amram et al. ([@amram:1995],[@amram:1996],[@amram:1997]) and references therein. The accuracy of the zero point for the wavelength calibration is a fraction of a channel width (${\rm <3 ~ km/s }$) over the whole field. OH night sky lines passing through the filter were subtracted by determining the emission in the field outside the galaxies (Laval et al. [@laval]). Since we used a high order Fabry-Perot interferometer, FP2, the FSR of the interferometer was of the same order of magnitude as the average H$\alpha$ line width ($\sim$ 100 km/s) of the target galaxies. This means that in general we have no emission line free continuum. Moreover, the wings of the emission lines are shifted by a FSR (+1 FSR for the blueshifted wing and -1 FSR for the redshifted wing) and superimposed on the central part of the line. However this does not affect the velocity of the line, as long as the velocity range of the galaxy is lower than the FSR. When this is not the case, a velocity jump close to one FSR could easily be detected and corrected for using the continuity of the isovelocities. The only problem is that monochromatic (H$\alpha$) emission could be mistaken for continuum, which in effect would lower the measured line intensity and over-estimate the continuum level. To separate the continuum from the body and wings of the line, we used a method based on fitting theoretical line profiles to the observed profiles. The instrumental line width (apparatus function) of the interferometer has a FWHM of 10$\pm$2 km/s, where the range reflects the (known) variation of the FWHM over the field of view. Thus the observed widths of the profiles are dominated by the intrinsic H$\alpha$  line widths in the target galaxies. The convolution of the apparatus function with a theoretical H$\alpha$ profile yields something very close to a Gaussian. The function used to fit to the observed profiles was a “folded” Gaussian: its wings were cut (at $\pm$ one half FSR from the centre of the Gaussian), shifted (by $\pm$1 FSR) and added to the main body of the profile. The reduced datacube provide the centre of the central wavelength, and the sum of the continuum and monochromatic (H$\alpha$) emission. Thus only two parameters are unknown: the width and the amplitude of the Gaussian (i.e. the width and peak intensity of the H$\alpha$ line). These two parameters are determined by a least-squares fit and thereby both the continuum level and the H$\alpha$ intensity are determined for each pixel. To check the validity of this method, one galaxy () was observed with two different interferometers having different interference order: FP1 and FP2. Using FP1, the signal measured along the scanning sequence is separated into two parts: an almost constant level produced by the continuum light passing through the narrow band interference filter, and a varying part produced by the H$\alpha$ line emission. The continuum level is the mean of all channels which do not contain monochromatic (i.e. H$\alpha$) signal. First of all, we checked that without any “data cooking”, the velocity fields have the same shape with both FPs. The agreement is even better if we degrade the high resolution FP2 data to the spectral resolution of FP1, see also Sect. 6.3. As a consequence of the lines having widths comparable to the FSR when using FP2, the continuum level and the true width of the lines are not known with accuracy; and therefore these quantities are not presented. A rough flux calibration of the H$\alpha$ and continuum images of the galaxies could be made using the known instrumental sensitivity. For a narrow band filter having 100% transmission at the observed wavelength, one photo electron corresponds to a flux of $8.32 \times 10^{-17} \rm W m^{-2} s^{-1}$, with an uncertainty of $\pm 20 \%$. Correcting for the transmission of the narrow band filter and the atmospheric absorption we could then determine the total (line plus continuum) flux detected. As explained above, the separation of continuum and H$\alpha$ emission is not trivial. However, in all cases the H$\alpha$ emission dominate the detected flux. In effect the total H$\alpha$ fluxes are known with reasonable accuracy, while the absolute continuum level is uncertain. Comparing with available R-band photometry (e.g. Bergvall and Olofsson [@bergvall:olofsson]) we conclude that the contribution from the continuum to the detected flux is of the order of a few percent, which is slightly lower than the estimate form the continuum fit. In Table \[table5\] the derived H$\alpha$ fluxes are presented. The quoted uncertainties represent the quadratic sum of the intrinsic uncertainty (20 %) and the estimated uncertainty in determining the flux for each galaxy (10-30 % due to uncertainty in the continuum level and the exact transmission of the filter at the wavelength of the redshifted H$\alpha$ line). The total derived H$\alpha$ fluxes can be used to estimate ${\cal M_{\rm ion}}$, the mass of the ionised H$\alpha$ emitting gas. For this we assume an electron density, $n_{\rm e}$, of 10 cm$^{-3}$, an electron temperature of 10000 K, a mean molecular weight, $\mu$, of 1.23 (to include the mass of helium) and use the H$\alpha$ effective recombination coefficient for case B as given by Osterbrock ([@osterbrock]). The assumed density is in the lower range of observed densities of the gas in BCGs, which usually lie in the range $10 < n_{\rm e} < 300$ cm$^{-3}$ (see e.g. Bergvall [@bergvall], and Masegosa et al. [@masegosa]) and thus our ${\cal M_{\rm ion}}$ estimate could be regarded as an upper limit, perhaps one order of magnitude too high. Fabry-Perot images and velocity fields ====================================== In Fig. 1 to 14 we present the Fabry-Perot images of the observed galaxies. In most cases a continuum image of each galaxy is given in the upper-left panel, and a monochromatic (H$\alpha$) image in the mid-left panel. The contour levels are usually the same in the continuum and monochromatic images, except that the continuum is the integrated intensity over the used narrow band filter while the monochromatic images present the total H$\alpha$ flux. The threshold of all the images was chosen to be at 3$\sigma$ above the noise in the background. All images have linearly spaced contour levels. The continuum images shown have been smoothed with a Gaussian filter (FWHM of 3$\arcsec$). The H$\alpha$  images are the full resolution maps, but in drawing the contours the data was slightly smoothed with a median filter. In general, in the right panel we present the isovelocity contours of the ionised gas (thick solid lines) superimposed on the H$\alpha$ image (thin solid lines). The number of contour levels were here reduced to make the plots more readable. The heliocentric radial isovelocity lines have been drawn after a smoothing the original profiles with a Gaussian filter (FWHM 1.8” $\times$ 1.8”). The isovelocity contours are labelled in units of km/s. In each plot, the scale and orientation are given in the lower right corner. In general the relative velocities are certain to within a fraction of the sampling step, but there might be systematic offsets of a few times the FSR, since the narrow band filters used are four to eight FSRs broad, giving a maximum systematic velocity error of a few times 100 km/s. However, for all galaxies there are independent velocity determinations available (see Table 2), which give us confidence in the determined systemic velocities (Table 3). Multicomponent decomposition ---------------------------- For some of the target galaxies we see obvious double line profiles (or profiles with very broad and flat peaks) indicating that gas with two different velocities are present. When this was seen in more than a single isolated pixel but in a region of at least 3 by 3 pixels, and with sufficient S/N to rule out a noise peak, we attempted to decompose the velocity field into two components. This was done after subtracting the continuum and employing a small spectral smoothing with a Gaussian filter (FWHM of 15 km/s), in order to avoid artifacts due to noise. For this purpose a classical least-squares algorithm was used to fit two Gaussian profiles simultaneously to the full profile in the individual pixels. To reduce the number of free parameters in the fit, we imposed the constraint that the two Gaussians should have the same FWHM (as measured where they are well separated). The decomposition was performed individually on single pixels, but subject to a condition of continuity, i.e. in determining which of the fitted Gaussian components that belong to the same dynamical large scale component, the velocity of either component was not allowed to make sudden jumps from pixel to pixel. Thus the velocity of one dynamical component in a certain pixel had to be consistent with its neighbouring pixels. For several galaxies, we attempted a decomposition, but the results are only presented when we obtained a regular and continuous large scale secondary component. The failure to decompose the data cube into two components does not guarantee that secondary dynamical components are not present, only that we cannot detect them. Moreover, we have no guarantee that the components are not separated by the value determined here plus the free spectral range of the interferometer. Nevertheless, the separation between the two components are often so small than they should not be apparent if we had used a lower resolution Fabry-Perot. In those cases where we have extracted two dynamical components, individual H$\alpha$ profiles are superimposed on the velocity field of the galaxy. To make it more readable, one profile is usually drawn in a 2 by 2 pixels square box. The abscissa of each small spectrum covers one FSR of 117 km/s, while the Y-amplitude is normalised to the peak value of the monochromatic flux in the field of view. In some cases where we see double or broad lines, we also present the line profiles of the non-decomposed velocity field with the Y-amplitude normalised to the maximum intensity in the box, which makes faint parts more visible. For most galaxies, individual pixels or small regions can be found where the line profiles are double or asymmetric. This is an indication of small/intermediate scale gas motions, e.g. expanding bubbles or stellar winds. It cannot be excluded that several sources, overlaid on top of each other, have monochromatic emission within the narrow band filter (within a few times 100 km/s of the target galaxy). Then we could misinterpret a background/foreground galaxy for a secondary dynamical component in the galaxy studied. This is however very unlikely in view of the appearance of the data. That the velocity structure within the target galaxies (main component) could be a misinterpretation and rather be due to two separate galaxies a few 100 km/s apart is extremely unlikely since we then would expect to see double components in the profiles unless there was a perfect match in velocity (plus a multiple of the FSR), orientation and rotational velocity and direction. Of course there might be more than two velocity components present, but we do not attempt a decomposition into more components, since third components do not display any meaningful structure over a scale larger than one or a few pixels. Thus third components (and second components in those cases where we do not decompose the velocity field) may reflect local small scale gas motions. A problem in attempting a multicomponent decomposition is that in principle any Gaussian can be decomposed into an infinite number of Gaussian components, and thus the result would be unreliable and model dependent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- -------------- --------------- -------------- ------------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------- -------- ------ Target Name Compo- RC $v_{\rm hel}$ $PA$ $Incl$ $S$ $PA_{\rm phot}$ $Incl_{\rm phot}$ $R_{25,B}$ $M_B$ note nent Fig. km/s ${\degr}$ ${\degr}$ ${\degr}$ ${\degr}$ ${\degr}$ $\arcsec$/kpc Total \[e350\] 6265 320 $\pm$ 10 40 $\pm$ 10 45 300 35 16.3/6.4 -20.0 1        “      & Main & \[e350\_2\] & 6264 & 320 $\pm$ 10 & 40 $\pm$ 10 & 45 & & & & & 2\ 2:nd \[e350\_2\] 6250 140 $\pm$ 10 40 $\pm$ 25 85 3        ”      Main \[e480\_1\] 4830 234 $\pm$ 10 52 $\pm$ 5 60 200 64 19.5/5.9 -19.1 Main \[e338\_1\] 2825  60 $\pm$ 10 55 $\pm$ 10 45  55 61 23.5/4.2 -18.9 4        “      & Main & \[e338\_3\] & 2816 &  60 $\pm$ 10 & 55 $\pm$ 10 & 55 & & & & & 5\ Masked \[e338\_2\]a 2815  60 $\pm$ 10 55 $\pm$ 10 30 6        ”             “      & 2:nd perp.& \[e338\_2\]b & 2824 & 336 $\pm$ 5 & 62 $\pm$ 10 & 20 & & & & &7\ 2:nd \[e185\_2\] 5706 225 $\pm$ 5 50 $\pm$ 10 40 & & \[e338b\] & 2900 & 230 $\pm$ 5 & 55 $\pm$ 5 & 40 & 225 & 58 & 18.2/3.3: & -17.5: &8\ & Main & \[e185\_1\] & 5682 &  25 $\pm$ 5 & 55 $\pm$ 5 & 40 & 130 & 42 & 12.4/4.5:& -18.7: &8\        ”     \[e400\] 5813 225 $\pm$ 5 55 $\pm$ 10 55 220 40 14.3/5.3 -19.8 \[e400b\] 5886 305 $\pm$ 5 60 $\pm$ 5 45 310 73 13.0/4.9 -18.3 East \[tol\_1\] 4535 295 $\pm$ 5 15 $\pm$ 5 60  5.4/1.6: -16.0: 9        "     & West & \[tol\_2\] & 4560 & 313 $\pm$ 5 & 50 $\pm$ 5 & 50 & & &  8.8/2.5: & -17.0: &9\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- -------------- --------------- -------------- ------------- ----------- ----------------- ------------------- --------------- -------- ------ \ Notes:\ 1) Non-decomposed velocity field.\ 2) Primary component after decomposition of double line profiles in the centre.\ 3) Secondary component after decomposition of double line profiles in the centre.\ 4) Total velocity field from FP2 data.\ 5) Total velocity field from FP1 data.\ 6) FP2 data, parts of the velocity field have been masked, cf. Sect. 6.3.\ 7) Secondary perpendicular component, which has no obvious counterpart in broad band images, cf. Sect. 6.3. FP2 data.\ 8) $R_{25,B}$ and $M_B$ estimated from V-band data assuming $B-V=0.5$; this value is uncertain.\ 9) has been decomposed into two components. Total absolute R-band magnitude: $M_R=-18.2$. The kinematical inclination and position angle have been used also for calculating $R_{25,B}$. In addition $R_{25,B}$ has been estimated from an R-band luminosity profile assuming $B-R=0.8$. Thus the values of $R_{25,B}$ for this object are uncertain.\ Rotation curves (RCs) ===================== In investigating the dynamics of the BCGs we prefer presenting a rotation curve (rather than just a position velocity cut) in order to indicate the real amplitude of the deprojected velocity field and to take into account data from a large fraction of the whole velocity field (and not only along a cut). However, we will see that the RCs are not always good tracers of the mass distribution in the galaxies. The RC for each galaxy has been drawn by taking into account all velocity points within $\pm S$ degrees (in the sky plane) from the kinematical major axis (i.e. the $PA$). This parameter was chosen to be as big as possible, still allowing a regular RC. The half sector, $S$, used for each galaxy is indicated in the caption of the figure showing its RC and in Table 3. The RCs are given in Fig. 1 to 14 at the bottom of the pages. Table 6 gives the RCs in tabular form (this Table is only published electronically)[^4]. The “cloud” of small points seen in each RC, are all the velocity points within  $\pm 30 \degr$  of the major axis in the sky plane. Although these points represent only a portion of the data (usually more data points are included in constructing the RC since normally  $S > 30 \degr$), they give a fair idea of the amount, dispersion and quality of the data and the difference between the velocity on the major axis and the mean velocity. If the discrepancy is large, it means that circular motion is not likely. The error bars represent the $\pm 1 \sigma$  dispersion in the velocity at each radius in the RC, and is a combination of the intrinsic dispersion and observational and reduction errors. In general the intrinsic dispersion is larger than the observational errors. Thus the dispersion in the RC is in general caused by real irregularities in the velocity fields. The rotation velocity scale has not been adjusted by the cosmological correction $(1+z)$. The RCs assume axisymmetric objects with circular rotation and are sensitive to the choice of inclination ($Incl$), position angle ($PA$) and dynamical centre. The  $PA$  was determined from the orientation of the velocity field with a typical accuracy of 5 to 10 degrees. The inclination was determined as to minimise the residuals and the dispersion in the RC. The centre coordinates and systemic velocity were chosen to give a RC with good agreement between the receding and approaching sides and to minimise the dispersion. The centre coordinates could be determined with a typical accuracy of half a pixel and in general the displacement between the dynamical centre and the broad band photometric centre (determined from the 1st statistical moment) is within one pixel. The inclination is in general the most uncertain parameter. Since many velocity fields look perturbed, a wide range in  $Incl$ may give comparably good fits overall. A typical accuracy for $Incl$ is $10\degr$. Secondary components have in general less well determined $Incl$. The uncertainties in $Incl$ will enter in all mass estimates based on the RCs. The RC gives $V(R)$, the rotational velocity as a function of radius, and in essence the rotational velocity is the velocity in the sky plane divided by $\sin(Incl)$. Thus the lower $Incl$, the more sensitive will the derived velocities will be to uncertainties in $Incl$. The possible occurrence of warps or oval distortions and irregularities limit the validity of the RC, since its derivation is based on the assumption of a circular motions. A rough estimate of the dynamical mass can be made using the simple model by Lequeux (1983) in which the mass within a radius $R$ is: $$M(R) = f \times R \times V^2(R)\times G^{-1}$$ where $V(R)$ is the rotational velocity at $R$,  $G$  the gravitational constant and $f$ is a constant which has a value between 0.5 and 1.0. This formula is valid for any galaxy (in equilibrium) supported by rotation. For a disc with flat RC $f=0.6$ while for a spherical distribution (e.g. a galaxy dominated by a dark halo) $f=1.0$. For a disc with Keplerian decreasing RC outside $R$, $f=0.5$ . Thus, according to this model, for any rotating galaxy $f$ should lie in the range: $f=0.5 {\rm ~to~} 1.0$, independent of the presence of a massive halo. Mass estimates based on this equation are given in Table 4, where we assumed $f=0.8$. The assumption $f=0.8$ is not based on any physical reason, but was chosen simply to lie in the middle of the allowed interval. In addition to the intrinsic uncertainty in this model, all the uncertainties above affects the accurateness of this estimate. In Paper II we will discuss these, and more refined, mass estimates of the observed galaxies. Of course, the mass estimate provided by Eq. (1), will only be a good approximation of the true dynamical mass if the galaxy is supported by rotation. If on the other hand the galaxy is mainly supported by random motions, the presented mass will be a severe underestimate. The RC is based on the assumption of circular rotation. If this is not true, the RC will not give a good description of the dynamics and mass of a galaxy. Nevertheless, even when the velocity field is perturbed and the derived RC looks weird (as for , Fig. \[e338\_1\]), the RC gives some insights to the dynamics of a galaxy. Even the failure of constructing a symmetric and tight RC is interesting, since it indicates that the system is complex or perturbed. In Table 3 we give some parameters for the RCs. In some cases where we have extracted more than one component, we provide information for both. We also provide some photometric information, like $Incl_{phot}$ and $PA_{phot}$, the photometric inclination and position angle, respectively; and  $R_{25,B}$, the radius at which the B surface brightness drops to 25 magnitudes per square arcsecond, corrected for inclination (cf. e.g. Bergvall et al. [@bergvall:etal]) and Galactic reddening. This information is not used in itself in the present investigation but provide complementary information. The  $R_{25,B}$  is given in the RCs to give an idea of the size of the galaxy and the extent of the RC. When we did not have B-band data, we scaled V- or R-band data assuming crudely  $B-V = 0.5$  and $V-R=0.35$. The position angle and inclination derived from kinematics and photometry do not always agree which could be due to dynamical disturbances and instabilities in the systems or internal absorption. Anyway, the only thing we used $PA_{phot}$ and $Incl_{phot}$ for in this investigation was to calculate  $R_{25,B}$. Detailed surface photometry of some galaxies in this sample will be presented separately (Bergvall and Östlin [@bergvall:ostlin]). [llllll]{} Target & Compo- & $V(R)$ & $R$ & ${\cal M}$ & note\ & nent & km/s & kpc & $10^6{\cal M_{\odot}}$\ & Total & 95 & 0.2 & 340 & $V_{max}$\     “      & Total & 30 & 5.4 & 900 & $R_{max}$\ & Main & 41 & 4.7 &1470 &\ & 2:nd & 85 & 1.0 &1340 &\ & Main & 120 & 2.8 & 7480 & Both\     ”      & Main & 140 & 4.5 & 16370 & $V_{max}$\     “      & Main & 124 & 5.8 & 16550 & $R_{max}$\ & Masked & 49 & 2.0 & 890 & $V_{max}$\ & Masked & 35 & 2.5 & 570 & $R_{max}$\ & 2:nd & 19 & 0.8 & 54 & $V_{max}$\     ”      &  “   & 12 & 1.9 & 51 & $R_{max}$\ & Comp. & 91 & 3.5 & 5380 &\ & Main & 51 & 3.8 & 1830 &\ & 2:nd & 26 & 2.7 & 340 &\ & & 54 & 1.1 & 610 & $V_{max}$\     ”      & & 25 & 5.6 & 650 & Both\     "      & & 12 & 10.2 & 270 & $R_{max}$\ & Comp. & 62 & 4.3 & 3070 &\ & East & 24 & 1.6 & 170 &\ & West & 27 & 1.9 & 260 &\ -------- --------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------ Target $f_{{\rm H}\alpha}~~~~~~$ $L_{{\rm H}\alpha}$  ${\cal M_{\rm ion}}$ 10$^{-17}$ W/m$^2$ 10$^{33}$ W $10^6{\cal M_{\odot}}$ 350 $\pm$ 180 280 900 130 $\pm$ 50 62 200 290 $\pm$ 60 49 160 24 $\pm$ 5 4 14 120 $\pm$ 35 81 260 240 $\pm$ 70 170 550 28 $\pm$ 6 20 65 45 $\pm$ 13 19 61 33 $\pm$ 9 14 45 -------- --------------------------- --------------------- ------------------------ : Estimated H$\alpha$ fluxes ($f_{\rm H\alpha}$), luminosities ($L_{\rm H\alpha}$) and ionised gas masses(${\cal M_{\rm ion}}$). The H$\alpha$ luminosity was calculated using the quoted radial velocities in Table \[table2\]. The mass was calculated assuming an electron density of $n_{\rm e} = 10$ cm$^{-3}$, an electron temperature $T_{\rm e} = 10\,000$K, and a mean molecular weight of $\mu = 1.23$. The H$\alpha$ recombination coefficient was taken from Osterbrock, Case B ([@osterbrock]). []{data-label="table5"} Notes on the individual targets =============================== In this section we describe the images, velocity fields and rotation curves of the individual targets. In paper II, the characteristics of the observed velocity fields and RCs will be analysed and interpreted. In Table 3 we list the inclinations and position angles, derived from both photometry and kinematics. The kinematical centres have been compared with those from photometry, based on a first moment fit and the centre of outer isophotes. Unless noted otherwise, the agreement between the kinematic and photometric centres is within one pixel. Our data (Fig. \[e350\], \[e350\_2\]) and broad band images show that the morphology of this object is complex, apparently involving three nuclei/hot-spots. The outer H$\alpha$ and continuum isophotes appear fairly round. However, deep broad band images however reveal an asymmetric morphology at all radii. The kinematical centre of this galaxy lies between the north-west and south nuclei, approximately in the centre of the outer H$\alpha$ and continuum isophotes. The isovelocity contours are very squeezed in the centre indicating a rapid increase in the rotational velocity. At larger radii (1 to 2 arcseconds) a plateau is observed on each side followed by a velocity drop after which the RC stays flat at a rather low rotational velocity. Note that the steep central velocity gradient is not necessarily continuous, but could also be explained by H$\alpha$ emitting blobs with different velocity tumbling around each other. The deformations of the isovelocity contours (strongest in the north-east region) could indicate the presence of a spiral arm or a warp. The emission lines of this galaxy are broad, on the order of 200 km/s (Vader et al. [@vader]). Thus the full line profiles are much broader than our FSR, and the problems discussed in Sect. 3 are more serious for this galaxy. The derived RC shows a rapid rise followed by a Keplerian like decline shortly after, then levelling out at a constant velocity of 30 km/s for radii larger than five arcseconds. Between approximately one and two kpc the RC falls slightly faster than the Keplerian prediction, but this is within the uncertainties. The receding and approaching sides are in reasonable agreement. A close look a the line profiles in the centre revealed double lines which made us attempt a decomposition of the velocity field (see Fig \[e350\_2\]). This yielded a regular secondary component in the central part only. After decomposing the velocity field the RC looks very different (see Fig. \[e350\_2\]). The central high velocity part in Fig.\[e350\] is replaced by a secondary counter rotating component spinning at high velocity. To get good agreement between the receding and approaching sides of the secondary component, its systemic velocity was adjusted. Note that the RC of the secondary component is based on a total of nine pixels only. The centre of the primary component nearly coincides with that of the total non-decomposed velocity field. The primary component has a nearly constant RC with a velocity of $\approx$ 40 km/s. This differs from the non-decomposed value of 30 km/s because it is based on fitted, i.e smoothed, data, and slightly different (1 pixel) centre coordinates. Moreover, since fitting Gaussian profiles to the data requires higher S/N, the radial extent of this RC is somewhat smaller than for the non-decomposed velocity field. A word of caution is necessary here: the velocity difference between the primary and secondary components is close to the FSR of the used FP2, meaning that the lines almost overlap. In effect the relative velocity of the secondary component with respect to the primary, is uncertain. Therefore we cannot exclude that the counter rotating component is an artifact. However there is a clear signature of asymmetric line profiles in the centre and some sort of multicomponent gas is needed. Observations with a FP with higher FSR (e.g. FP1) should reveal if the second component represents a counter rotating disc or not. At this stage we urge the reader to view the RC of the second component in Fig. \[e350\_2\] as one possible interpretation. If our interpretation is correct, the mass of the secondary component is on the order of $10 ^9 \cal M_{\odot}$. This galaxy has the greatest H$\alpha$ luminosity in the sample and the ionised gas mass may be as great as $10 ^9 \cal M_{\odot}$, comparable to the dynamical mass estimate in Table 4. This galaxy also has an overall irregular morphology. It is located in front of what appears to be a background cluster of galaxies. Three of the galaxies closest to have measured redshifts that are much higher than that of . Furthermore, none of these objects show any H$\alpha$ emission at the redshift of . Surprisingly though has faint warp-like extensions apparently aligned with a chain of background galaxies. The H$\alpha$ emission is concentrated to two, or perhaps three, central regions. In between the regions the isovelocity contours are squeezed. Double and very broad components are observed in the emission line profiles, especially west of the centre (see Fig. \[e480\_1\] and \[e480\_2\]). Two components have been extracted with quite different intensity levels. If we do not decompose the profiles and simply compute the velocity from the total H$\alpha$ line, the first component clearly dominates in the brightest part, but in fainter regions west of the centre, unreasonable features appear like the confusing situation with three different symmetry axes. Anyway, this would not affect the RC of the primary component since the regions with double lines are close to the minor axis. For the primary component, the velocity field shows a strong gradient along the major axis; but with a plateau in the north-west region. This coincides with the western region and roughly with the region where the double features in the lines are most pronounced, and thus close to where the second component has its maximum intensity. The kinematical centre is well defined along the major axis and coincides roughly with the continuum peak intensity. Due to the plateau, the kinematical centre is less well determined along the minor axis, however different choices of centre along this axis gives consistent RCs. In essence the RC does not sensitively depend on the centre coordinates or the decomposition model. The RC derived for the main component shows solid body rotation out to a radius of $\approx 3$ kpc, after which it levels out, although it is here based on the receding side only. The RC has a rather large dispersion indicating that the physical situation might be more complex than the assumed disk anatomy. For the second component, we could not obtain any sensible RC. However, the duality of the velocity peaks in the western part of the galaxy are very significant, and some sort of multicomponent gas is needed to explain the data. The ionised gas mass is of the order $10^8 \cal M_{\odot}$, thus significantly smaller than the dynamical mass estimate which is of the order $ 10^{10} \cal M_{\odot}$. This galaxy is also well known as or . Its photometric properties have been quite extensively discussed by Bergvall ([@bergvall]) and Östlin et al. ([@ostlin:e338gc]). This galaxy has been observed with two different Fabry-Perot interferometers (FP1 and FP2, see Table 1) and thus we had the opportunity to check the consistency of the analysis (cf. Fig. \[e338\_1\] and \[e338\_3\]). First, we successfully checked that the flux in the field star superimposed on the western part of the galaxy and the flux in the H$\alpha$ emission line regions were consistent between both observations. Secondly, we checked that the superimposed bright field star does not seriously affect the velocity field. Thirdly, we confirm that we find the same shape for both velocity fields. The H$\alpha$ emission is concentrated to an extended bright central starburst region. In addition there is diffuse H$\alpha$ emission extending in a tail towards the east. There are also suggestions of a small H$\alpha$ arm emanating towards the south from the western side of the starburst. The velocity field is very irregular and does not contain a single axis of symmetry. Moreover the velocity gradient is steep in the western parts and roughly east-west orientated; while in the eastern regions the gradient is much lower, not always positive and lacking a well defined position angle. The eastern extended tail has almost no velocity gradient. East of the centre, just at the border of the starburst region, we observe what appears to be the superposition of two patterns with different orientation (see Fig. \[e338\_1\]). We will refer to the hypothetical component east of the centre as the [*perpendicular*]{} component, since its $PA$ is roughly perpendicular to the major axis of the galaxy. However, we do not observe any double component in the profiles (in either FP2 or FP1 data). Anyway, we tried to decompose the velocity field without any conclusive results. This could mean that if there are two components present, the linewidth is too large with respect to their velocity separation or/and where the components overlap, one only sees the one with the strongest H$\alpha$ emission. In Fig. \[e338\_3\] we show a map of the velocity dispersion as derived from the FWHM linewidth of the FP1 data. The velocity dispersion has a fairly constant level of $\approx 100$ km/s. Where the major axis of the perpendicular component cross the major axis for the whole galaxy the velocity dispersion is higher and peaks at 160 km/s. Still, the shape of the H$\alpha$ line is consistent with one single broad component. It is not unambiguous how to derive a RC for this galaxy. The different RCs are however consistent in the way that they all are very irregular, signifying a non equilibrium system. The general feature is an approaching side with continuous steeply rising velocity, and a receding side with very small velocity gradient. This means that the assumption of a regularly rotating disc in equilibrium must be far from reality in this galaxy. In effect the kinematical centre is not well defined. As a cure we tried to mask away certain points of the velocity field (those in the eastern arm and the approaching side of the perpendicular component) to check if we could obtain a more regular RC. The result is shown in Fig. \[e338\_2\]a, but the RC is still far from regular. Moreover, the decline of the average RC outside 2 kpc is faster than the Keplerian case, which is not necessary significant since the velocity field is so perturbed. For the hypothetical perpendicular component we could extract a regular RC (Fig. \[e338\_2\]b) only when using a narrow sector ($S < 30 \degr$). The implied rotational velocity is very small, but the regularity and the agreement between the approaching and receding sides still makes this component well defined. The RC obtained from the FP1 data (Fig. \[e338\_3\]) largely agrees with that from FP2 data (Fig. \[e338\_1\]), but the rotational velocity of the receding side is $\approx 10$ km/s larger for the FP1 data. The differences can be attributed to three effects: Firstly, the different spectral resolution of FP1 and FP2. Secondly, the slightly different choice of centre coordinates (an independent determination was made for the FP1 data). Thirdly, the FP1 data is somewhat deeper and reach larger radii, and since the velocity field is deprojected these outer points enter also at smaller radii. In view of this, the agreement is very good. A last note on this galaxy is that here it is questionable that the expression “rotation curve” is adequate since there appears to be no regular rotation present. Still, the presented RCs provide important information on the complexity of the system. However, the dynamical mass estimate in Table 4 should be viewed sceptically. The ionised gas mass is of the order $10^8 \cal M_{\odot}$. This galaxy is a physical companion of and is located approximately six arcminutes south-west of it, corresponding to a projected distance of $\approx 70$ kpc. The H$\alpha$ image contains at least four bright regions (Fig. \[e338b\]). The galaxy has an irregular, somewhat “bent” shape in H$\alpha$ but the velocity field is still quite regular. Along the north-west side there are twists in the isovelocity contours which may indicate the presence of a spiral arm. Just north-east of the brightest region there is a steep velocity gradient which we interpret as the kinematical centre, and which coincides with the centre of broad band images. The RC shows good agreement between the two sides and a gradual flattening with increasing radius. The estimated dynamical mass is $5 \cdot 10^9 \cal M_{\odot}$ and the ionised gas mass is of the order of $10^7 \cal M_{\odot}$. On broad band CCD images, about $40 \arcsec$ north-west of the target galaxy, there is a small low surface brightness galaxy, which is not detected in the monochromatic H$\alpha$ images. This galaxy has a nearly round shape in the continuum but a more complex H$\alpha$ morphology and velocity field (Fig. \[e185\_1\]). Broad band images reveal arms and a $\ge 30 \arcsec$ long tail extending to the north-east. The H$\alpha$ emission is strong over a large area with two peaks in the surface brightness. The velocity field appears squeezed in the north-west region, between the two peaks in the H$\alpha$ surface brightness. About 1.5 arcminutes south-west of the galaxy there are two galaxies present, none of which is detected in H$\alpha$ at the redshift of . Double components with rather different intensity have been extracted from the original lines. Both components have similar position angles but the gradients are reversed, i.e. the secondary component is counter-rotating with respect to the primary (Fig. \[e185\_1\] and \[e185\_2\]). The brightest component is very similar to the total non-decomposed velocity field (compare the upper left and right panels in Fig. \[e185\_1\]). The second component is more diffuse and regular than the first one. While the centre of the secondary component coincides with the continuum peak, the kinematical centre of the primary component is slightly offset from it ($\approx 1 \arcsec$ to the north). The RC of the primary component shows a rapid increase followed by an almost flat slowly rising part. The agreement between the approaching and receding sides is good. The secondary component also yields a regular RC, with a low rotational velocity though. The regularity of the RC of the secondary component suggests that it is caused by a dynamically well defined object, e.g. a counter rotating disc. The estimated dynamical mass of is $\sim 2 \cdot 10^9 \cal M_{\odot}$ and the ionised gas mass is of the order of $10^8 \cal M_{\odot}$. The dynamical mass of the secondary component is $\sim 3 \cdot 10^8 \cal M_{\odot}$ This galaxy presents several bright regions. Note that the northernmost region is not a field star. The southern region complex has a ring-like morphology. In the southern region complex we observe a symmetric and regular velocity field with velocity plateau’s followed by decreasing velocity on both sides, characteristic of a disc with circular differential rotation. At larger radius ($\ge 5 \arcsec$) the north-east and south-west regions start to behave differently. In the south-west we observe the continuity of the central velocity field, although the isovelocity contours are somewhat boxy. The region north-east of the centre is more intriguing because we observe a shift of the major axis position angle, rotating from approximately  45$\degr$  towards north, which might indicate the presence of a warp. An alternative interpretation is that the twisted isovelocity contours north of the north-east velocity plateau is due to the presence of a spiral arm. The isovelocity contours in the northern part of the velocity field seems to indicate the presence of local motions, and asymmetric line profiles are present. The kinematical centre is well defined but is slightly offset ($\approx 1 \arcsec$   towards south-west) from the peak continuum emission. Due to the irregular velocity field in the north east, the inclination is quite uncertain for this galaxy. The RC has a strange behaviour. Following the initial solid body rise to the plateau’s, there is a rapid decline after which the RC levels out and stays flat out to a radius of 15 arcseconds, after which the approaching side (the only one that has H$\alpha$ signal) declines further. The remarkable thing is that after the maximum rotational velocity the decline is faster than for the Keplerian case. This is unphysical for an equilibrium disc, thus indicating that the velocity field is distorted. The “super-Keplerian” decline can be eased somewhat, but not completely, by allowing the position angle to be variable. In the south west regions at a radius greater than $5\arcsec$ double features in the H$\alpha$ lines appear at low S/N. However, this feature is present in many consecutive pixels and is in total significant, which means that a secondary component might be present here. In the centre there are no signs of double lines and our attempts to decompose the velocity field failed. Due to the super-Keplerian behaviour of the RC the estimated mass apparently decreases with increasing radius (see Table 4). Thus the mass stated in Table 4 is very uncertain. The ionised gas mass is of the order of a few times $10^8 \cal M_{\odot}$, comparable to the dynamic estimate. This quite low surface brightness galaxy (Fig. \[e400b\]) is a physical companion of and is located approximately three arcminutes east/south-east of it (Bergvall and Jörsäter [@ber:jo]), corresponding to a projected distance of $\approx 70$kpc. ESO 400G-43B has one extended central emission line region, with peak intensity in the north-west. The isovelocity contours shows axisymmetric twists south-east and (to a lesser extent) north-east of the major axis, perhaps indicating the presence of spiral arms. The shape of the RC may be affected by dust extinction, due to the high inclination. However, the best fitting kinematical inclination is significantly lower than the photometric inclination derived from ellipse-fitting of the outer isophotes, the reason for which is not well understood. In the presented RC we have applied a small correction for internal extinction in the central parts, see Fig. \[e400b\]. The estimated dynamical mass is $\sim 3 \cdot 10^9\cal M_{\odot}$ and the ionised gas mass is of the order of a few times $10^7 \cal M_{\odot}$. Even if this object has a short observing time (see Table 2) it was possible to extract a high S/N velocity field. Our data indicate that this object is in fact composed of two well separated galaxies: the eastern one being more luminous in H$\alpha$ than the western one (Fig. \[tol\_1\] and \[tol\_2\]). The velocity field of the eastern component displays a rather constant velocity indicating a close to face on orientation. The western component is more inclined and shows more obvious rotation. Asymmetries in the line profiles suggested a decomposition of the velocity field into two components, one which is dominated by the eastern galaxy and the other by the western one (Fig. \[tol\_1\] and \[tol\_2\]). If the connection between the first component in the eastern and western galaxy is physical is not certain; and the same is true for the secondary components. Here, the notation with a primary and secondary component may be somewhat confusing, since the secondary component of the western galaxy is actually the most luminous. Hereafter, when we mention the “first” component of the eastern or western galaxy we refer to the strongest (most luminous) component, and vice versa for the secondary components. The secondary component of the eastern galaxy has a constant velocity, which suggests that this component belongs to the same galaxy, although the velocity is more similar the western galaxy. The second component of the western galaxy has a major axis position angle roughly perpendicular to the one of the first component, which suggest that it is dynamically distinct from it. The primary component of the eastern galaxy has a solid body RC with quite high dispersion. The primary component of the western galaxy gives a well determined RC, perhaps levelling out at large radii. The kinematical centres roughly coincide with the peaks in the continuum emission, although this is hard to determine for the eastern galaxy. The secondary components do not produce regular RCs. The eastern and western galaxies both have estimated dynamical masses around $\sim 2 \cdot10^8 \cal M_{\odot}$, and the ionised gas masses are of the order of a few times $10^7 \cal M_{\odot}$. Summary ======= We have presented velocity fields for a sample of six relatively luminous blue compact galaxies, and two companion galaxies. In general the velocity fields, in spite of high S/N, appear irregular and distorted, except for the two companion galaxies included in the sample. We have also shown the derived rotation curves (RCs) for the simplest choice of input parameters. That some RCs appear strange or non-uniform indicates that the simple assumption of a regular warp-free disc with circular rotation is not valid in general. Still the information in the RCs are valuable to get a feeling of the dynamics of these systems and to get a rough estimate of the mass contained within the observed extent of the galaxies. The estimated masses range from a few times $10^8$ to $\sim 10^{10} {\cal M_{\odot}}$. Secondary components have smaller estimated masses (when a RC could be derived). These mass estimates are approximate and based on the assumption that the galaxies are supported by rotation alone. We will show in Paper II that some of the galaxies cannot be primarily rotationally supported. Using the integrated H$\alpha$ fluxes, the masses of ionised gas were estimated to lie in the range 10$^7$ to 10$^9 {\cal M_{\odot}} $. This amounts to between less than 1% and more than 50% of the estimated dynamical masses. The two companion galaxies had the lowest fraction of ionised gas mass to dynamical mass, and the galaxies with the most peculiar RCs (, and ) apparently have the largest fraction of their mass in the form of ionised gas. This paper presents the most extensive study of the central dynamics and optical velocity fields of BCGs as yet. In addition, all the observations have been done with the same instrument and the sample selection, reductions and analysis are homogeneous. In a forthcoming paper (Paper II) we will discuss the interpretation of the velocity fields and rotation curves in terms of more detailed mass models. In addition we will discuss what the results presented here tell us about the triggering mechanism for the starburst activity present in these galaxies. This work was partly supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council. We thank Jean-Luc Gach from Marseille Observatory for mounting and dismounting the instrument on the telescope and for assistance during the observations. Eva Örndahl is thanked for useful comments on the manuscript. Anna Westman is thanked for her help in editing the text. We would also like to thank Albert Bosma for stimulating discussions on the interpretation of velocity fields. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED)which is operate by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Amram P., Balkowski C., Boulesteix J., Cayatte V., Marcelin M., Sullivan W.T. III, 1996, A&A, 310, 737. Amram P., Boulesteix J., Georgelin Y.P., Georgelin Y.M., Laval A., le Coarer E., Marcelin M., 1991, ”The Messenger” (ESO), 64, 44. Amram P., Boulesteix J., Marcelin M., Balkowski C., Cayatte V., Sullivan W.T. III, 1995, A&AS, 113, 35. Amram P., Mendes de Oliveira C., Boulesteix J., Balkowski C., 1998, A&A 330, 881. Babul A., Rees M., 1992, MNRAS 255, 346 Bergvall N., 1985, A&A 146, 269 Bergvall N., Olofsson K., 1986, A&AS, 64, 469 Bergvall N., Jörsäter S. 1988, Nat 331, 589 Bergvall N., Rönnback J., Masegosa J., Östlin G., 1999, A&A in press Bergvall N., Östlin G. 1999, in preparation Boulesteix J., 1993, ”ADHOC reference manual”, Publications de l’Observatoire de Marseille. Dekel A., Silk J., 1986, ApJ 303, 39 French H., 1980, ApJ 240, 41 Gerola H., Seiden P., Schulman L., 1980, ApJ 242, 517 Kunth D., Sargent W., 1983, ApJ 273, 81 Lacey C., Guiderdoni B., Rocca-Volmerange B., Silk J., 1993, ApJ 402,15 Laval A., Boulesteix J., Georgelin Y.P., Georgelin Y.M., Marcelin M., 1987, A&A, 175, 199. Lequeux J., 1983, A&A 125, 394 Lequeux J., Peimbert M., Rayo J., Serrano A., Torres-Peimbert S., 1979, A&A 80, 155 Masegosa J., Moles M., and Campos-Aguilar A., 1994, ApJ 420, 576 Osterbrock D., 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei. University Science Books, Mill Valley Östlin G., Amram P., Bergvall N., Masegosa J., 1999, in preparation (Paper II) Östlin G., Bergvall N., Rönnback J., 1998, A&A 335, 85 Petrosian A.R., Boulesteix J., Comte G., Kunth D., LeCoarer E., 1997, A&A 318, 390 Sanders D.B., Soifer B.T., Elias J.H., Madore B.F, Matthews K., Neugebauer G., Scoville N.Z., 1988, ApJ 325, 74 Searle L., Sargent W., 1972, ApJ 173, 25 Searle L., Sargent W., Bagnuolo W., 1973, ApJ 179, 427 Silk J., Wyse R., Shields G., ApJ 322, L59 Taylor C., ApJ 480, 524 Terlevich R., Melnick J., Masegosa J., Moles M., Copetti M., 1991, A&AS 91, 285 Thuan T.X., Martin G.E., 1981, ApJ 247, 823 Thuan T.X. Williams T.B. and Malmuth E. 1987, in Starbursts and Galaxy Evolution XXIId Recontres de Moriond, eds. Thuan T.X. Montmerle T. and Tran Thanh Van J., Edition Frontieres, Gif Sur Yvette, p. 151 Vader P., Frogel J., Terndrup D., Heisler C., 1993, AJ 106, 1743 [^1]: *Present address:* Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, F-75014 Paris, France [^2]: Based on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile [^3]: Table 6 is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html or from ftp://ftp.iap.fr/pub/from\_users/ostlin/Articles [^4]: Table 6 is only available in electronic form at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html, it is also available at ftp://ftp.iap.fr/pub/from\_users/ostlin/Articles

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We gave a simple derivation of density operator with the quantum analysis. We dealt with the functional of a density operator, and applied maximum entropy principle. We obtained easily the density operators for the Tsallis entropy and Rényi entropy with the $q$-expectation value (escort average), and also obtained easily the density operators for the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy and the Burg entropy with the conventional expectation value. The quantum analysis works effectively in the calculation of the variation of the functional which includes trace.' address: 'Department of Human Life Studies, Koriyama Women’s University, Koriyama, 963-8503, Japan' author: - Masamichi Ishihara title: Derivation of density operators for generalized entropies with quantum analysis --- Quantum analysis, density operator, Tsallis entropy, Rényi entropy, Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy, Burg entropy Introduction ============ Generalized entropies such as Tsallis entropy [@Tsallis1998; @Book:Tsallis; @Bercher2011; @Pougaza:AIPConf:2011] and Rényi entropy [@Bercher2011; @Pougaza:AIPConf:2011; @Abe-PRE94] are used to study various phenomena in many branches of science. It is well-known that the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy is maximized for the equilibrium state. The Burg entropy [@Pougaza:AIPConf:2011; @Silverstein:Conf:1988; @Alexander2003; @Mansoury:AMS:2008; @Singh:Env.Process:2015] is also used in researches, such as the estimation of autocorrelation[@Silverstein:Conf:1988], streamflow [@Singh:Env.Process:2015], etc. It is assumed that the value of an adequate entropy is extremum for an achieved state in various systems, like the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy for the thermal equilibrium state. The entropy plays an essential role in systems. The density operator $\rho$ is a basic tool to calculate quantities in quantum statistics. The form of the operator is often derived in the maximum entropy principle (MEP) with constraints. The definition of the entropy and the constraints play essential roles in the MEP. The entropy is often defined with trace. The functional of the density operator is used to determine the form of the density operator in the MEP. The difference between the functional of the density operator with small deviation $\rho+\varepsilon (\delta\rho)$ and the functional of $\rho$ is calculated in the MEP. The density operator, $\rho+\varepsilon (\delta\rho)$, is not diagonal even when $\rho$ is diagonal, and $\rho$ and $\delta \rho$ does not commute in general. Therefore, the calculation of the difference is not always easy. The method of the calculation has been developed, and one of them is named quantum analysis [@Suzuki-commun-math; @Suzuki:Book:QuantAnalysis; @Suzuki-Review-MathPhys; @Suzuki:JMathPhys; @Suzuki-progress; @Suzuki-IJMPC10]. For example, the Taylor expansion has been developed in the analysis, and the expansion is similar to the conventional Taylor expansion. As applications, this analysis was applied to the nonequilibrium response [@Suzuki-progress] and quantum correlation identites [@Suzuki-IJMPB16; @Suzuki-IJMPC10]. This analysis may simplify the calculation, and the analysis is useful in quantum statistics. The purpose of this paper is to derive the density operator easily with quantum analysis in the MEP. We derive the density operator for the Tsallis entropy and the Rényi entropy with the normalized $q$-expectation value (escort average) by applying the quantum analysis. For comparison, we derive the density operator for the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy with the conventional expectation value. In addition, we derive the density operator for the Burg entropy with the conventional expectation value. It is understood that the density operator is easily derived with quantum analysis. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:derivation\], we give the variation of the functional of a density operator in the quantum analysis, where the functional includes trace. In Sec. \[sec:density-op:some-entropies\], we derive the density operators for the entropies in the MEP. Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] is assigned for conclusion. Basics of quantum analysis and variations of functionals {#sec:derivation} ======================================================== We start with the following differential $df(A)$ [@Suzuki-commun-math; @Suzuki:Book:QuantAnalysis; @Suzuki-Review-MathPhys]: $$\begin{aligned} df(A) = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(A + \varepsilon dA) - f(A)}{\varepsilon} , \end{aligned}$$ where the operators $A$ and $dA$ do not commute in general. The above differential is represented symbolically as follows. $$\begin{aligned} df(A) = \frac{df(A)}{dA} dA . \label{def:dfdA}\end{aligned}$$ The function $\frac{df(A)}{dA}$ is a hyperoperator, which maps an operator $dA$ to $df(A)$. The function $\frac{df(A)}{dA}$ is named quantum derivative in the quantum analysis. The hyperoperator $L_A$ is defined as the left multiplication to the operator: $L_A B := AB$. The inner derivation ${{\hat{\delta}}_{A}}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} {{\hat{\delta}}_{A}} B := [A, B] = AB - BA .\end{aligned}$$ The hyperoperator $L_A$ and the inner derivation ${{\hat{\delta}}_{A}}$ commute: $L_A {{\hat{\delta}}_{A}} B = {{\hat{\delta}}_{A}} L_A B$. We do not distinguish between $L_A$ and $A$ throughout this paper as in Ref. [@Suzuki-commun-math] . With these hyperoperators, the quantum derivative in Eq.  is represented as $$\begin{aligned} \frac{df(A)}{dA} = \int_0^1 dt f^{(1)} (A-t{{\hat{\delta}}_{A}}) , \end{aligned}$$ where $f^{(k)}(x)$ is the $k$-th derivative of $f(x)$. The variation of the functional $F(A)$ [@Suzuki:Book:QuantAnalysis; @Suzuki:JMathPhys] is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \delta F(A) = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{F(A+\varepsilon (\delta A) ) - F(A)} {\varepsilon} . \end{aligned}$$ We deal with the following cases, where the $f(\rho)$ is a function of an operator $\rho$: $$\begin{aligned} &F(\rho) = {\mathrm{Tr}}(f(\rho)) , \\ &G(\rho, A) = \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g(\rho) A)} {{\mathrm{Tr}}(g(\rho))} . \end{aligned}$$ The variation of $F(\rho)$ is calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \delta F(\rho) & = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \Big\{ {\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( f(\rho+\varepsilon (\delta \rho) ) \Big) - {\mathrm{Tr}}(f(\rho)) \Big\} \nonumber \\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \Big\{ {\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( f(\rho) + \frac{d f(\rho)}{d\rho} (\varepsilon (\delta \rho) ) + O(\varepsilon^2) \Big) - {\mathrm{Tr}}(f(\rho)) \Big\} \nonumber \\ & = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \Big\{ {\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( f(\rho) + \int_0^1 dt f^{(1)}(\rho - t {{\hat{\delta}}_{\rho}}) \varepsilon (\delta \rho) + O(\varepsilon^2) \Big) - {\mathrm{Tr}}(f(\rho)) \Big\} \nonumber \\ & = \sum_{k=0} \frac{(-1)^k}{k!} \Bigg( \int_0^1 dt \ t^k \bigg) {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg( f^{(k+1)}(\rho) ({{\hat{\delta}}_{\rho}})^k (\delta \rho) \Bigg) . \end{aligned}$$ We focus on the term ${\mathrm{Tr}}( f^{(k+1)}(\rho) ({{\hat{\delta}}_{\rho}})^k (\delta \rho) )$ which has $2^k$ terms for a positive integer $k$ ($k \ge 1$). The term has the following form: ${\mathrm{Tr}}(f^{(k+1)}(\rho) \rho^{k-j} (\delta \rho) \rho^j)$ $(0 \le j \le k)$. When the trace is invariant under cyclic permutations, we have the following result: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{Tr}}(f^{(k+1)}(\rho) \rho^{k-j} (\delta \rho) \rho^j) = {\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^j f^{(k+1)}(\rho) \rho^{k-j} (\delta \rho) )= {\mathrm{Tr}}(f^{(k+1)}(\rho) \rho^k (\delta \rho) ) . \end{aligned}$$ The number of the terms with plus sign is equal to that with minus sign when $k$ is fixed. Therefore, the term ${\mathrm{Tr}}( f^{(k+1)}(\rho) ({{\hat{\delta}}_{\rho}})^k (\delta \rho) )$ is equal to zero for $k \ge 1$. We obtain $$\begin{aligned} \delta F(\rho) = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( f^{(1)}(\rho) (\delta \rho) \Big). \label{eqn:deltaF}\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, the variation of $G(\rho, A)$ under the condition $[\rho, A]=0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} \delta G(\rho, A) = \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g^{(1)}(\rho) (\delta \rho) A)}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g(\rho))} - \left( \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g(\rho) A)}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g(\rho))} \right) \left( \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g^{(1)}(\rho) (\delta \rho) )}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(g(\rho))} \right) . \label{eqn:deltaG}\end{aligned}$$ Derivation of density operators for some entropies in the maximum entropy principle {#sec:density-op:some-entropies} =================================================================================== In the following calculations, we attempt to obtain the density operator with the quantum analysis in the MEP. The density operators for the Tsallis entropy and the Rényi entropy with the normalized $q$-expectation value are derived. For comparison, the density operator for the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy with the conventional expectation value is derived. The density operator for the Burg entropy with the conventional expectation value is also derived. Tsallis entropy with the normalized $q$-expectation value --------------------------------------------------------- The entropy and the normalized $q$-expectation value in the Tsallis nonextensive statistics are defined by $$\begin{aligned} & S_{\mathrm{T},q}(\rho) = \frac{1-{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)}{q-1}, \\ & \<A>_q = \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q A)}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ is the density operator. The functional $I_{\mathrm{T}}(\rho)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned} I_{\mathrm{T}}(\rho) := S_{\mathrm{T},q}(\rho) -\alpha ({\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho) -1) - \beta (\<H>_q - E) , \end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are Lagrange multipliers, and $H$ is the Hamiltonian. We attempt to obtain $\rho$ as a function of $H$ by imposing the condition $\delta I_T(\rho)=0$. The commutation relation $[\rho, H]=0$ is satisfied, and we easily obtain $\delta I_T(\rho)$ using Eqs.  and with $f(\rho)=g(\rho) = \rho^q$: $$\begin{aligned} \delta I_{\mathrm{T}}(\rho) = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{q}{(1-q)} \Bigg) \rho^{q-1} - \alpha - q \Bigg( \frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)} \Bigg) (H-\<H>_q) \rho^{q-1} \Bigg] (\delta \rho) \Bigg\} .\end{aligned}$$ The requirement $\delta I_{\mathrm{T}}(\rho) = 0$ gives $$\begin{aligned} \Bigg( \frac{q}{(1-q)} \Bigg) \rho^{q-1} - \alpha - q \Bigg( \frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)} \Bigg) (H-\<H>_q) \rho^{q-1} = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ We finally obtain the density operator with the condition ${\mathrm{Tr}}\rho =1$: $$\begin{aligned} &\rho = \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{T}}}\Bigg[ 1 - (1-q) \Bigg(\frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)} \Bigg) (H-\<H>_q) \Bigg]^{\frac{1}{1-q}} ,\\ & Z_{\mathrm{T}} = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \Bigg[ 1 - (1-q) \Bigg(\frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)} \Bigg) (H-\<H>_q) \Bigg]^{\frac{1}{1-q}} \Bigg\} . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ This density operator for the Tsallis entropy is well-known [@Book:Tsallis; @Aragao-PhysicaA2003], and has been applied to various phenomena. Rényi entropy with the normalized $q$-expectation value ------------------------------------------------------- The Rényi entropy is defined by $$\begin{aligned} S_{\mathrm{R},q}(\rho) = \frac{\ln {\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)}{1-q} . \end{aligned}$$ The variation of $S_{\mathrm{R},q}$ is calculated as follows: $$\begin{aligned} S_{\mathrm{R},q}(\rho+\varepsilon (\delta \rho)) &= \Bigg( \frac{1}{1-q} \Bigg) \ln {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \rho^q + \int_0^1 \ dt\ q (\rho-t {{\hat{\delta}}_{\rho}})^{q-1} \left( \varepsilon (\delta \rho) \right) + O(\varepsilon^2) \Bigg\} \nonumber \\ &= \Bigg(\frac{1}{1-q} \Bigg) \ln {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \rho^q + q \int_0^1 \ dt \rho^{q-1} \left( \varepsilon (\delta \rho) \right) + O(\varepsilon^2) \Bigg\} \nonumber \\ &= \Bigg(\frac{1}{1-q} \Bigg)\ln \Bigg\{ ({\mathrm{Tr}}\rho^q ) \Bigg( 1 + \varepsilon q \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( \rho^{q-1} (\delta \rho) \Big) }{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho^q} + O(\varepsilon^2) \Bigg) \Bigg\} \nonumber \\ &= \Bigg(\frac{1}{1-q} \Bigg) \Bigg\{ \ln ({\mathrm{Tr}}\rho^q ) + \varepsilon q \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( \rho^{q-1} (\delta \rho) \Big) }{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho^q} + O(\varepsilon^2) \Bigg\} . \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned} \delta S_{\mathrm{R},q}(\rho) = \Bigg( \frac{q}{1-q} \Bigg) \frac{{\mathrm{Tr}}\Big( \rho^{q-1} (\delta \rho) \Big) }{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho^q} .\end{aligned}$$ The functional $I_{\mathrm{R}}(\rho)$ with the constraints given by the normalized $q$-expectation value is $$\begin{aligned} & I_{\mathrm{R}}(\rho) = S_{\mathrm{R},q}(\rho) - \alpha({\mathrm{Tr}}\rho -1) - \beta ( \<H>_q - E ) .\end{aligned}$$ The requirement $\delta I_{\mathrm{R}}(\rho) = 0$ using Eq.  with $g(\rho) = \rho^q$ gives $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \Bigg[ \Bigg( \frac{q}{1-q} \Bigg) \frac{\rho^{q-1}}{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho^q} - \alpha - q \Bigg( \frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho^q)} \Bigg) (H-\<H>_q) \rho^{q-1} \Bigg] (\delta \rho) \Bigg\} = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ We finally obtain the density operator for Rényi entropy with the normalized $q$-expectation value: $$\begin{aligned} &\rho = \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{R}}} \Big[ 1 - (1-q) \beta (H-\<H>_q) \Big]^{\frac{1}{(1-q)}} , \\ &Z_{\mathrm{R}} = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Big[ 1 - (1-q) \beta (H-\<H>_q) \Big]^{\frac{1}{(1-q)}} . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The density operator for the Rényi entropy resembles the density operator for the Tsallis entropy. The form of the above density operator agrees with the form of the probability density obtained in Ref. [@Bercher2011] Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy with the conventional expectation value --------------------------------------------------------------- We also attempt to derive the density operator in the Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics for comparison. The functional $I_{\mathrm{BG}} (\rho)$ is $$\begin{aligned} & I_{\mathrm{BG}}(\rho) = S_{\mathrm{BG}}(\rho) - \alpha({\mathrm{Tr}}\rho -1) - \beta ( \<H> - E ) , \\ & S_{\mathrm{BG}}(\rho) = - {\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho \ln \rho) , \end{aligned}$$ where $\<H> = {\mathrm{Tr}}(\rho H)/{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho$. The requirement $\delta I_{\mathrm{BG}}(\rho)=0$ using Eq.  with $f(\rho)=-\rho \ln \rho$ and Eq.  with $g(\rho) = \rho$ gives $$\begin{aligned} \delta I_{\mathrm{BG}} = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \Bigg[ -(\ln \rho + 1) -\alpha - \frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho} (H-\<H>) \Bigg] (\delta \rho)\Bigg\} = 0, \end{aligned}$$ We obtain $$\begin{aligned} \rho = \exp(-\alpha-1) \exp\Big(-\frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho} (H-\<H>)\Big) .\end{aligned}$$ The requirement ${\mathrm{Tr}}\rho = 1$ leads to $$\begin{aligned} & \rho = \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{BG}}} \exp\Big(-\beta(H-\<H>)\Big), \\ & Z_{\mathrm{BG}} = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg[ \exp\Big(-\beta(H-\<H>)\Big) \Bigg] . $$ The above density operator is well-known in the Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, and is equivalent to $\exp (-\beta H)/{\mathrm{Tr}}(\exp(-\beta H))$. The expectation value $\<H>$ appears in the above density operator, as in the density operator for the Tsallis entropy. This implies that the appearance of $\<H>$ in the density operator is natural. Burg entropy with the conventional expectation value ---------------------------------------------------- We attempt to find the density operator for the entropy analogous to Burg entropy. The Burg entropy is defined with the probability $p_i$ of a state $i$: $$\begin{aligned} S_{\mathrm{Bu}}^{(\mathrm{cl})} = \sum_i \ln p_i. \label{S:burg}\end{aligned}$$ To use the Burg entropy in quantum systems, we use the following form of the entropy with the density operator: $$\begin{aligned} S_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho) = {\mathrm{Tr}}\ln \rho . \end{aligned}$$ The variation of $S_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho)$ is given using Eq.  with $f(\rho)= \ln \rho$: $$\begin{aligned} \delta S_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho) = {\mathrm{Tr}}\bigg[ \bigg( \frac{1}{\rho} \bigg) (\delta \rho) \bigg] . \end{aligned}$$ The functional $I_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} I_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho) = S_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho) - \alpha({\mathrm{Tr}}\rho -1) - \beta ( \<H> - E ) . \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the variation of the functional $\delta I_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho)$ using Eq.  with $g(\rho) = \rho$ is $$\begin{aligned} \delta I_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho) = {\mathrm{Tr}}\Bigg\{ \Bigg[ \frac{1}{\rho} -\alpha - \frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho} (H-\<H>) \Bigg] (\delta \rho)\Bigg\} .\end{aligned}$$ The requirement $\delta I_{\mathrm{Bu}}(\rho) =0$ gives $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{\rho} = \alpha + \frac{\beta}{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho} (H-\<H>) = \alpha \bigg( 1 + \frac{\tilde{\beta}}{{\mathrm{Tr}}\rho} (H-\<H>) \bigg) , \qquad \tilde{\beta} = \beta/\alpha, \end{aligned}$$ The constraint ${\mathrm{Tr}}\rho = 1$ gives $$\begin{aligned} & \rho = \frac{1}{Z_{\mathrm{Bu}}} \bigg( \frac{1}{1+ \tilde{\beta} (H-\<H>)} \bigg) , \label{density-op:burg:qm}\\ & Z_{\mathrm{Bu}} = {\mathrm{Tr}}\bigg( \frac{1}{1+ \tilde{\beta} (H-\<H>)} \bigg) .\end{aligned}$$ The above density operator agrees with the probability obtained previously [@Pougaza:AIPConf:2011; @Mansoury:AMS:2008] for the Burg entropy. The density operator, Eq. , should be carefully treated, as the Burg entropy is not defined when the probability $p_i$ is zero for a certain state $i$. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== We attempted to find density operators for some entropies with the quantum analysis. We derived the density operators for the Tsallis entropy and the Rényi entropy with the normalized $q$-expectation value (escort average), and derived the density operator for the Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy with the conventional expectation value, for comparison. We also derived the density operator for the Burg entropy. These density operators were derived easily with the quantum analysis. The quantum analysis works well to derive the density operators for various entropies with constraints in the maximum entropy principle. The quantum analysis is useful in quantum statistics, because trace often appears and the inner derivation ${{\hat{\delta}}_{A}}$ which acts as ${{\hat{\delta}}_{A}} B \equiv AB-BA$ works effectively. It is possible to extend the current method to the grand canonical ensemble. The quantum analysis gives the method of the calculation in quantum systems. Especially, the analysis will work in calculations of trace terms, because the quantum derivative is represented with ${{\hat{\delta}}_{A}}$. The author hopes that the present study is a cue to calculate quantities with the quantum analysis in quantum statistics.

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Given a lazy, reversible Markov chain with $n$ states and transition matrix $P_n$, a distribution $\sigma_n$ over the states, and some $\alpha_n \in (0,1)$, we consider *restart perturbations*, which take the following form: with probability $1-\alpha_n$, sample the next state from $P_n$ (i.e. follow the original chain); with probability $\alpha_n$, sample the next state from $\sigma_n$ (i.e. “restart” at a state distributed as $\sigma_n$). Our main object of study is the error term $\| \pi_n - \tilde{\pi}_n\|$, where $\pi_n$ and $\tilde{\pi}_n$ are the stationary distributions of the original and perturbed chains, and where $\| \cdot \|$ denotes total variation. Our first result characterizes $\| \pi_n - \tilde{\pi}_n\|$ in terms of the $\epsilon$-mixing times $t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon)$ of the $P_n$ chain, assuming these mixing times exhibit *cutoff* ($\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) / t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(1-\epsilon) = 1\ \forall\ \epsilon \in (0,1/2)$). In particular, we show that if $\alpha_n t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) \rightarrow 0$, then $\| \pi_n - \tilde{\pi}_n \| \rightarrow 0$ for any restart perturbation; if $\alpha_n t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) \rightarrow \infty$, then $\| \pi_n - \tilde{\pi}_n \| \rightarrow 1$ for some restart perturbation; and if $\alpha_n t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) \rightarrow c \in (0,\infty)$, then $\limsup_{n \rightarrow \infty} \| \pi_n - \tilde{\pi}_n \| \leq 1 - e^{-c}$ for any restart perturbation, and some restart perturbation attains the bound. This “trichotomy” echoes several recent results, which similarly show some property of the original chain is unaffected when $\alpha_n t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) \rightarrow 0$, is changed maximally when $\alpha_n t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) \rightarrow \infty$, and exhibits an intermediate behavior when $\alpha_n t_{\textrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\epsilon) \rightarrow (0,\infty)$. However, these existing results all assume generative models for the underlying chain, all of which have cutoff; in contrast, our result applies to *every* lazy, reversible chain with cutoff. Thus, we generalize the “trichotomy” phenomena to a broader class of chains. Furthermore, unlike these existing results, we study the stationary distribution directly. Our second result states that the weaker notion of *pre-cutoff* is (almost) equivalent to a certain notion of “sensitivity to perturbation”, in the sense that $\| \pi_n - \tilde{\pi}_n \| \rightarrow 1$ for certain perturbations. This complements a recent result by Basu, Hermon, and Peres, which shows that cutoff is equivalent to a certain notion of “hitting time cutoff”. The utility of such equivalence results is that, while different notions of cutoff have been established for many different chains, there is a lack of general theory in this area. author: - | Daniel Vial, Vijay Subramanian\ University of Michigan\ {dvial,vgsubram}@umich.edu bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: 'Restart perturbations for lazy, reversible Markov chains: trichotomy and pre-cutoff equivalence ' ---

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Our aim in this paper is to provide a theory of discrete Riemann surfaces based on quadrilateral cellular decompositions of Riemann surfaces together with their complex structure encoded by complex weights. Previous work, in particular of Mercat, mainly focused on real weights corresponding to quadrilateral cells having orthogonal diagonals. We discuss discrete coverings, discrete exterior calculus, and discrete Abelian differentials. Our presentation includes several new notions and results such as branched coverings of discrete Riemann surfaces, the discrete Riemann-Hurwitz Formula, double poles of discrete one-forms and double values of discrete meromorphic functions that enter the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem, and a discrete Abel-Jacobi map.\ **2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:** 39A12; 30F30.\ **Keywords:** Discrete complex analysis, discrete Riemann surface, quad-graph, Riemann-Hurwitz formula, Riemann-Roch theorem, Abel-Jacobi map. author: - 'Alexander I. Bobenko[^1]$\;^{,1}$' - 'Felix Günther$^{*,}$[^2]$\;^{,2}$' bibliography: - 'Discrete\_Riemann\_surfaces.bib' title: Discrete Riemann surfaces based on quadrilateral cellular decompositions --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Linear theories of discrete complex analysis look back on a long and varied history. We refer here to the survey of Smirnov [@Sm10S]. Already Kirchhoff’s circuit laws describe a discrete harmonicity condition for the potential function whose gradient describes the current flowing through the electric network. Discrete harmonic functions on the square lattice were studied by a number of authors in the 1920s, including Courant, Friedrichs, and Lewy [@CoFrLe28]. Two different notions for discrete holomorphicity on the square lattice were suggested by Isaacs [@Is41]. Dynnikov and Novikov studied a notion equivalent to one of them on triangular lattices in [@DN03]; the other was reintroduced by Lelong-Ferrand [@Fe44; @Fe55] and Duffin [@Du56]. Duffin also extended the theory to rhombic lattices [@Du68]. Mercat [@Me01], Kenyon [@Ke02], and Chelkak and Smirnov [@ChSm11] resumed the investigation of discrete complex analysis on rhombic lattices or, equivalently, isoradial graphs. Some two-dimensional discrete models in statistical physics exhibit conformally invariant properties in the thermodynamical limit. Such conformally invariant properties were established by Smirnov for site percolation on a triangular grid [@Sm01] and for the random cluster model [@Sm10], by Chelkak and Smirnov for the Ising model [@ChSm12], and by Kenyon for the dimer model on a square grid (domino tiling) [@Ke00]. In all cases, linear theories of discrete analytic functions on regular grids were important. The motivation for linear theories of discrete Riemann surfaces also comes from statistical physics, in particular, the Ising model. Mercat defined a discrete Dirac operator and discrete spin structures on quadrilateral decompositions and he identified criticality in the Ising model with rhombic quad-graphs [@Me01]. In [@Ci12], Cimasoni discussed discrete Dirac operators and discrete spin structures on an arbitrary weighted graph isoradially embedded in a flat surface with conical singularities and how they can be used to give an explicit formula of the partition function of the dimer model on that graph. Also, he studied discrete spinors and their connection to s-holomorphic functions [@Ci15] that played an instrumental role in the universality results of Chelkak and Smirnov [@ChSm12]. Important non-linear discrete theories of complex analysis involve circle packings or, more generally, circle patterns. Stephenson explains the links between circle packings and Riemann surfaces in [@Ste05]. Rodin and Sullivan proved that the Riemann mapping of a complex domain to the unit disk can be approximated by circle packings [@RSul87]. A similar result for isoradial circle patterns, even with irregular combinatorics, is due to Bücking [@Bue08]. In [@BoMeSu05] it was shown that discrete holomorphic functions describe infinitesimal deformations of circle patterns. Mercat extended the linear theory from domains in the complex plane to discrete Riemann surfaces [@Me01b; @Me01; @Me07; @Me08]. There, the discrete complex structure on a bipartite cellular decomposition of the surface into quadrilaterals is given by complex numbers $\rho_Q$ with positive real part. More precisely, the discrete complex structure defines discrete holomorphic functions by demanding that $$f(w_+)-f(w_-)=i\rho_Q\left(f(b_+)-f(b_-)\right)$$ holds on any quadrilateral $Q$ with black vertices $b_-,b_+$ and white vertices $w_-,w_+$. Mercat focused on discrete complex structures given by real numbers in [@Me01b; @Me01; @Me07] and sketched some notions for complex $\rho_Q$ in [@Me08]. He introduced discrete period matrices [@Me01b; @Me07], their convergence to their continuous counterparts was shown in [@BoSk12]. In [@BoSk12], also a discrete Riemann-Roch theorem was provided. Graph-theoretic analogues of the classical Riemann-Roch theorem and Abel-Jacobi theory were given by Baker and Norine [@BaNo07]. A different linear theory for discrete complex analysis on triangulated surfaces using holomorphic cochains was introduced by Wilson [@Wi08]. Convergence of period matrices in that discretization to their smooth counterparts was also shown. A nonlinear theory of discrete conformality that discretizes the notion of conformally equivalent metrics was developed in [@BoPSp10]. In [@BoG15], a medial graph approach to discrete complex analysis on planar quad-graphs was suggested. Many results such as discrete Cauchy’s integral formulae relied on discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\] and Theorem \[th:derivation\] stating that the discrete exterior derivative is a derivation of the discrete wedge-product. These theorems turn out to be quite useful also in the current setting of discrete Riemann surfaces. Our treatment of discrete differential forms on bipartite quad-decompositions of Riemann surfaces is close to what Mercat proposed in [@Me01b; @Me01; @Me07; @Me08]. However, our version of discrete exterior calculus is based on the medial graph representation and is slightly more general. The goal of this paper is to present a comprehensive theory of discrete Riemann surfaces with complex weights $\rho_Q$ including discrete coverings, discrete exterior calculus, and discrete Abelian differentials. It includes several new notions and results including branched coverings of discrete Riemann surfaces, the discrete Riemann-Hurwitz Formula \[th:Riemann\_Hurwitz\], double poles of discrete one-forms and double values of discrete meromorphic functions that enter the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem \[th:Riemann\_Roch\], and a discrete Abel-Jacobi map whose components are discrete holomorphic by Proposition \[prop:Abel\_holomorphic\]. The precise definition of a discrete complex structure will be given in Section \[sec:basic\]. Note that not all discrete Riemann surfaces can be realized as piecewise planar quad-surfaces, but these given by real weights $\rho_Q$ can, see Theorem \[th:realization\]. In Section \[sec:holomap\], an idea how branch points of higher order can be modeled on discrete Riemann surfaces and a discretization of the Riemann-Hurwitz formula are given. Since the notion of discrete holomorphic mappings developed in Section \[sec:holomap\] is too rigid to go further, we concentrate on discrete meromorphic functions and discrete one-forms. First, we shortly comment how the version of discrete exterior calculus developed in [@BoG15] generalizes to discrete Riemann surfaces in Section \[sec:differentials\]. The results of [@BoG15] that are relevant for the sequel are just stated, their proofs can be literally translated from [@BoG15]. Sometimes, we require in addition to a discrete complex structure local charts around the vertices of the quad-decomposition. Their existence is ensured by Proposition \[prop:charts\]. However, the definitions actually do not depend on the choice of charts. In Section \[sec:periods\], periods of discrete differentials are introduced and the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\] is proven more or less in the same way as in the classical theory. Then, discrete harmonic differentials are studied in Section \[sec:harmonic\_holomorphic\]. In Section \[sec:Abelian\_theory\], we recover the discrete period matrices of Mercat [@Me01b; @Me07] and the discrete Abelian differentials of the first and the third kind of [@BoSk12] in the general setup of complex weights. Furthermore, discrete Abelian differentials of the second kind are defined. This leads to a slightly more general version of the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem \[th:Riemann\_Roch\]. Finally, discrete Abel-Jacobi maps and analogies to the classical theory are discussed in Section \[sec:Abel\]. Basic definitions {#sec:basic} ================= The aim of this section is to introduce discrete Riemann surfaces in Section \[sec:setup\], giving piecewise planar quad-surfaces as an example in Section \[sec:polyhedral\]. There, we also discuss the question whether conversely discrete Riemann surfaces can be realized as piecewise planar quad-surfaces. The basic definitions are very similar to the notions in [@BoG15], such as the medial graph introduced in Section \[sec:medial\]. Discrete Riemann surfaces {#sec:setup} ------------------------- Let $\Sigma$ be a connected oriented surface without boundary, for short *surface*. A *bipartite quad-decomposition* $\Lambda$ *of* $\Sigma$ is a strongly regular and locally finite cellular decomposition of $\Sigma$ such that all its 2-cells are quadrilaterals and its 1-skeleton is bipartite. Strong regularity requires that two different faces are either disjoint or share only one vertex or share only one edge; local finiteness requires that a compact subset of $\Sigma$ contains only finitely many quadrilaterals. If $\Sigma={{\mathds C}}$ and $\Lambda$ is embedded in the complex plane such that all edges are straight line segments, then $\Lambda$ is called a *planar quad-graph*. Let $V(\Lambda)$ denote the set of 0-cells (*vertices*), $E(\Lambda)$ the set of 1-cells (*edges*), and $F(\Lambda)$ the set of 2-cells (*faces* or *quadrilaterals*) of $\Lambda$. In what follows, let $\Lambda$ be a bipartite quad-decomposition of the surface $\Sigma$. We fix one decomposition of $V(\Lambda)$ into two independent sets and refer to the vertices of this decomposition as *black* and *white* vertices, respectively. Let $\Gamma$ be the graph defined on the black vertices where $vv'$ is an edge of $\Gamma$ if and only if its two black endpoints are vertices of a single face of $\Lambda$. Its dual graph $\Gamma^*$ is defined as the correponding graph on white vertices. The assumption of strong regularity guarantees that any edge of $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma^*$ is the diagonal of exactly one quadrilateral of $\Lambda$. $\Diamond:=\Lambda^*$ is the dual graph of $\Lambda$. If a vertex $v \in V(\Lambda)$ is a vertex of a quadrilateral $Q\in F(\Lambda)\cong V(\Diamond)$, then we write $Q \sim v$ or $v \sim Q$ and say that $v$ and $Q$ are *incident* to each other. All faces of $\Lambda$ inherit an orientation from $\Sigma$. We may assume that the orientation on $\Sigma$ is chosen in such a way that the image of any orientation-preserving embedding of a two-cell $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ into the complex plane is positively oriented. Let $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ with vertices $b_-,w_-,b_+,w_+$ in counterclockwise order, where $b_\pm \in V(\Gamma)$ and $w_\pm \in V(\Gamma^*)$. An orientation-preserving embedding $z_Q$ of $Q$ to a rectilinear quadrilateral in ${{\mathds C}}$ without self-intersections such that the image points of $b_-,w_-,b_+,w_+$ are vertices of the quadrilateral is called a *chart* of $Q$. Two such charts are called *compatible* if the oriented diagonals of the image quadrilaterals are in the same complex ratio $$\rho_Q:= -i \frac{w_+-w_-}{b_+-b_-}.$$ Moreover, let $\varphi_Q:=\arccos\left(\operatorname{Re}\left(i\rho_Q/|\rho_Q|\right)\right)$ be the angle under which the diagonal lines of $Q$ intersect. Note that $0<\varphi_Q<\pi$. Figure \[fig:quadgraph\] shows part of a planar quad-graph together with the notations we use for a single face $Q$ and the *star of a vertex* $v$, i.e., the set of all faces incident to $v$. \[white/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=white,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, black/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=black,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, gray/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=gray,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}\] (w1) \[label=left:$v'_{s-1}$\] at (-0.9,-0.9) ; (w2) \[label=below:$v'_s$\] at (1,-1) ; (w3) \[label=below:$v'_k$\] at (1,0) ; (w4) \[label=left:$v'_1$\] at (1,1) ; (w5) \[label=left:$v'_2$\] at (-1,1) ; (w6) \[label=above:$w_+$\] at (-4,0) ; (w7) at (1,-2) ; (w8) at (3,0) ; (w9) at (1,2) ; (w10) \[label=below:$w_-$\] at (-6,-2) ; (w11) at (-2,-2) ; (b1) \[label=above:$v$\] at (0,0) ; (b2) \[label=right:$v_1$\] at (2,1) ; (b3) at (2,-1) ; (b4) \[label=below:$v_s$\] at (0,-2) ; (b5) \[label=below:$b_+$\] at (-4,-2) ; (b6) \[label=above:$v_2$\] at (0,2) ; (b7) \[label=above :$b_-$\] at (-6,0) ; (b8) at (-2,0) ; (w1) –node\[midway,color=black\] [$Q_s$]{} (w2);(b2) – (w9) – (b6) – (w5) – (b8); (b4) – (w7) – (b3) – (w8) – (b2); (b8) – (w1) – (b4) – (w2) – (b3) – (w3) – (b2) – (w4) – (b6); (b1) – (w1); (b1) – (w2); (b1) – (w3); (b1) – (w4); (b1) – (w5); (b8) – (w11) – (b4); (w6) – (b5) – (w10) – (b7) – (w6); (b5) – (w11); (w6) – (b8); (b5) – (b7); (w10) – (w6); (z) \[label=below:$Q$\] at (-5,-1) ; (-4.45,-1.55) arc (-45:43:0.8cm); (phi) at (-4.9,-1); In addition, we denote by $\Diamond_0$ always a connected subgraph of $\Diamond$ and by $V(\Diamond_0)\subseteq V(\Diamond)$ the corresponding subset of faces of $\Lambda$. Through our identification $V(\Diamond)\cong F(\Lambda)$, we can call the elements of $V(\Diamond)$ quadrilaterals and identify them with the corresponding faces of $\Lambda$. In particular, an equivalence class of charts $z_Q$ of a single quadrilateral $Q$ is uniquely characterized by the complex number $\rho_Q$ with a positive real part. An assignment of positive real numbers $\rho_Q$ to all faces $Q$ of $\Lambda$ was the definition of a discrete complex structure Mercat used in [@Me01]. In his subsequent work [@Me08], he proposed a generalization to complex $\rho_Q$ with positive real part. Mercat’s notion of a discrete Riemann surface is equivalent to the definition we give: A *discrete Riemann surface* is a triple $(\Sigma, \Lambda, z)$ of a bipartite quad-decomposition $\Lambda$ of a surface $\Sigma$ together with an *atlas* $z$, i.e., a collection of charts $z_Q$ of all faces $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ that are compatible to each other. An assignment of complex numbers $\rho_Q$ with positive real part to the faces $Q$ of the quad-decomposition is said to be a *discrete complex structure*. $(\Sigma, \Lambda, z)$ is said to be *compact* if the surface $\Sigma$ is compact. Note that real $\rho_Q$ correspond to quadrilaterals $Q$ whose diagonals are orthogonal to each other. They arise naturally if one considers a Delaunay triangulation of a polyhedral surface $\Sigma$ and places the vertices of the dual at the circumcenters of the triangles. Discrete Riemann surfaces based on this structure were investigated in [@BoSk12]. There, the above definition of a discrete Riemann surface was suggested as a generalization. Compared to the classical theory, charts around vertices of $\Lambda$ are missing so far and were not considered by previous authors. In order to obtain definitions that can be immediately motivated from the classical theory, we will introduce such charts in our setting. However, we do not include them in the definition of a discrete Riemann surface. As it turns out, there always exist appropriate charts around vertices and besides discrete derivatives of functions on $V(\Diamond)$ all of our notions do not depend on these charts. Let $v \in V(\Lambda)$. An orientation-preserving embedding $z_v$ of the star of $v$ to the star of a vertex of a planar quad-graph $\Lambda'$ that maps vertices of $\Lambda$ to vertices of $\Lambda'$ is said to be a *chart* as well. $z_v$ is said to be *compatible* with the discrete complex structure of the discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ if for any quadrilateral $Q\sim v$ the induced chart of $z_v$ on $Q$ is compatible to $z_Q$. When we later speak about particular charts $z_v$, we always refer to charts compatible with the discrete complex structure. \[prop:charts\] Let $\Lambda$ be a bipartite quad-decomposition of a Riemann surface $\Sigma$, and let the numbers $\rho_Q$, $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, define a discrete complex structure. Then, there exists an atlas $z$ such that the image quadrilaterals of charts $z_Q$ are parallelograms with the oriented ratio of diagonals equal to $i\rho_Q$ and such that for any $v \in V(\Lambda)$ there exists a chart $z_v$ compatible with the discrete complex structure. The construction of the charts $z_Q$ is simple: In the complex plane, the quadrilateral with black vertices $\pm 1$ and white vertices $\pm i\rho_Q$ is a parallelogram with the desired oriented ratio of diagonals. In contrast, the construction of charts $z_v$ is more delicate. See Figure \[fig:construction\] for a visualization. Let us consider the star of a vertex $v\in V(\Gamma)$. If $v$ is white, then just replace $\rho_Q$ by $1/\rho_Q$ and $\varphi_Q$ by $\pi-\varphi_Q$ in the following. Let $Q_1,Q_2,\ldots,Q_k$ be the quadrilaterals incident to $v$. We choose $0<\theta<\pi$ in such a way that $\theta<\varphi_{Q_1}<\pi-\theta$. Let $\alpha_1:= \pi-\theta$, and define $\alpha_s:= (\pi+\theta)/(k-1)$ for the other $s$. Then, all $\alpha_s$ sum up to $2\pi$. First, we construct the images of $Q_s$, $s\neq 1$, starting with an auxiliary construction. As in Figure \[fig:quadgraph\], let $v$, $v'_{s-1}$, $v_s$, $v'_{s}$ be the vertices of $Q_s$ in counterclockwise order. Then, we map $v'_{s-1}$ to $-1$ and $v'_{s}$ to $1$. All points $x$ that enclose an oriented angle $\alpha_s>0$ with $\pm 1$ lie on a circular arc above the real axis. Since the real part of $\rho_{Q_s}$ is positive, the ray $ti\rho_{Q_s}$, $t>0$, intersects this arc in exactly one point. If we choose the intersection point $x_v$ as the image of $v$ and $x_{v_s}:=x_v-2i\rho_{Q_s}$ as the image of $v_s$,then we get a quadrilateral in ${{\mathds C}}$ that has the desired oriented ratio of diagonals $i\rho_{Q_s}$. The quadrilateral is convex if and only if $x_v-2i\rho_{Q_s}$ has nonpositive imaginary part. Now, we translate all the image quadrilaterals such that $v$ is always mapped to zero. By construction, the image of $Q_s$ is contained in a cone of angle $\alpha_s$. Thus, we can rotate and scale the images of $Q_s$, $s\neq 1$, in such a way that they do not overlap and that the images of edges $vv'_{s}$ coincide. Since all $\alpha_s$ sum up to $2\pi$, there is still a cone of angle $\alpha_1=\pi-\theta$ empty. Let us identify the vertices $v$, $v'_k$, and $v'_1$ with their corresponding images and choose $q$ on the line segment $v'_kv'_1$. If $q$ approaches the vertex $v'_k$, then $\angle vqv'_k \to \pi - \angle v'_1v'_kv$, and if $q$ approaches $v'_1$, then $\angle vqv'_k \to \angle vv'_1v'_k$. Since $$\angle vv'_1v'_k<\theta<\varphi_{Q_1}<\pi-\theta<\pi - \angle v'_1v'_kv,$$ there is a point $q$ on the line segment such that $\angle vqv'_k = \varphi_Q$. If we take the image of $v_1$ on the ray $tq$, $t>0$, such that its distance to the origin is $|v'_k-v'_1|/|\rho_{Q_1}|$, then we obtain a quadrilateral with the oriented ratio of diagonals $i\rho_{Q_1}$. Note that dependent on the discrete Riemann surface it could be impossible to find charts around vertex stars whose images consist of convex quadrilaterals only. Indeed, the interior angle at a black vertex $v$ of a convex quadrilateral with purely imaginary oriented ratio of diagonals $i\rho$ has to be at least $\arctan(|\rho|)=\pi/2-\operatorname{arccot}(|\rho|)$. In particular, the interior angles at $v$ of five or more incident convex quadrilaterals $Q_s$ such that $\rho_{Q_s}>\pi$ sum up to more than $2\pi$. Piecewise planar quad-surfaces and discrete Riemann surfaces {#sec:polyhedral} ------------------------------------------------------------ A polyhedral surface $\Sigma$ without boundary consists of Euclidean polygons glued together along common edges. Clearly, there are a lot of possibilities to make it a discrete Riemann surface. An essentially unique way to make a closed polyhedral surface a discrete Riemann surface is the following (see for example [@BoSk12]): The vertices of the (essentially unique) Delaunay triangulation are the black vertices and the centers of the circumcenters of the triangles are the white vertices (Figure \[fig:DelaunayVoronoi\]). The corresponding quadrilaterals possess isometric embeddings into the complex plane and form together a discrete Riemann surface. Note that all quadrilaterals are kites, corresponding to a discrete complex structure with real numbers $\rho_Q$ that are given by the so-called *cotangent weights* [@PP93]. The corresponding cellular decomposition is called *Delaunay-Voronoi quadrangulation*. \[white/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=white,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, black/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=black,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, gray/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=gray,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{},scale=0.7\] (-4.1,-3.5) rectangle (4.1,3.5); (b1) at (-2,3.464) ; (b2) at (2,3.464) ; (b3) at (-4,0) ; (b4) at (0,0) ; (b5) at (4,0) ; (b6) at (-2,-3.464) ; (b7) at (2,-3.464) ; (b1,b2,b4) (b1,b3,b4) (b5,b2,b4) (b3,b6,b4) (b6,b7,b4) (b7,b5,b4) (b3)–(b1)– (b2)– (b5)– (b4)– (b3)– (b6)– (b7)– (b4)–(b1); (b7)–(b5); (b2)–(b4); (w1)–(b1); (w1)–(b3); (w1)–(b4); (w2)–(b1); (w2)–(b2); (w2)–(b4); (w3)–(b5); (w3)–(b2); (w3)–(b4); (w4)–(b3); (w4)–(b6); (w4)–(b4); (w5)–(b6); (w5)–(b7); (w5)–(b4); (w6)–(b7); (w6)–(b5); (w6)–(b4); (w1,w2,w3,w4,w5,w6) Let us suppose that the polyhedral surface $\Sigma$ is a piecewise planar quad-surface. Then, $\Sigma$ becomes a discrete Riemann surface in a canonical way. In the classical theory, any polyhedral surface possesses a canonical complex structure and any compact Riemann surface can be recovered from some polyhedral surface [@Bost92]. In the discrete setting, the situation is different. \[th:realization\] Let $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ be a compact discrete Riemann surface. 1. If all numbers $\rho_Q$ of the discrete complex structure are real, then there exists a polyhedral surface consisting of rhombi such that its induced discrete complex structure is the one of $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$. 2. If all numbers $\rho_Q$ of the discrete complex structure are real but one is not, then there exists no piecewise planar quad-surface with the combinatorics of $\Lambda$ such that its induced discrete complex structure coincides with the one of $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$. \(i) The diagonals of a rhombus intersect orthogonally. Clearly, the oriented ratio of diagonals of a rhombus $Q$ is $i\rho_Q=i\tan\left(\alpha/2\right)$, where $\alpha$ denotes the interior angle at a black vertex. Choosing $\alpha=2\arctan(\rho_Q)$ gives a rhombus with the desired oriented ratio of diagonals. If all the side lengths of the rhombi are one, then we can glue them together to obtain the desired closed polyhedral surface. \(ii) For a chart $z_Q$ of $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, consider the image $z_Q(Q)$. We denote the lengths of its edges by $a,b,c,d$ in counterclockwise order, starting with an edge going from a black to a white vertex, and the lengths of the line segments connecting the vertices with the intersection of the diagonal lines by $e_1,e_2,f_1,f_2$ as in Figure \[fig:cosine\]. \[white/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=white,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, black/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=black,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, gray/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=gray,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{},scale=4\] (0,0) – (-0.13:0.12) arc (-0.13:133.79:0.12) – cycle; (w1) \[label=below:$z_Q(w_-)$\] at (1.44,0.07) ; (w2) \[label=above:$z_Q(w_+)$\] at (0.62,0.93) ; (b1) \[label=left:$z_Q(b_-)$\] at (0,0.5) ; (b2) \[label=right:$z_Q(b_+)$\] at (1.7,0.5) ; (b1)–node\[midway,above\] [$d$]{} (w2); (w2)–node\[midway,above\] [$c$]{} (b2); (b2)–node\[midway,below\] [$b$]{} (w1); (w1)–node\[midway,below\] [$a$]{} (b1); (q) at (1.02,0.5) ; (w2)–node\[midway,left\] [$f_2$]{}(q)–node\[midway,left\] [$f_1$]{} (w1); (b1)–node\[midway,below\] [$e_1$]{}(q)–node\[midway,below\] [$e_2$]{} (b2); (phi) at (0.95,0.55); Cosine theorem implies $$\begin{aligned} a^2&=e_1^2+f_1^2-2e_1f_1\cos(\varphi_Q),\\ b^2&=e_2^2+f_1^2+2e_2f_1\cos(\varphi_Q),\\ c^2&=e_2^2+f_2^2-2e_2f_2\cos(\varphi_Q),\\ d^2&=e_1^2+f_2^2+2e_1f_2\cos(\varphi_Q).\end{aligned}$$ Taking the alternating sum, we get $$a^2-b^2+c^2-d^2=-2\cos(\varphi_Q)(e_1f_1+e_2f_1+e_2f2+e_1f_2)=-2\cos(\varphi_Q)ef,$$ where $e:=e_1+e_2$ and $f:=f_1+f_2$ are the lengths of the two diagonals. In particular, $\varphi_Q=\pi/2$ if and only if $a^2-b^2+c^2-d^2=0$. Suppose there is a piecewise planar quad-surface with the combinatorics of $\Lambda$ such that its induced discrete complex structure is the one of $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$. Let us orient all edges from the white to its black endpoint. For each quadrilateral $Q$ we consider its alternating sum of edge lengths such that the sign in front of an edge that is oriented in counterclockwise direction is positive and negative otherwise. If we sum these sums up for all $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, then each edge length appears twice with different signs, so the sum is zero. On the other hand, for all but one $Q$ $\rho_Q$ is real and the remaining one is not, so the sum is nonzero, contradiction. Thus, there cannot exist such a piecewise planar quad-surface. Medial graph {#sec:medial} ------------ The *medial graph* $X$ of the bipartite quad-decomposition $\Lambda$ of the surface $\Sigma$ is defined as the following cellular decomposition of $\Sigma$. Its vertex set is given by all the midpoints of edges of $\Lambda$, and two vertices $x,x'$ are adjacent if and only if the corresponding edges belong to the same face $Q$ of $\Lambda$ and have a vertex $v\in V(\Lambda)$ in common. We denote this edge (or 1-cell) by $[Q,v]$. A *face* (or 2-cell) $F_v$ of $X$ corresponding to $v\in V (\Lambda)$ shall have the edges of $\Lambda$ incident to $v$ as vertices, and a *face* (or 2-cell) $F_Q$ of $X$ corresponding to $Q\in F(\Lambda)\cong V(\Diamond)$ shall have the four edges of $\Lambda$ belonging to $Q$ as vertices. In Figure \[fig:medial\], the vertices of the medial graph are colored gray. In this sense, the set $F(X)$ of *faces* of $X$ is defined and in bijection with $V(\Lambda)\cup V(\Diamond)$. A priori, $X$ is just a combinatorial datum, giving a cellular decomposition of $\Sigma$ with induced orientation. But charts $z_v$ and $z_Q$ induce geometric realizations of the faces $F_v$ and $F_Q$ corresponding to $v\in V(\Lambda)$ and $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, respectively, in the complex plane. For this, we identify vertices of $X$ with the midpoints of the images of corresponding edges and map the edges of $X$ to straight line segments. $z_Q$ always induces an orientation-preserving embedding, $z_v$ does if it maps the quadrilaterals of the star of $v$ to quadrilaterals whose interior angle at $z_v(v)$ is less than $\pi$. Due to Varignon’s theorem, $z_Q(F_Q)$ is a parallelogram, even if $z_Q(Q)$ is not. Also, the image of the oriented edge $e=[Q,v]$ of $X$ connecting the edges $vv'_-$ with $vv'_+$ is just half the image of the diagonal: $2z_Q(e)=z_Q(v'_+)-z_Q(v'_-)$. In this sense, $e$ is *parallel* to the edge $v'_-v'_+$ of $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma^*$. We call an edge of $X$ *black* or *white* if it is parallel to an edge of $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma^*$, respectively. Even if $z_v$ does not induce an orientation-preserving embedding of $F_v$, we still obtain a rectilinear polygon $z_v(F_v)$ by the construction described above. In particular, the algebraic area of $z_v(F_v)$ is defined, where the orientation of $z_v(F_v)$ is inherited from the orientation of the star of $v$ on $\Sigma$. For a connected subgraph $\Diamond_0 \subseteq \Diamond$, we denote by $\Lambda_0$ the subgraph of $\Lambda$ whose vertices and edges are exactly the vertices and edges of the quadrilaterals in $V(\Diamond_0)$. An *interior* vertex $v\in V(\Lambda_0)$ is a vertex such that all incident faces in $\Lambda$ belong to $V(\Diamond_0)$. All other vertices of $\Lambda_0$ are said to be *boundary vertices*. Let $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_0^*$ denote the subgraphs of $\Gamma$ and of $\Gamma^*$ whose edges are exactly the diagonals of quadrilaterals in $V(\Diamond_0)$. $\Diamond_0\subseteq\Diamond$ is said to *form a simply-connected closed region* if the union of all quadrilaterals in $V(\Diamond_0)$ forms a simply-connected closed region in $\Sigma$. Furthermore, we denote by $X_0 \subseteq X$ the connected subgraph of $X$ consisting of all edges $[Q,v]$ where $Q\in V(\Diamond_0)$ and $v$ is a vertex of $Q$. For a finite collection $F$ of faces of $X_0$, $\partial F$ denotes the union of all counterclockwise oriented boundaries of faces in $F$, where oriented edges in opposite directions cancel each other out. Discrete holomorphic mappings {#sec:holomap} ============================= Throughout this section, let $(\Sigma, \Lambda, z)$ and $(\Sigma', \Lambda', z')$ be discrete Riemann surfaces. Discrete holomorphicity {#sec:Cauchy_Riemann} ----------------------- The following notion of discrete holomorphic functions is essentially due to Mercat [@Me01; @Me07; @Me08]. Let $f:V(\Lambda_0) \to {{\mathds C}}$. $f$ is said to be *discrete holomorphic* if the *discrete Cauchy-Riemann equation* $$\frac{f(b_+)-f(b_-)}{z_Q(b_+) - z_Q(b_-)}=\frac{f(w_+)-f(w_-)}{z_Q(w_+) - z_Q(w_-)}$$ is satisfied for all quadrilaterals $Q \in V(\Diamond_0)$ with vertices $b_-,w_-,b_+,w_+$ in counterclockwise order, starting with a black vertex. $f$ is *discrete antiholomorphic* if $\bar{f}$ is discrete holomorphic. Note that the discrete Cauchy-Riemann equation in the chart $z_Q$ is equivalent to the corresponding equation in a compatible chart $z'_Q$, i.e., it depends on the discrete complex structure only. A mapping $f:V(\Lambda) \to V(\Lambda')$ is said to be *discrete holomorphic* if the following conditions are satisfied: 1. $f(V(\Gamma))\subseteq V(\Gamma')$ and $f(V(\Gamma^*))\subseteq{V({\Gamma'}^*)}$; 2. for any quadrilateral $Q \in F(\Lambda)$, there exists a face $Q' \in F(\Lambda')$ such that $f(v)\sim Q'$ for all $v\sim Q$; 3. for any quadrilateral $Q \in F(\Lambda)$, the function $z'_{Q'} \circ f: V(Q)\to {{\mathds C}}$ is discrete holomorphic. The first condition asserts that $f$ respects the bipartite structures of the quad-decompositions. The second one discretizes continuity and guarantees that the third holomorphicity condition makes sense. Note that a discrete holomorphic mapping $f$ may be *biconstant* (constant at black and constant at white vertices) at some quadrilaterals, but not at all, whereas in the smooth case, any holomorphic mapping that is locally constant somewhere is constant on connected components. We resolve this contradiction by interpreting quadrilaterals where $f$ is biconstant as branch points. Simple properties and branch points {#sec:branch} ----------------------------------- The following lemma discretizes the classical fact that nonconstant holomorphic mappings are open. \[lem:open\_map\] Let $f:V(\Lambda) \to V(\Lambda')$ be a discrete holomorphic mapping. Then, for any $v \in V(\Lambda)$ there exists a nonnegative integer $k$ such that the image of the star of $v$ goes $k$ times along the star of $f(v)$ (preserving the orientation). By definition of discrete holomorphicity, the image of the star of $v$ is contained in the star of $f(v)$ and the orientation is preserved. If $f$ is biconstant around the star of $v$, then the statement is true with $k=0$. So assume that $f$ is not biconstant there. Then, at least one quadrilateral in the star is mapped to a complete quadrilateral in the star of $f(v)$. The next quadrilateral is either mapped to an edge if $f$ is biconstant at this quadrilateral or to the neighboring quadrilateral. Since this has to close up in the end, the image goes $k>0$ times along the star of $f(v)$. If the number $k$ in the lemma above is zero, then we say that $v$ is a *vanishing point*. Otherwise, $v$ is a *regular point*. If $k>1$, then we say that $v$ is a *branch point* of multiplicity $k$. In any case, we define $b_f(v)=k-1$ as the *branch number* of $f$ at $v$. If $f$ is biconstant at $Q\in F(\Lambda)$, then we say that $Q$ is a *branch point* of multiplicity two with branch number $b_f(Q)=1$. Otherwise, $Q$ is not a branch point and $b_f(Q)=0$. Figure \[fig:cover\] shows a two-sheeted covering of an elementary cube by a surface of genus three that is composed of 8 vertices, 24 edges, and 12 faces. For this, points $X_i$ and $X_j$, $X \in \{A,B,C,D,E,F,G\}$ and $i,j \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, are identified. The mapping $f$ between these surfaces maps a point $X_i$ to the corresponding point $X$ on the cube. The bipartite quad-decomposition of the surface of genus three is not strongly regular, but a uniform decomposition of each square into nine smaller squares gives us a strongly regular quad-decomposition. This makes both surfaces discrete Riemann surfaces in a canonical way, and $f$ is discrete holomorphic. Each of the eight vertices of the surface of genus three is a branch point of multiplicity two. Note that even if $f$ is not globally biconstant, it may have vanishing points. The reason for saying that quadrilaterals where $f$ is biconstant are branch points of multiplicity two is that if we go along the vertices $b_-,w_-,b_+,w_+$ of $Q$, then its images are $f(b_-),f(w_-),f(b_-),f(w_-)$ (Figure \[fig:merging\]). However, in combination with vanishing points, this definition of branching might be misleading. It is more appropriate to consider a finite subgraph $\Diamond_0\subseteq\Diamond$ that forms a simply-connected closed region consisting of $F$ quadrilaterals, $I$ interior points $V_{\textnormal{int}}$ (all of them vanishing points), and $B=2(F-I+1)$ boundary points (all of them regular points) as one single branch point of multiplicity $F-I+1$. Indeed, black and white points alternate at the boundary and they are always mapped to the same black or white image point, respectively. In terms of branch numbers this interpretation is fine since $$F-I=\sum_{Q \in V(\Diamond_0)} b_f(Q) + \sum_{v \in V_{\textnormal{int}}} b_f(v).$$ \[white/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=white,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, black/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=black,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, gray/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=gray,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{},scale=0.6\] (1.8,-4) rectangle (10.8,2); (2.4,-1.03)– (3.64,0.54); (3.64,0.54)– (6.18,1.3); (3.64,0.54)– (5.56,-1.12); (5.56,-1.12)– (4.31,-1.61); (4.31,-1.61)– (2.4,-1.03); (4.31,-1.61)– (4.6,-3.59); (9.82,-0.09)– (7.83,0.18); (9.82,-0.09)– (8.3,-1.39); (7.83,0.18)– (5.56,-1.12); (8.3,-1.39)– (5.56,-1.12); (7.83,0.18)– (6.18,1.3); (5.56,-1.12)– (6.51,-3.02); (6.51,-3.02)– (4.6,-3.59); (6.51,-3.02)– (8.48,-3.38); (8.48,-3.38)– (8.3,-1.39); (w1) \[label=right:$w$\] at (9.82,-0.09) ; (w2) \[label=above:$w$\] at (5.56,-1.12) ; (w3) \[label=below:$w$\] at (2.4,-1.03) ; (w4) \[label=right:$w$\] at (8.48,-3.38) ; (w5) \[label=left:$w$\] at (4.6,-3.59) ; (w6) \[label=above:$w$\] at (6.18,1.3) ; (b1) \[label=above:$b$\] at (7.83,0.18) ; (b2) \[label=right:$b$\] at (8.3,-1.39) ; (b3) \[label=above:$b$\] at (3.64,0.54) ; (b4) \[label=below:$b$\] at (6.51,-3.02) ; (b5) \[label=below left:$b$\] at (4.31,-1.61) ; \[cor:surjective\] Let $f:V(\Lambda) \to V(\Lambda')$ be discrete holomorphic and not biconstant. Then, $f$ is surjective. If in addition $\Sigma$ is compact, then $\Sigma'$ is compact as well. Assume that $f$ is not surjective. Then, there is $v'\in V(\Lambda')$ not contained in the image. Say $v'$ is black. Take $v_0' \in f(\Gamma)$ combinatorially closest to $v'$. Since all black neighbors of a black vanishing point of $f$ have the same image and $f$ is not biconstant, there is a regular point $v_0$ in the preimage of $v_0'$. By Lemma \[lem:open\_map\], the image of the star of $v_0$ equals the star of $v_0'$. Thus, there is an image point combinatorially nearer to $v'$ as $v_0'$, contradiction. If $\Sigma$ is compact, then $\Lambda$ is finite. So $\Lambda'$ is finite as well and $\Sigma'$ is compact. \[cor:Liouville\] Let $\Sigma$ be compact and $\Sigma'$ be homeomorphic to a plane. Then, any discrete holomorphic mapping $f:V(\Lambda) \to V(\Lambda')$ is biconstant. Note that we will prove the more general discretization of Liouville’s theorem that any complex valued discrete holomorphic function $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds C}}$ on a compact discrete Riemann surface is biconstant later in Theorem \[th:Liouville\]. \[th:degree\] Let $f:V(\Lambda) \to V(\Lambda')$ be a discrete holomorphic mapping. Then, there exists a number $N \in {{\mathds Z}}_{\geq 0} \cup \left\{ \infty \right\}$ such that for all $v' \in V(\Lambda')$: $$N=\sum_{v\in f^{-1}(v')}\left(b_f(v)+1\right).$$ Furthermore, for any $Q' \in F(\Lambda')$, $N$ equals the number of $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ such that $f$ maps the vertices of $Q$ bijectively to the vertices of $Q'$. If $f$ is biconstant, then all $b_f(v)+1$ are zero and $N=0$ fulfills the requirements. Assume now that $f$ is not biconstant. By Corollary \[cor:surjective\], $f$ is surjective. Let $Q' \in F(\Lambda')$ and let $v'$ be a vertex of $Q'$. We want to count the number $N$ of $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ such that $f$ maps the vertices of $Q$ bijectively to the vertices of $Q'$. Let $v \in f^{-1}(v')$. By Lemma \[lem:open\_map\], exactly $b_f(v)+1$ quadrilaterals incident to $v$ are mapped bijectively to $Q'$. Conversely, any $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ such that $f$ maps the vertices of $Q$ bijectively to the vertices of $Q'$ has exactly one vertex in the preimage of $f^{-1}(v')$. Therefore, $$N=\sum_{v\in f^{-1}(v')}\left(b_f(v)+1\right).$$ The same formula holds true if we replace $Q'$ by another face incident to $v'$ or $v'$ by some other vertex incident to $Q'$. Thus, $N$ does not depend on the choice of the face $Q'$ and the incident vertex $v'$. If $N>0$, then $f$ is called an *$N$-sheeted discrete holomorphic covering*. If $\Sigma$ is compact, then $N<\infty$. The characterization of $N$ as the number of preimage quadrilaterals nicely explains why $N$ is called the number of sheets of $f$. However, a quadrilateral of $\Lambda$ corresponds to one of the $N$ sheets (and not to just two single points) only if $f$ is not biconstant there. Finally, we state and prove a *discrete Riemann-Hurwitz formula*. \[th:Riemann\_Hurwitz\] Let $\Sigma$ be compact and $f:V(\Lambda) \to V(\Lambda')$ be an $N$-sheeted discrete holomorphic covering of the compact discrete Riemann surface $\Sigma'$ of genus $g'$. Then, the genus $g$ of $\Sigma$ is equal to $$g=N(g'-1)+1+\frac{b}{2},$$ where $b$ is the total branching number of $f$: $$b=\sum_{v \in V(\Lambda)} b_f(v) + \sum_{Q \in V(\Diamond)} b_f(Q).$$ Since we consider quad-decompositions, the number of edges of $\Lambda$ equals twice the number of faces. Thus, the Euler characteristic $2-2g$ of $\Sigma$ is given by $|V(\Lambda)|-|V(\Diamond)|$. By Theorem \[th:degree\], $$|V(\Lambda)|=N|V(\Lambda')|-\sum_{v \in V(\Lambda)} b_f(v).$$ If we count the number of faces of $\Lambda$, then we have $N|V(\Diamond')|$ quadrilaterals that are mapped to a complete quadrilateral of $\Lambda'$ by Theorem \[th:degree\] and $\sum_{Q \in V(\Diamond)} b_f(Q)$ faces are mapped to an edge of $\Lambda'$. Hence, $$|V(\Diamond)|=N|V(\Diamond')|+\sum_{Q \in V(\Diamond)} b_f(Q).$$ $$\begin{aligned} 2-2g=|V(\Lambda)|-|V(\Diamond)|&=N|V(\Lambda')|-\sum_{v \in V(\Lambda)} b_f(v)-N|V(\Diamond')|-\sum_{Q \in V(\Diamond)} b_f(Q)=N(2-2g')-b\end{aligned}$$ now implies the final result. In the example depicted in Figure \[fig:cover\], $g=3$, $g'=0$, $N=2$, and $b=8$. $$3=2\cdot(0-1)+1+\frac{8}{2}$$ then demonstrates the validity of the discrete Riemann-Hurwitz formula. Discrete exterior calculus {#sec:differentials} ========================== In this section, we consider a discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma, \Lambda, z)$ and adapt the fundamental notions and properties of discrete complex analysis discussed in [@BoG15] to discrete Riemann surfaces. All omitted proofs can be literally translated from [@BoG15] to the more general setting of discrete Riemann surfaces. Note that our treatment of discrete exterior calculus is similar to Mercat’s approach in [@Me01; @Me07; @Me08]. However, in Section \[sec:differential\_forms\] we suggest a different notation of multiplication of functions with discrete one-forms, leading to a discrete exterior derivative that is defined on a larger class of discrete one-forms in Section \[sec:derivative\]. It coincides with Mercat’s discrete exterior derivative in the case of discrete one-forms of type $\Diamond$ that he considers. In contrast, our definitions mimic the coordinate representation of the smooth theory. Still, our definitions of a discrete wedge product in Section \[sec:wedge\] and a discrete Hodge star in Section \[sec:hodge\] are equivalent to Mercat’s in [@Me08]. Discrete differential forms {#sec:differential_forms} --------------------------- The most important type of functions is $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$, but in local charts complex functions defined on subsets of $V(\Diamond)$ such as $\partial_\Lambda f$ occur as well. A *discrete one-form* or *discrete differential* $\omega$ is a complex function on the oriented edges of the medial graph $X_0$ such that $\omega(-e)=\omega(e)$ for any oriented edge $e$ of $X_0$. Here, $-e$ denotes the edge $e$ with opposite orientation. The evaluation of $\omega$ at an oriented edge $e$ of $X_0$ is denoted by $\int_e \omega$. For a directed path $P$ in $X_0$ consisting of oriented edges $e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n$, the *discrete integral* along $P$ is defined as $\int_P \omega=\sum_{k=1}^n \int_{e_k} \omega$. For closed paths $P$, we write $\oint_P \omega$ instead. If we speak about discrete one-forms or discrete differentials and do not specify their domain, then we will always assume that they are defined on oriented edges of the whole medial graph $X$. Of particular interest are discrete one-forms that actually come from discrete one-forms on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$. A discrete one-form $\omega$ defined on the oriented edges of $X_0$ is of *type* $\Diamond$ if for any quadrilateral $Q \in V(\Diamond_0)$ and its incident black (or white) vertices $v,v'$ the equality $\omega([Q,v])=-\omega([Q,v'])$ holds. The latter two edges inherit their orientation from $\partial F_Q$. A *discrete two-form* $\Omega$ is a complex function on $F(X_0)$. The evaluation of $\Omega$ at a face $F$ of $X_0$ is denoted by $\iint_F \Omega$. If $S$ is a set of faces $F_1,\ldots, F_n$ of $X_0$, then $\iint_S \Omega=\sum_{k=1}^n \iint_{F_k} \Omega$ defines the *discrete integral* of $\Omega$ over $S$. $\Omega$ is of *type* $\Lambda$ if $\Omega$ vanishes on all faces of $X_0$ corresponding to $V(\Diamond_0)$ and of *type* $\Diamond$ if $\Omega$ vanishes on all faces of $X_0$ corresponding to $V(\Lambda_0)$. Discrete two-forms of type $\Lambda$ or type $\Diamond$ correspond to functions on $V(\Lambda_0)$ or $V(\Diamond_0)$ by the discrete Hodge star that will be defined later in Section \[sec:hodge\]. Let for short $z$ be a chart $z_Q$ of a quadrilateral $Q \in V(\Diamond)$ or a chart $z_v$ of the star of a vertex $v \in V(\Lambda)$. On its domain, the discrete one-forms $dz$ and $d\bar{z}$ are defined in such a way that $\int_e dz=z(e)$ and $\int_e d\bar{z}=\overline{z(e)}$ hold for any oriented edge $e$ of $X$. The discrete two-forms $\Omega_\Lambda^z$ and $\Omega_\Diamond^z$ are zero on faces of $X$ corresponding to vertices of $\Diamond$ or $\Lambda$, respectively, and defined by $$\iint_F \Omega_\Lambda^z=-4i\textnormal{area}(z(F)) \textnormal{ and } \iint_F \Omega_\Diamond^z=-4i\textnormal{area}(z(F))$$ on faces $F$ corresponding to vertices of $\Lambda$ or $\Diamond$, respectively. Here, $\textnormal{area}(z(F))$ denotes the algebraic area of the polygon $z_v(F_v)$ or the Euclidean area of the parallelogram $z(F)$, respectively. Our main objects either live on the quad-decomposition $\Lambda$ or on its dual $\Diamond$. Thus, we have to deal with two different cellular decompositions at the same time. The medial graph has the crucial property that its faces split into two sets which are respectively $\Lambda=\Diamond^*$ and $\Diamond=\Lambda^*$. Furthermore, the Euclidean area of the Varignon parallelogram inside a quadrilateral $z(Q)$ is just half of its area. In an abstract sense, a corresponding statement is true for the cells of $X$ corresponding to vertices of $\Lambda$ and the faces of $\Diamond$. This statement can be made precise in the setting of planar parallelogram-graphs, see [@BoG15]. For this reason, the additional factor of two is necessary to make $\Omega_\Lambda^z$ and $\Omega_\Diamond^z$ the straightforward discretizations of $dz \wedge d\bar{z}$. As it turns out in Section \[sec:wedge\], $\Omega_\Diamond^z$ is indeed the discrete wedge product of $dz$ and $d\bar{z}$. Let $f:V(\Lambda_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$, $h:V(\Diamond_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$, $\omega$ a discrete one-form defined on the oriented edges of $X_0$, and $\Omega_1,\Omega_2$ discrete two-forms defined on $F(X_0)$ that are of type $\Lambda$ and $\Diamond$, respectively. For any oriented edge $e=[Q,v]$ and any faces $F_v, F_Q$ of $X_0$ corresponding to $v\in V(\Lambda_0)$ or $Q \in V(\Diamond_0)$, we define the products $f\omega$, $h\omega$, $f\Omega_1$, and $h\Omega_2$ by $$\begin{aligned} \int_{e}f\omega:&=f(v)\int_{e}\omega \ \quad \textnormal{ and } \quad \iint_{F_v} f\Omega_1:=f(v)\iint_{F_v}\Omega_1, \quad \iint_{F_Q} f\Omega_1:=0;\\ \int_{e}h\omega:&=h(Q)\int_{e}\omega \quad \textnormal{ and } \quad \iint_{F_v} h\Omega_2:=0, \qquad \qquad \qquad \; \! \iint_{F_Q} h\Omega_2:=h(Q)\iint_{F_Q}\Omega_2.\end{aligned}$$ A discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$ can be locally represented as $pdz_Q+qd\bar{z}_Q$ on all edges of a face of $X$ corresponding to $Q \in V(\Diamond)$, where $p,q \in {{\mathds C}}$. Similarly, we could define discrete one-forms of type $\Lambda$. However, this notion would depend on the chart and would be not well-defined on a discrete Riemann surface. Discrete derivatives and Stokes’ theorem {#sec:derivative} ---------------------------------------- Let $Q \in V(\Diamond)\cong F(\Lambda)$ and $f$ be a complex function on the vertices of $Q$. In addition, let $v\in V(\Lambda)$ and $h$ be a complex function defined on all quadrilaterals $Q_s \sim v$. Let $F_Q$ and $F_v$ be the faces of $X$ corresponding to $Q$ and $v$ with counterclockwise orientations of their boundaries. Then, the *discrete derivatives* $\partial_\Lambda f$, $\bar{\partial}_\Lambda f$ in the chart $z_Q$ and $\partial_\Diamond h$, $\bar{\partial}_\Diamond h$ in the chart $z_v$ are defined by $$\begin{aligned} \partial_\Lambda f(Q)&:=\frac{1}{\iint_{F_Q} \Omega_\Diamond^{z_Q}}\oint_{\partial F_Q} f d\bar{z}_Q, \qquad \bar{\partial}_\Lambda f (Q):=\frac{-1}{\iint_{F_Q} \Omega_\Diamond^{z_Q}}\oint_{\partial F_Q} f dz_Q;\\ \partial_\Diamond h(v)&:=\frac{1}{\iint_{F_v} \Omega_\Lambda^{z_v}}\oint_{\partial F_v} h d\bar{z}_v, \qquad \quad \bar{\partial}_\Diamond h(v):=\frac{-1}{\iint_{F_v} \Omega_\Lambda^{z_v}}\oint_{\partial F_v} h dz_v.\end{aligned}$$ $h$ is said to be *discrete holomorphic* in the chart $z_v$ if $\bar{\partial}_\Diamond h (v)=0$. As in the classical theory, the discrete derivatives depend on the chosen chart. We do not include these dependences in the notions, but it will be clear from the context which chart is used. Whereas discrete holomorphicity for functions $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds C}}$ is well-defined and equivalent to $\bar{\partial}_\Lambda f (Q)=0$ in any chart $z_Q$ (see [@BoG15]), discrete holomorphicity of functions on $V(\Diamond)$ is not consistently defined by the discrete complex structure. Indeed, if $\rho_Q=1$ for all faces $Q$ incident to $v \in V(\Lambda)$, then any cyclic polygon with the correct number of vertices can be the image of the vertices adjacent to $v$ under a chart $z_v$ compatible with the discrete complex structure, but the equation $\bar{\partial}_\Diamond h (v)=0$ depends on the choice of the cyclic polygon. Let $f:V(\Lambda_0) \to {{\mathds C}}$ and $h:V(\Diamond_0) \to {{\mathds C}}$. We define the *discrete exterior derivatives* $df$ and $dh$ on the edges of $X_0$ in a chart $z$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} df:=\partial_\Lambda f dz+\bar{\partial}_\Lambda f d\bar{z}, \quad dh:=\partial_\Diamond h dz+\bar{\partial}_\Diamond h d\bar{z}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\omega$ be a discrete one-form defined on all boundary edges of a face $F_v$ of the medial graph $X$ corresponding to $v\in V(\Lambda)$ or on all four boundary edges of a face $F_Q$ of $X$ corresponding to $Q\in F(\Lambda)$. In a chart $z$ around $F_v$ or $F_Q$, respectively, we write $\omega=p dz+ q d\bar{z}$ with functions $p,q$ defined on faces incident to $v$ or vertices incident to $Q$, respectively. The *discrete exterior derivative* $d\omega$ is given by $$\begin{aligned} d\omega|_{F_v}&:=\left(\partial_\Diamond q - \bar{\partial}_\Diamond p\right) \Omega_\Lambda^z,\\ d\omega|_{F_Q}&:=\left(\partial_\Lambda q - \bar{\partial}_\Lambda p\right) \Omega_\Diamond^z.\end{aligned}$$ The representation of $\omega$ as $p dz+ q d\bar{z}$ ($p,q$ defined on edges of $X$) we have used above may be nonunique. However, $d\omega$ is well-defined and does not depend on the chosen chart by *discrete Stokes’ theorem*. \[th:stokes\] Let $f:V(\Lambda_0) \to {{\mathds C}}$ and $\omega$ be a discrete one-form defined on oriented edges of $X_0$. Then, for any directed edge $e$ of $X_0$ starting in the midpoint of the edge $vv'_-$ and ending in the midpoint of the edge $vv'_+$ of $\Lambda_0$ and for any finite collection of faces $F$ of $X_0$ with counterclockwise oriented boundary $\partial F$ we have: $$\begin{aligned} \int_e df&=\frac{f(v'_+)-f(v'_-)}{2}=\frac{f(v)+f(v'_+)}{2}-\frac{f(v)+f(v'_-)}{2};\\ \iint_F d\omega&=\oint_{\partial F} \omega.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Diamond_0 \subseteq \Diamond$ form a simply-connected closed region. A discrete one-form $\omega$ defined on oriented edges of $X_0$ is said to be *closed* if $d\omega\equiv 0$. \[prop:dd0\] Let $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds C}}$. Then, $ddf=0$. \[cor:commutativity\] Let $f$ be a function defined on the vertices of all quadrilaterals incident to $v \in V(\Lambda)$. Then, $\partial_\Diamond\bar{\partial}_\Lambda f(v)=\bar{\partial}_\Diamond\partial_\Lambda f(v)$ in a chart $z_v$ of the star of $v$. In particular, $\partial_\Lambda f$ is discrete holomorphic in $z_v$ if $f$ is discrete holomorphic. \[cor:f\_holomorphic\] Let $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds C}}$. Then, $f$ is discrete holomorphic at all faces incident to $v\in V(\Lambda)$ if and only if in a chart $z_v$ around $v$, $df=p dz_v$ for some function $p$ defined on the faces incident to $v$. In this case, $p$ is discrete holomorphic in $z_v$. A discrete differential $\omega$ of type $\Diamond$ is *discrete holomorphic* if $d\omega=0$ and if in any chart $z_Q$ of a quadrilateral $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, $\omega=p dz_Q$. $\omega$ is *discrete antiholomorphic* if $\bar{\omega}$ is discrete holomorphic. It suffices to check this condition for just one chart of $Q$, as follows from Lemma \[lem:Hodge\_projection\] below. In particular, discrete holomorphicity of discrete one-forms depends on the discrete complex structure only. If $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic, then we can write $\omega=p dz_v$ in a chart $z_v$ around $v \in V(\Lambda)$, where $p$ is a function defined on the faces incident to $v$. In this case, $p$ is discrete holomorphic in $z_v$. Conversely, the closeness condition can be replaced by requiring that $p$ is discrete holomorphic. \[prop:primitive2\] Let $\Diamond_0 \subseteq \Diamond$ form a simply-connected closed region and let $\omega$ be a closed discrete differential of type $\Diamond$ defined on oriented edges of $X_0$. Then, there is a function $f:=\int \omega :V(\Lambda_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$ such that $\omega=df$. $f$ is unique up to two additive constants on $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma^*_0$. If $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic, then $f$ is as well. Discrete wedge product {#sec:wedge} ---------------------- Let $\omega$ be a discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$. Then, for any chart $z_Q$ of a quadrilateral $Q\in V(\Diamond)$ there is a unique representation $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}=p dz_Q+q d\bar{z}_Q$ with complex numbers $p$ and $q$. To calculate them, one can first construct a function $f$ on the vertices of $Q$ such that $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}=df$ and then take $p=\partial_\Lambda f$ and $q=\bar{\partial}_\Lambda f$, see [@BoG15]. Let $\omega,\omega'$ be two discrete one-forms of type $\Diamond$ defined on the oriented edges of $X_0$. Then, the *discrete wedge product* $\omega\wedge\omega'$ is defined as the discrete two-form of type $\Diamond$ that equals $$\left(pq'-qp'\right)\Omega_\Diamond^{z_Q}$$ on a face $F_Q$ corresponding to $Q\in V(\Diamond)$. Here, $z_Q$ is a chart of $Q$ and $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}=p dz_Q+ q d\bar{z}_Q$ and $\omega'|_{\partial F_Q}=p' dz_Q+ q' d\bar{z}_Q$. The following proposition connects our definition of a discrete wedge product with Mercat’s in [@Me01; @Me07; @Me08] and also shows that the discrete wedge product does not depend on the choice of the chart. \[prop:wedge\_Mercat\] Let $F_Q$ be the face of $X$ corresponding to $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, let $z_Q$ be a chart, and let $e,e^*$ be the oriented edges of $X$ parallel to the black and white diagonal of $Q$, respectively, such that $\operatorname{Im}\left(z_Q(e^*)/z_Q(e)\right)>0$. Then, $$\iint_{F_Q} \omega\wedge\omega' = 2\int_e \omega \int_{e^*} \omega'- 2\int_{e^*} \omega \int_e \omega'.$$ Finally, the discrete exterior derivative is a derivation for the wedge product: \[th:derivation\] Let $f:V(\Lambda_0) \to {{\mathds C}}$ and $\omega$ be a discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$ defined on the oriented edges of $X_0$. Then, the following identity holds on $F(X_0)$: $$d(f\omega)=df\wedge\omega+fd\omega.$$ Discrete Hodge star and discrete Laplacian {#sec:hodge} ------------------------------------------ Let $\Omega_{\Sigma}$ be a fixed nowhere vanishing discrete two-form, $f:F(\Lambda_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$, $h:V(\Diamond_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$, $\omega$ a discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$ defined on oriented edges of $X_0$, and $\Omega$ a discrete two-form either of type $\Lambda$ or $\Diamond$. In a chart $z_Q$ of $Q\in V(\Diamond)$, we write $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}=p dz_Q +qd\bar{z}_Q$. Then, the *discrete Hodge star* is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \star f:= f \Omega_\Sigma; \quad \star h:= h \Omega_\Sigma; \quad \star \omega|_{\partial F_Q}:=-ip dz_Q+iq d\bar{z}_Q;\quad \star \Omega&:=\frac{\Omega}{\Omega_\Sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ In the planar case, the choice of $\Omega_{\Sigma}=i/2 \Omega_\Diamond^z$ on faces of $X$ corresponding to faces of the quad-graph and $\Omega_{\Sigma}=i/2 \Omega_\Lambda^z$ on faces corresponding to vertices is the most natural one. Throughout the remainder of this chapter, $\Omega_{\Sigma}$ is a fixed positive real two-form on $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$. In the classical setup, there is a canonical nonvanishing two-form coming from a complete Riemannian metric of constant curvature. An interesting question is whether there exists some canonical two-form for discrete Riemann surfaces as we defined them. Note that the nonlinear theory developed in [@BoPSp10] contains a uniformization of discrete Riemann surfaces and discrete metrics with constant curvature. \[prop:hodge\_Mercat\] Let $Q\in V(\Diamond)$ with chart $z_Q$, and let $e,e^*$ be oriented edges of $X$ parallel to the black and white diagonal of $Q$, respectively, such that $\operatorname{Im}\left(e^*/e\right)>0$. If $\omega$ is a discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$ defined on the oriented edges of the boundary of the face of $X$ corresponding to $Q$, then $$\begin{aligned} \int_e \star\omega&=\cot\left(\varphi_Q\right) \int_e \omega-\frac{|z_Q(e)|}{|z_Q(e^*)| \sin\left(\varphi_Q\right)}\int_{e^*}\omega,\\ \int_{e^*} \star\omega&=\frac{|z_Q(e^*)|}{|z_Q(e)| \sin\left(\varphi_Q\right)} \int_e \omega-\cot\left(\varphi_Q\right)\int_{e^*}\omega.\end{aligned}$$ Proposition \[prop:hodge\_Mercat\] shows not only that our definition of a discrete Hodge star on discrete one-forms does not depend on the chosen chart, but also that it coincides with Mercat’s definition given in [@Me08]. Clearly, $\star^2=-\textnormal{Id}$ on discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$ and $\star^2=\textnormal{Id}$ on complex functions and discrete two-forms. The next lemma shows that discrete holomorphic differentials are well-defined. \[lem:Hodge\_projection\] Let $Q \in V(\Diamond)$ and $F_Q$ be the face of $X$ corresponding to $Q$. A discrete differential $\omega$ of type $\Diamond$ defined on the oriented edges of $F_Q$ is of the form $\omega=p dz_Q$ (or $\omega=q d\bar{z}_Q$) in any chart $z_Q$ of $Q\in V(\Diamond)$ if and only if $\star\omega=-i\omega$ (or $\star\omega=i\omega$). Let us take a (unique) representation $\omega=p dz_Q+ q d\bar{z}_Q$ in a coordinate chart $z_Q$ of $Q\in V(\Diamond)$. By definition, $\star\omega=-i\omega$ is equivalent to $q=0$. Analogously, $\star\omega=i\omega$ is equivalent to $p=0$. If $\omega$ and $\omega'$ are both discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$ defined on oriented edges of $X$, then we define their *discrete scalar product* $$\langle \omega, \omega' \rangle:=\iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \star\bar{\omega}',$$ whenever the right hand side converges absolutely. In a similar way, the discrete scalar product between two discrete two-forms or two complex functions on $V(\Lambda)$ is defined. A calculation in local coordinates shows that $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ is indeed a Hermitian scalar product. $L_2(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ is the Hilbert space of *square integrable* discrete differentials with respect to $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$. \[prop:adjoint2\] $\delta:=-\star d \star$ is the *formal adjoint* of the discrete exterior derivative $d$: Let $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$, let $\omega$ be a discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$, and let $\Omega:F(X)\to{{\mathds C}}$ be a discrete two-form of type $\Lambda$. If all of them are compactly supported, then $$\langle df, \omega \rangle =\langle f, \delta \omega \rangle \textnormal{ and }\langle d\omega,\Omega\rangle= \langle \omega, \delta \Omega\rangle.$$ The *discrete Laplacian* on functions $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$, discrete one-forms of type $\Diamond$, or discrete two-forms on $F(X)$ of type $\Lambda$ is defined as the linear operator $$\triangle:=-\delta d-d\delta=\star d \star d +d \star d \star.$$ $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$ is said to be *discrete harmonic* at $v\in V(\Lambda)$ if $\triangle f(v)=0$. Note that straight from the definition and Corollary \[cor:commutativity\], it follows for $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$ that $\triangle f (v)$ is proportional to $4\partial_\Diamond\bar{\partial}_\Lambda f(v)=4\bar{\partial}_\Diamond\partial_\Lambda f(v)$ in the chart $z_v$ around $v \in V(\Lambda)$. In particular, discrete harmonicity of functions does not depend on the choice of $\Omega_\Sigma$, and discrete holomorphic functions are discrete harmonic. \[lem:Dirichlet\_boundary2\] Let $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ be a compact discrete Riemann surface. Then, the discrete Dirichlet energy functional $E_\Diamond$ defined by $E_{\Diamond}(f):=\langle df,df \rangle$ for functions $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds R}}$ is a convex nonnegative quadratic functional in the vector space of real functions on $V(\Lambda)$. Furthermore, $$-\frac{\partial E_{\Diamond}}{\partial f(v)}(f)=2\triangle f(v)\iint_{F_v} \Omega_{\Sigma}$$ for any $v \in V(\Lambda)$. In particular, extremal points of this functional are functions that are discrete harmonic everywhere. As a conclusion of this section, we state and prove *discrete Liouville’s theorem*. \[th:Liouville\] Let $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ be a compact discrete Riemann surface. Then, any discrete harmonic function $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$ is biconstant. In particular, any complex valued discrete holomorphic function is biconstant. Since $\delta$ is the formal adjoint of $d$ by Proposition \[prop:adjoint2\], $$\langle df,df \rangle=\langle f, \delta d f \rangle=\langle f, \triangle f \rangle=0.$$ Now, $\langle df,df \rangle \geq 0$ and equality holds only if $df=0$, i.e., if $f$ is biconstant. Periods of discrete differentials {#sec:periods} ================================= In this section, we define the (discrete) periods of a closed discrete differential of type $\Diamond$ on a compact discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma, \Lambda, z)$ of genus $g$ in Section \[sec:cover\] and state and prove a discrete Riemann bilinear identity in Section \[sec:RBI\]. Although we aim at being as close as possible to the smooth case in our presentation, the bipartite structure of $\Lambda$ prevents us from doing so. We struggle with the same problem of white and black periods as Mercat did for discrete Riemann surfaces whose discrete complex structure is described by real numbers $\rho_Q$ in [@Me07]. The reason for this is that a discrete differential of type $\Diamond$ corresponds to a pair of discrete differentials on each of $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$. Mercat constructed out of a canonical homology basis on $\Lambda$ certain canonical homology bases on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$. By solving a discrete Neumann problem, he then proved the existence of dual cohomology bases on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$. The discrete Riemann bilinear identity for the elements of the bases (and by linearity for general closed discrete differentials) was a direct consequence of the construction. On the contrary, the proof given in [@BoSk12] followed the ideas of the smooth case, but the relation to discrete wedge products was not that immediate. We will give a full proof of the general discrete Riemann bilinear identity that follows the lines of the proof of the classical Riemann bilinear identity, using almost the same notation. The main difference to [@BoSk12] is that we use a different refinement of the cellular decomposition to profit of a cellular decomposition of the canonical polygon with $4g$ vertices. The appearance of black and white periods indicates the analogy to Mercat’s approach in [@Me07]. Universal cover and periods {#sec:cover} --------------------------- Let $p: \tilde{\Sigma} \to \Sigma$ denote the universal covering of the compact surface $\Sigma$. $p$ gives rise to a bipartite quad-decomposition $\tilde{\Lambda}$ with medial graph $\tilde{X}$ and a covering $p: \tilde{\Lambda} \to \Lambda$. Now, $(\tilde{\Sigma}, \tilde{\Lambda}, z \circ p)$ is a discrete Riemann surface as well and $p: V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to V(\Lambda)$ is a discrete holomorphic mapping. We fix a base vertex $\tilde{v}_0 \in V(\tilde{\Lambda})$. Let $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_g, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_g$ be smooth loops on $\Sigma$ with base point $v_0:=p(\tilde{v}_0)$ such that these loops cut out a fundamental $4g$-gon $F_g$. It is well known that such loops exist; the order of loops at the boundary of $F_g$ is $\alpha_k, \beta_k, \alpha_k^{-1}, \beta_k^{-1}$, $k$ going in order from $1$ to $g$. Their homology classes $a_1, \ldots, a_g, b_1, \ldots, b_g$ form a canonical homology basis of $H_1(\Sigma,{{\mathds Z}})$. Clearly, there are homotopies between $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_g, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_g$ and closed paths $\alpha'_1, \ldots, \alpha'_g, \beta'_1, \ldots, \beta'_g$ on $X$, all of the latter having the same fixed base point $x_0\in V(X)$. Let $P$ be an oriented cycle on $X$. $P$ induces closed paths on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$ that we denote by $B(P)$ and $W(P)$ in the following way: For an oriented edge $[Q,v]$ of $P$, we add the black (or white) vertex $v$ to $B(P)$ (or $W(P)$) and the corresponding white (or black) diagonal of $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ to $W(P)$ (or $B(P)$), see Figure \[fig:contours2\]. The orientation of the diagonal is induced by the orientation of $[Q,v]$. Clearly, $B(P)$ and $W(P)$ are cycles on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$ that are homotopic to $P$. We denote the one-chains on $X$ consisting of all the black or white edges corresponding to $B(P)$ and $W(P)$ by $BP$ and $WP$, respectively. \[white/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=black,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, black/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=white,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, gray/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=gray,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{},scale=1.0\] (w1) at (-2,-2) ; (w2) at (0,-2) ; (w3) at (2,-2) ; (w4) at (-1,-1) ; (w5) at (1,-1) ; (w6) at (-2,0) ; (w7) at (0,0) ; (w8) at (2,0) ; (w9) at (-1,1) ; (w10) at (1,1) ; (w11) at (-2,2) ; (w12) at (0,2) ; (w13) at (2,2) ; (b1) at (-1,-2) ; (b2) at (1,-2) ; (b3) at (-2,-1) ; (b4) at (0,-1) ; (b5) at (2,-1) ; (b6) at (-1,0) ; (b7) at (1,0) ; (b8) at (-2,1) ; (b9) at (0,1) ; (b10) at (2,1) ; (b11) at (-1,2) ; (b12) at (1,2) ; (m1) at (0,-1.5) ; (m2) at (0.5,-1) ; (m3) at (1,-0.5) ; (m4) at (1.5,0) ; (m5) at (1,0.5) ; (m6) at (0.5,1) ; (m7) at (0,1.5) ; (m8) at (-0.5,1) ; (m9) at (-1,0.5) ; (m10) at (-1.5,0) ; (m11) at (-1,-0.5) ; (m12) at (-0.5,-1) ; (w1) – (b1) – (w2) – (b2) – (w3); (b3) – (w4) – (b4) – (w5) – (b5); (w6) – (b6) – (w7) – (b7) – (w8); (b8) – (w9) – (b9) – (w10) – (b10); (w11) – (b11) – (w12) – (b12) – (w13); (w1) – (b3) – (w6) – (b8) – (w11); (b1) – (w4) – (b6) – (w9) – (b11); (w2) – (b4) – (w7) – (b9) – (w12); (b2) – (w5) – (b7) – (w10) – (b12); (w3) – (b5) – (w8) – (b10) – (w13); (w2) – (w5) – (w8) – (w10) – (w12) – (w9) – (w6) – (w4) – (w2); (b4) – (b7) – (b9) – (b6) – (b4); (m1) – (m2) – (m3) – (m4) – (m5) – (m6) – (m7) – (m8) – (m9) – (m10) – (m11) – (m12) – (m1); (z1) at (-0.2,-0.3) ; (z2) at (0.5,-1.25) ; (z3) at (-0.85,-1.7) ; Let $\omega$ be a closed discrete differential of type $\Diamond$. For $1 \leq k \leq g$, we define its $a_k$*-periods* $A_k:=\oint_{\alpha'_k} \omega$ and $b_k$*-periods* $B_k:=\oint_{\beta'_k} \omega$ and its $$\begin{aligned} \textit{black } a_k\textit{-periods } A^B_k&:=2\int_{B\alpha'_k} \omega \; \textnormal{ and } \; \textit{black } b_k\textit{-periods } B^B_k:=2\int_{B\beta'_k} \omega\\ \textnormal{and its }\textit{white } a_k\textit{-periods } A^W_k&:=2\int_{W\alpha'_k} \omega \textnormal{ and } \textit{white } b_k\textit{-periods } B^W_k:=2\int_{W\beta'_k} \omega.\end{aligned}$$ The reason for the factor of two is that to compute the black or white periods, we actually integrate $\omega$ on $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma^*$ and not on the medial graph $X$. Clearly, $2A_k=A_k^B+A_k^W$ and $2B_k=B_k^B+B_k^W$. The periods of the closed discrete differential $\omega$ of type $\Diamond$ depend only on the homology classes $a_k$ and $b_k$, i.e., if $\alpha''_k, \beta''_k$, $1 \leq k \leq g$, are loops on $X$ that are in the homology classes $a_k$ and $b_k$, respectively, then $$\begin{aligned} \int_{a_k} \omega &:= A_k=\oint_{\alpha''_k} \omega, \int_{Ba_k} \omega :=A_k^B=2\int_{B\alpha''_k} \omega, \int_{Wa_k} \omega :=A_k^W=2\int_{W\alpha''_k} \omega;\\ \int_{b_k} \omega &:= B_k=\oint_{\beta''_k} \omega, \int_{Bb_k} \omega :=B_k^B=2\int_{B\beta''_k} \omega, \int_{Wb_k} \omega :=B_k^W=2\int_{W\beta''_k} \omega.\end{aligned}$$ That $a$- and $b$-periods of a closed discrete one-form depend on the homology class only follows from discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\]. For the other four cases, we use that $\omega$ induces discrete differentials on $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^*$ in the obvious way since it is of type $\Diamond$. These differentials are closed in the sense that the integral along the black (or white) cycle around any white (or black) vertex of $\Lambda$ vanishes. Since the paths $B\alpha'_k$ and $B\alpha''_k$ on $\Gamma$ are both in the homology class $a_k$, $\int_{B\alpha'_k} \omega=\int_{B\alpha''_k} \omega$. The same reasoning applies for the other cases. Discrete Riemann bilinear identity {#sec:RBI} ---------------------------------- Again, let $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_g, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_g$ be smooth loops on the compact surface $\Sigma$ with base point $v_0 \in V(\Lambda)$ such that these loops cut out a fundamental $4g$-gon $F_g$. For the following two definitions, we follow [@BoSk12],but give a different proof for the discrete Riemann bilinear identity than [@BoSk12]. For a loop $\alpha$ on $\Sigma$, let $d_{\alpha}$ denote the induced deck transformations on $\tilde{\Sigma}$, $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and $\tilde{X}$. $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to {{\mathds C}}$ is *multi-valued* with black periods $A_1^B, A_2^B, \ldots, A_g^B$, $B_1^B, B_2^B, \ldots, B_g^B \in {{\mathds C}}$ and white periods $A_1^W, A_2^W, \ldots, A_g^W$, $B_1^W, B_2^W, \ldots, B_g^W \in {{\mathds C}}$ if $$\begin{aligned} f(d_{\alpha_k}b)=f(b)+A_k^B, \quad f(d_{\alpha_k}w)=f(w)+A_k^W,\quad f(d_{\beta_k}b)=f(b)+B_k^B,\quad f(d_{\beta_k}w)=f(w)+B_k^W\end{aligned}$$ for any $1\leq k \leq g$, each black vertex $b\in V(\tilde{\Gamma})$, and each white vertex $w \in V(\tilde{\Gamma}^*)$. \[lem:multivalued\] Let $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to {{\mathds C}}$ be multi-valued. Then, $df$ defines a closed discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$ on the oriented edges of $X$ and $df$ has the same black and white periods as $f$. Conversely, if $\omega$ is a closed discrete differential of type $\Diamond$, then there is a multi-valued function $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to {{\mathds C}}$ such that $df$ projects to $\omega$. If $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic, then $f$ is as well. Let $\tilde{e}$ be an oriented edge of $\tilde{X}$. Discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\] implies that $df(d_\alpha(\tilde{e}))=df(\tilde{e})$ for any loop $\alpha$ on $\Sigma$. In particular, $df$ is well-defined on the oriented edges of $X$. Closeness follows from $ddf=0$ by Proposition \[prop:dd0\]. Clearly, black and white periods of $f$ and $df$ are the same by definition of these periods. Let $\tilde{\omega}$ be the lift of $\omega$ to $\tilde{X}$. Since the universal cover is simply-connected, it follows from Proposition \[prop:primitive2\] that there exists a discrete primitive $f:=\int \tilde{\omega} :V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to{{\mathds C}}$ that is discrete holomorphic if $f$ is. As a consequence, white and black periods of a closed discrete one-form of type $\Diamond$ are not determined by its periods. We are now ready to prove the following *discrete Riemann bilinear identity*. \[th:RBI\] Let $\omega$ and $\omega'$ be closed discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$. Let their black and white periods be given by $A_k^B, B_k^B, A_k^W, B_k^W$ and ${A'_k}^B, {B'_k}^B, {A'_k}^W, {B'_k}^W$, respectively, for $k=1,\ldots,g.$ Then, $$\iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \omega'=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^B {B'_k}^W-B_k^B {A'_k}^W\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^W {B'_k}^B-B_k^W {A'_k}^B\right).$$ By Lemma \[lem:multivalued\], there is a multi-valued function $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to {{\mathds C}}$ such that $df=\omega$ with the same black and white periods as $\omega$ has. Let $F_v$ and $F_Q$ be faces of $X$ corresponding to $v\in V(\Lambda)$ and $Q\in V(\Diamond)\cong F(\Lambda)$. Consider any lifts of the star of $v$ and of $Q$ to $\tilde{\Lambda}$, and denote by $\tilde{F}_v$ and $\tilde{F}_Q$ the corresponding lifts of $F_v$ and $F_Q$ to $F(\tilde{X})$. By Theorem \[th:derivation\], $\omega \wedge \omega'= d(f\omega')$, lifting $\omega,\omega'$ to $\tilde{X}$ and using that $\omega'$ is closed. So by discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\], $$\iint_{F} \omega \wedge \omega'=\oint_{\partial \tilde{F}} f\omega',$$ where $F$ is either $F_v$ or $F_Q$. Note that the right hand side is independent of the chosen lift $\tilde{F}$ because $\omega'$ is closed. It follows that the statement above remains true when we integrate over $F(X)$ and the counterclockwise oriented boundary of any collection $\tilde{F}(X)$ of lifts of each a face of $X$ to $\tilde{X}$. It remains to compute $\int_{\partial \tilde{F}(X)} f\omega'$. If $g=0$, then $\tilde{\Sigma}=\Sigma$ and $f$ is a complex function on $V(\Lambda)$. Furthermore, the boundary of $\tilde{F}(X)=F(X)$ is empty, so $\iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \omega'=0$ as claimed. In what follows, let $g>0$. By definition, if $e=[\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}]$ is an edge of $\tilde{X}$ ($F(\tilde{\Lambda})\ni\tilde{Q}\sim \tilde{v} \in V(\tilde{\Lambda})$), then $\int_e f\omega'=f(\tilde{v})\int_e \omega'$. So we may consider $f$ as a function on $E(\tilde{X})$ defined by $f([\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}]):=f(\tilde{v})$. Then, $f:E(\tilde{X})\to{{\mathds C}}$ fulfills for any $k$: $$\begin{aligned} f(d_{\alpha_k}[\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])=f([\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])+A_k^B &\textnormal{ and } f(d_{\beta_k}[\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])=f([\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])+B_k^B \textnormal{ if } \tilde{v}\in V(\tilde{\Gamma}),\\ f(d_{\alpha_k}[\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])=f([\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])+A_k^W &\textnormal{ and } f(d_{\beta_k}[\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])=f([\tilde{Q},\tilde{v}])+B_k^W \textnormal{ if } \tilde{v}\in V(\tilde{\Gamma}^*).\end{aligned}$$ In this sense, $f$ is multi-valued on $E(\tilde{X})$ with black (white) periods defined on white (black) edges. Since $f$ and $\omega'$ are now determined by topological data, we may forget the discrete complex structure of $\tilde{\Sigma}$ and can consider $\omega'$ and $f\omega'$ as functions on the oriented edges. Their evaluation on an edge $e$ will still be denoted by $\int_e$. Let $\tilde{\Sigma}'$ be the polyhedral surface that is given by $\tilde{X}$ requiring that all faces are regular polygons of side length one. Similarly, $\Sigma'$ is constructed. Now, $p$ induces a covering $p:\tilde{\Sigma}'\to \Sigma'$ in a natural way requiring that $p$ on each face is an isometry. The homeomorphic images of the paths $\alpha_k,\beta_k$ are loops on $\Sigma'$ with the base point being somewhere inside the face $F_{v_0}$. Let us choose piecewise smooth paths on $\Sigma'$ with base point being the center of $F_{v_0}$ homotopic to the previous loops such that the new paths (that will be denoted the same) still cut out a fundamental $4g$-gon. For $v \in V(\Lambda)$, consider the same subdivision of all the lifts of the regular polygon corresponding to $F_v$ into smaller polygonal cells induced by straight lines. All new edges get the same color as the original edges of $F_v$ had, i.e., the opposite color to the one of $v$. We extend $f$ on the new edges by $f(v)$. Obviously, the new function is still multi-valued with the same periods. We define the one-form $\omega'$ on the new edges consecutively by inserting straight lines. Each time an existing oriented edge $e$ is subdivided into two equally oriented parts $e'$ and $e''$, we define $\int_{e'}\omega'=\int_{e''}\omega':=\int_{e}\omega'/2$. On segments of the inserted line, we define $\omega'$ by the condition that it should remain closed. Defining a black (or white) $c$-period of $\omega'$ on the subdivided cellular decomposition as twice the discrete integral over all black (or white) edges of a closed path with homology $c$, we see that the black and white $a$- and $b$-periods of $\omega'$ are the same as before. Now, let $F_Q$ be the square corresponding to $Q \in F(\Lambda)$. We consider a subdivision of $F_Q$ (and all its lifts) into smaller polygonal cells induced by straight lines parallel to the edges of the square, requiring in addition that all subdivision points on the edges of $F_Q$ coming from the previous subdivisions of $F_v$, $v\sim Q$, are part of it. A new edge is black (or white) if it is parallel to an original black (or white) edge of $X$. Any new edge $e'$ is of length $0<l\leq 1$ and $e'$ is parallel to an edge $e$ of $F_Q$. Since $\omega'$ is of type $\Diamond$, it coincides on parallel edges, so we can define $\int_{e'}\omega':=l\int_{e}\omega'$. By construction, the new discrete one-form $\omega'$ is closed, and its black and white periods do not change. $f$ is extended in such a way that if the new edge $e'$ is parallel to the edges $[Q,v]$ and $[Q,v']$, having distance $0\leq l\leq 1$ to $[Q,v]$ and distance $1-l$ to $[Q,v']$, then $f(e'):=(1-l)f([Q,v])+lf([Q,v'])$. $f$ is still multi-valued with the same periods. If the subdivisions of faces $F_v$ and $F_Q$ are fine enough, then we find cycles homotopic to $\alpha_k,\beta_k$ on the edges of the resulting cellular decomposition $X'$ on $\Sigma$ in such a way that they still cut out a fundamental polygon with $4g$ vertices. Let us denote these loops by $\alpha_k,\beta_k$ as well. By construction, $\oint_{\partial F} f\omega'$ equals the sum of all discrete contour integrals of $f\omega'$ around faces of the subdivision of the face $F$ of $X$. It follows that $\int_{\partial \tilde{F}(X)} f\omega'=\int_{\partial \tilde{F}(X')} f\omega'$ for any collection $\tilde{F}(X')$ of lifts of faces of $X'$, using that $\omega'$ is closed. Let us choose $\tilde{F}(X')$ in such a way that it builds a fundamental $4g$-gon whose boundary consists of lifts $\tilde{\alpha}_k,\tilde{\beta}_k$ of $\alpha_k,\beta_k$ and lifts $\tilde{\alpha}_k^{-1},\tilde{\beta}_k^{-1}$ of its reverses. Since interior edges of the polygon are traversed twice in both directions, they do not contribute to the discrete integral and we get $$\iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \omega'=\int_{\partial \tilde{F}(X')} f\omega'=\sum_{k=1}^g \left( \int_{\tilde{\alpha}_k} f\omega' +\int_{\tilde{\alpha}_k^{-1}} f\omega'\right)+\sum_{k=1}^g \left( \int_{\tilde{\beta}_k} f\omega' +\int_{\tilde{\beta}_k^{-1}} f\omega'\right).$$ Let $e$ be an edge of $\tilde{\alpha}_k$ and $e'$ the corresponding edge of $\tilde{\alpha}_k^{-1}$. Then, $d_{\beta_k}e=-e'$. Hence, $\omega'$ has opposite signs on $e$ and $e'$, and $f$ differs by $B_k^W$ on black edges and by $B_k^B$ on white edges. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned} \int_{\tilde{\alpha}_k} f\omega' +\int_{\tilde{\alpha}_k^{-1}} f\omega'&=\int_{B\tilde{\alpha}_k} \left(f\omega' - (f+B_k^W)\omega'\right)+\int_{W\tilde{\alpha}_k} \left(f\omega' - (f+B_k^B)\omega'\right)\\&=-\frac{1}{2}B_k^W {A'_k}^B-\frac{1}{2}B_k^B {A'_k}^W. \end{aligned}$$ If $e$ is an edge of $\tilde{\beta}_k$ and $e'$ the corresponding edge of $\tilde{\beta}_k^{-1}$, then $d_{\alpha_k^{-1}}e=-e'$. Thus, $$\int_{\tilde{\beta}_k} f\omega' +\int_{\tilde{\beta}_k^{-1}} f\omega'=\frac{1}{2}A_k^W {B'_k}^B+\frac{1}{2}A_k^B {B'_k}^W.$$ Inserting the last two equations into the previous one gives the desired result. Note that as in the classical case, the formula is true for any canonical homology basis $\{a_1,\ldots,a_g,b_1,\ldots,b_g\}$, not necessarily the one we started with. The proof is essentially the same as in the smooth theory, see [@Gue14]. \[cor:RBI2\] Let $\omega$ and $\omega'$ be closed discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$. Let their periods are given by $A_k, B_k$ and ${A'_k}, {B'_k}$, respectively, and assume that the black $a$-periods of $\omega,\omega'$ coincide with corresponding white $a$-periods. Then, $$\iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \omega'=\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k {B'_k}-B_k {A'_k}\right).$$ Discrete harmonic and discrete holomorphic differentials {#sec:harmonic_holomorphic} ======================================================== Throughout this section that aims in investigating discrete harmonic and discrete holomorphic differentials, let $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ be a discrete Riemann surface. In Section \[sec:Hodge\_decomposition\], we state the discrete Hodge decomposition. Afterwards, we restrict to compact $\Sigma$ and compute the dimension of the space of discrete holomorphic differentials in Section \[sec:harm\_holo\]. Discrete period matrices are introduced in Section \[sec:period\_matrices\]. For Sections \[sec:harm\_holo\] and \[sec:period\_matrices\], we therefore assume that $\Sigma$ is compact and of genus $g$. Let $\{a_1,\ldots,a_g,b_1,\ldots,b_g\}$ be a canonical basis of $H_1(\Sigma,{{\mathds Z}})$ in this case. Discrete Hodge decomposition {#sec:Hodge_decomposition} ---------------------------- A discrete differential $\omega$ of type $\Diamond$ is *discrete harmonic* if it is closed and *co-closed*, i.e., $d\omega=0$ and $d\star \omega=0$ (or, equivalently, $\delta \omega=0$). \[lem:harmonic\_forms\] Let $\omega$ be a discrete differential of type $\Diamond$. 1. $\omega$ is discrete harmonic if and only if for any $\Diamond_0\subseteq\Diamond$ forming a simply-connected closed region, there exists a discrete harmonic function $f:V(\Lambda_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$ such that $\omega=df$. 2. Let $\Sigma$ be compact. Then, $\omega$ is discrete harmonic if and only if $\triangle \omega=0$. \(i) Suppose that $\omega$ is discrete harmonic. Then, it is closed, so since $\Diamond_0$ forms a simply-connected closed region, Proposition \[prop:primitive2\] gives the existence of $f:V(\Lambda_0)\to{{\mathds C}}$ such that $\omega=df$ on oriented edges of $X_0$. Now, $\triangle f=\delta d f=\delta \omega =0$, so $f$ is discrete harmonic. Conversely, if $\omega=df$ locally, then $d\omega=ddf=0$ by Proposition \[prop:dd0\] (that is also locally true, see [@BoG15]) and $\delta \omega = \delta df=\triangle f=0$ by definition. \(ii) If $\omega$ is discrete harmonic, then $d\omega=\delta\omega=0$ implies $\triangle \omega=0$. Conversely, let $\triangle \omega=0$. Using that $\delta$ is the formal adjoint of $d$ on compact discrete Riemann surfaces by Proposition \[prop:adjoint2\], $$0=\langle \triangle \omega, \omega \rangle= \langle d\omega, d\omega \rangle + \langle \delta\omega, \delta \omega \rangle.$$ The right hand side vanishes only for $d\omega=\delta \omega=0$, so $\omega$ is closed and co-closed. The proof of the following *discrete Hodge decomposition* follows the lines of the proof in the smooth theory given in the book [@FaKra80] of Farkas and Kra. Let $E,E^*$ denote the sets of *exact* and *co-exact* square integrable discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$, i.e., $E$ and $E^*$ consist of all $\omega=df$ and $\omega=\star df$, respectively, where $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds C}}$ and $\langle \omega,\omega\rangle <\infty$. Let $H$ be the set of square integrable discrete harmonic differentials. Then, we have an orthogonal decomposition $L_2(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)=E\oplus E^*\oplus H$. Clearly, $E$ and $E^*$ are the closures of all exact and co-exact square integrable discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$ of compact support. Let $E^\perp$ and ${E^*}^\perp$ denote the orthogonal complements of $E$ and $E^*$ in $L_2(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$. Then, $\omega \in E^\perp$ if and only if $\langle \omega, df\rangle=0$ for all $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$ of compact support. To compute the scalar product, we may restrict $\omega$ to a finite neighborhood of the support of $f$, so Proposition \[prop:adjoint2\] implies $0=\langle \omega,df\rangle=\langle \delta \omega,f\rangle$. It follows that $\delta \omega=0$. Thus, $E^\perp$ consists of all co-closed discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$. Similarly, ${E^*}^\perp$ is the space of all closed discrete differentials of type $\Diamond$. By Proposition \[prop:dd0\], any (co-)exact discrete differential of type $\Diamond$ is (co-)closed, so we get an orthogonal decomposition $L_2(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)=E\oplus E^*\oplus H$, $H=E^\perp \cap {E^*}^\perp$ being the set of all discrete harmonic differentials. Existence of certain discrete differentials {#sec:harm_holo} ------------------------------------------- First, we want to show that for any set of black and white periods there is a discrete harmonic differential with these periods. In [@Me07], Mercat proved this statement by referring to a (discrete) Neumann problem. The proof given in [@BoSk12] used the finite-dimensional Fredholm alternative. Here, we give a proof based on the (discrete) Dirichlet energy. \[th:harmonic\_existence\] Let $A_k^B,B_k^B,A_k^W, B_k^W$, $1\leq k \leq g$, be $4g$ given complex numbers. Then, there exists a unique discrete harmonic differential $\omega$ with these black and white periods. Since periods are linear in the discrete differentials, it suffices to prove the statement for real periods. Let us consider the vector space of all multi-valued functions $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda}) \to {{\mathds R}}$ having the given black and white periods. For such a function $f$, $df$ is well-defined on $X$, as is the discrete Dirichlet energy $E_\Diamond(f)=\langle df, df\rangle$. By Lemma \[lem:Dirichlet\_boundary2\], the critical points of this functional are discrete harmonic functions, noting that $\triangle f$ is a function on $V(\Lambda)$. Since the discrete Dirichlet energy is convex, quadratic, and nonnegative, a minimum $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda}) \to {{\mathds R}}$ has to exist. By Lemma \[lem:harmonic\_forms\] (i), $\omega:=df$ is discrete harmonic and has the required periods by Lemma \[lem:multivalued\]. Suppose that $\omega$ and $\omega'$ are two discrete harmonic differentials with the same black and white periods. Since $\omega-\omega'$ is closed, there is a multi-valued function $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda}) \to {{\mathds C}}$ such that $\omega-\omega'=df$ by Lemma \[lem:multivalued\]. But black and white periods of $f$ vanish, so $f$ is well-defined on $V(\Lambda)$ and discrete harmonic by Proposition \[lem:harmonic\_forms\] (i). By discrete Liouville’s Theorem \[th:Liouville\], $\omega-\omega'=df=0$. \[lem:holo\_harm\] Let $\omega$ be a discrete differential of type $\Diamond$. 1. $\omega$ is discrete harmonic if and only if it can be decomposed as $\omega=\omega_1+\bar{\omega}_2$, where $\omega_1,\omega_2$ are discrete holomorphic differentials. 2. $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic if and only if it can be decomposed as $\omega=\alpha+i\star\alpha$, where $\alpha$ is a discrete harmonic differential. \(i) Suppose that $\omega=\omega_1+\bar{\omega}_2$, where $\omega_1,\omega_2$ are discrete holomorphic. Then, $\omega$ is closed since $\omega_1,\omega_2$ are, and it is co-closed since $d\star\omega_k=-id\omega_k=0$ by Lemma \[lem:Hodge\_projection\]. Thus, $\omega$ is discrete harmonic. Conversely, let $\omega$ be discrete harmonic. Then, we can write $\omega=p dz_v + q d\bar{z}_v$ in a chart $z_v$ around $v\in V(\Lambda)$, where $p,q$ are complex functions on the faces incident to $v$. Define $\omega_1:=p dz_v$ and $\omega_2:=\bar{q} dz_v$ in the chart $z_v$. By Lemma \[lem:Hodge\_projection\], $\omega_1,\omega_2$ are well defined on the whole discrete Riemann surface as the projections of $\omega$ onto the $\pm i$-eigenspaces of $\star$. Since $\omega$ is closed, $0=d\omega|_{F_v}=\left(\partial_{\Diamond} q (v) - \bar{\partial}_{\Diamond} p(v)\right)\Omega^{z_v}_\Lambda$, so $\partial_{\Diamond} q (v) = \bar{\partial}_{\Diamond} p (v)$. Similarly, $d\star \omega|_{F_v}=0$ implies $\partial_{\Diamond} q (v) = -\bar{\partial}_{\Diamond} p (v)$. Thus, $\bar{\partial}_{\Diamond} p(v)=0=\partial_{\Diamond} q(v)$, i.e., $p,\bar{q}$ are discrete holomorphic in $v$. It follows that $\omega_1,\omega_2$ are discrete holomorphic. \(ii) Suppose that $\omega=\alpha+i\star\alpha$. Then, $d\omega=0$ because $\alpha$ is closed and co-closed. In addition, we have $\star \omega=\star\alpha-i\alpha=-i\omega$. By Lemma \[lem:Hodge\_projection\], $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic. Conversely, for discrete harmonic $\omega$ we define $\alpha:=(\omega+\bar{\omega})/2$ that is discrete harmonic by (i) and that satisfies $\omega=\alpha+i\star\alpha$ by construction. \[cor:dimension\] The complex vector space $\mathcal{H}$ of discrete holomorphic differentials has dimension $2g$. Using that $\langle\omega_1,\bar{\omega_2}\rangle=\omega_1\wedge \star\omega_2=0$ for discrete holomorphic differentials $\omega_1,\omega_2$, Lemma \[lem:holo\_harm\] implies that the space of discrete harmonic differentials $H$ is a direct orthogonal sum of the spaces of discrete holomorphic and discrete antiholomorphic one-forms, $\mathcal{H}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{H}}$. Due to Theorem \[th:harmonic\_existence\], $\textnormal{dim } H=4g$. Since $\mathcal{H}$ and $\bar{\mathcal{H}}$ are isomorphic, $\textnormal{dim } \mathcal{H}=2g$. As for the space of discrete harmonic differentials, the dimension of $\mathcal{H}$ is twice as high as the one of its classical counterpart due to the splitting of periods into black and white periods. \[lem:holomorphic\_periods\] Let $\omega\neq 0$ be a discrete holomorphic differential whose black and white periods are given by $A_k^B,B_k^B$ and $A_k^W,B_k^W$, $1\leq k \leq g$. Then, $$\operatorname{Im}\left(\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^B \bar{B}_k^W+A_k^W \bar{B}_k^B \right)\right) <0.$$ Since $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic, $\omega$ and $\bar{\omega}$ are closed. Thus, we can apply the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\] to them: $$\begin{aligned} \iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \bar{\omega}= \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^B \bar{B}_k^W-B_k^B {\bar{A}}_k^W\right)+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^W {\bar{B}}_k^B-B_k^W {\bar{A}}_k^B\right)=\sum_{k=1}^g i\operatorname{Im}\left(A_k^B \bar{B}_k^W+A_k^W \bar{B}_k^B \right).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $\omega \wedge \bar{\omega}$ vanishes on faces $F_v$ of $X$ corresponding to vertices $v\in V(\Lambda)$ and in a chart $z_Q$ of $Q\in F(\Lambda)$, $\omega \wedge \bar{\omega}=|p|^2 \Omega^{z_Q}_\Diamond$ if $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}=p dz_Q$. Since $\omega \neq 0$, $p \neq 0$ for at least one $Q$ and $$\operatorname{Im}\left(\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^B \bar{B}_k^W+A_k^W \bar{B}_k^B \right)\right)=\operatorname{Im}\left(\iint_{F(X)} \omega \wedge \bar{\omega}\right)< 0. \qedhere$$ \[cor:periods\_vanish\] Let $\omega$ be a discrete holomorphic differential. 1. If all black and white $a$-periods of $\omega$ vanish, then $\omega=0$. 2. If all black and white periods of $\omega$ are real, then $\omega=0$. If all black and white $a$-periods vanish or all black and white periods of $\omega$ are real, then $$\operatorname{Im}\left(\sum_{k=1}^g \left(A_k^B \bar{B}_k^W+A_k^W \bar{B}_k^B \right)\right) =0.$$ In particular, $\omega=0$ by Lemma \[lem:holomorphic\_periods\]. \[th:holomorphic\_existence\] Let $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ be a compact discrete Riemann surface of genus $g$. 1. For any $2g$ complex numbers $A_k^B,A_k^W$, $1\leq k\leq g$, there exists exactly one discrete holomorphic differential $\omega$ with these black and white $a$-periods. 2. For any $4g$ real numbers $\operatorname{Re}\left(A_k^B\right),\operatorname{Re}\left(B_k^B\right),\operatorname{Re}\left(A_k^W\right),\operatorname{Re}\left(B_k^W\right)$, there exists exactly one discrete holomorphic differential $\omega$ such that its black and white periods have these real parts. Let us consider the complex-linear map $P_1:\mathcal{H}\to{{\mathds C}}^{2g}$ that assigns to each discrete holomorphic differential its black and white $a$-periods and the real-linear map $P_2:\mathcal{H}\to{{\mathds R}}^{4g}$ that assigns to each discrete holomorphic differential the real parts of its black and white periods. By Corollary \[cor:periods\_vanish\], $P_1$ and $P_2$ are injective. By Corollary \[cor:dimension\], $\mathcal{H}$ has complex dimension $2g$, so $P_1$ and $P_2$ have to be surjective. Discrete period matrices {#sec:period_matrices} ------------------------ Discrete period matrices in the special case of real weights $\rho_Q$ were already studied by Mercat in [@Me01b; @Me07]. In [@BoSk12], a proof of convergence of discrete period matrices to their continuous counterparts was given and the case of complex weights was sketched. By Theorem \[th:holomorphic\_existence\], there exists exactly one discrete holomorphic differential with prescribed black and white $a$-periods. Having a limit of finer and finer quadrangulations of a Riemann surface in mind, it is natural to demand that black and white $a$-periods coincide. The unique set of $g$ discrete holomorphic differentials $\omega_k$ that satisfies for all $1\leq j,k \leq g$ the equation $2\int_{Ba_j}\omega_k=2\int_{Wa_j}\omega_k=\delta_{jk}$ is called *canonical*. The $(g\times g)$-pmatrix $\left(\Pi_{jk}\right)_{j,k=1}^g$ with entries $\Pi_{jk}:=\int_{b_j}\omega_k$ is the *discrete period pmatrix* of the discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$. The definition of the discrete period pmatrix as the arithmetic mean of black and white periods was already given in [@BoSk12], adapting Mercat’s definition in [@Me01b; @Me07]. In our notation with discrete differentials defined on the medial graph it becomes clear why this is a natural choice. Still, it is reasonable to consider black and white periods separately to encode all possible information. We end up with the same matrices Mercat defined in [@Me01b; @Me07]. Let $\omega_k^B$, $1\leq k \leq g$, be the unique discrete holomorphic differential with black $a_j$-period $\delta_{jk}$ and vanishing white $a$-periods. Furthermore, let $\omega_k^W$, $1\leq k \leq g$, be the unique discrete holomorphic differential with white $a_j$-period $\delta_{jk}$ and vanishing black $a$-periods. The basis of these $2g$ discrete differentials is called the *canonical basis (of discrete holomorphic differentials)*. We define the $(g\times g)$-matrices $\Pi^{B,B},\Pi^{W,B},\Pi^{B,W},\Pi^{W,W}$ with entries $$\begin{aligned} \Pi^{B,B}_{jk}:=2\int_{Bb_j}\omega^B_k, \quad \Pi^{W,B}_{jk}:=2\int_{Wb_j}\omega^B_k,\quad \Pi^{B,W}_{jk}:=2\int_{Bb_j}\omega^W_k, \quad \Pi^{W,W}_{jk}:=2\int_{Wb_j}\omega^W_k.\end{aligned}$$ The *complete discrete period pmatrix* is the $(2g\times 2g)$-pmatrix defined by $$\tilde{\Pi}:=\left( \begin{matrix} \Pi^{B,W} & \Pi^{B,B}\\ \Pi^{W,W} & \Pi^{W,B}\end{matrix}\right).$$ Note that $\omega_k=\omega_k^W+\omega_k^B$ implies that $\Pi=(\Pi^{B,W} + \Pi^{B,B}+ \Pi^{W,W} + \Pi^{W,B})/2$. In the example of a bipartitely quadrangulated flat torus $\Sigma={{\mathds C}}/({{\mathds Z}}+{{\mathds Z}}\tau)$ of modulus $\tau \in {{\mathds C}}$ with $\operatorname{Im}\tau >0$, the classical period of the Riemann surface $\Sigma$ is $\tau$. In the discrete setup, $dz$ is globally defined and discrete holomorphic. It follows that the discrete period $\Pi$ equals the $b$-period of $dz$ that is $\tau$. Thus, discrete and smooth period coincide in this case. Although the black and white $a$-periods of the canonical set of discrete holomorphic differentials coincide by definition, the black and white $b$-periods must not in general. A counterexample was given in [@BoSk12], namely the bipartite quad-decomposition of a torus induced by the triangulation given by identifying opposite sides of the base of the side surface of a regular square pyramid and its dual. \[th:period\_pmatrix\] Both the discrete period pmatrix $\Pi$ and the complete discrete period pmatrix $\tilde{\Pi}$ are symmetric and their imaginary parts are positive definite. Let $\{\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_g\}$ be the canonical set of discrete holomorphic differentials used to compute $\Pi$. By looking at the coordinate representations, $\omega_j \wedge \omega_k=0$ for all $j,k$. Inserting this into the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\], the periods of $\omega:=\omega_j$ and $\omega':=\omega_k$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned} 0&=\sum_{l=1}^g \left(A_l^B {B'_l}^W-B_l^B {A'_l}^W\right)+\sum_{l=1}^g \left(A_l^W {B'_l}^B-B_l^W {A'_l}^B\right)={B'_j}^W-B_k^B+{B'_j}^B-B_k^W=2\Pi_{jk}-2\Pi_{kj}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying the same arguments to discrete differentials of the canonical basis $\{\omega_1^W,\ldots,\omega_g^W,\omega_1^B,\ldots,\omega_g^B\}$, $$(\Pi^{B,W})^T=\Pi^{B,W} \textnormal{ and } (\Pi^{W,B})^T=\Pi^{W,B}$$ if we apply the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\] to all pairs $\omega_j^W,\omega_k^W$ and $\omega_j^B,\omega_k^B$, respectively. Considering pairs $\omega_j^W,\omega_k^B$ yields $(\Pi^{B,B})^T=\Pi^{W,W}.$ Thus, $\Pi$ and $\tilde{\Pi}$ are symmetric. Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_g)^T$ be a nonzero real column vector. Applying Lemma \[lem:holomorphic\_periods\] to the discrete holomorphic differential $\omega:=\sum_{k=1}^g \alpha_k \omega_k$ with black and white $a_k$-period $\alpha_k$ yields $$0>\operatorname{Im}\left(\sum_{k=1}^g \left(\alpha_k \sum_{j=1}^g\alpha_j 2\overline{\Pi}_{kj}\right)\right)=-2\operatorname{Im}\left(\alpha^T \Pi \alpha\right).$$ Hence, $\operatorname{Im}(\Pi)$ is positive definite. Similarly, $\operatorname{Im}(\tilde{\Pi})$ is positive definite. Since black and white $b$-periods of a discrete holomorphic differential do not have to coincide even if their black and white $a$-periods do, the discrete period matrices do not change similarly to the classical theory if another canonical homology basis is chosen, but the complete discrete period matrices do. \[prop:transformation\] The complete discrete period matrices $\tilde{\Pi}$ and $\tilde{\Pi}'$ corresponding to the canonical homology bases $\left\{a,b\right\}$ and $\left\{a',b'\right\}$, respectively, are related by $$\tilde{\Pi}'=\left(\tilde{C}+\tilde{D}\tilde{\Pi}\right)\left(\tilde{A}+\tilde{B}\tilde{\Pi}\right)^{-1}.$$ Here, the two canonical bases are related by $\left( \begin{smallmatrix} a' \\ b'\end{smallmatrix}\right)=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} A & B\\ C & D\end{smallmatrix}\right) \left( \begin{smallmatrix} a \\ b\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and the $(2g\times 2g)$-matrices $\tilde{A},\tilde{B},\tilde{C},\tilde{D}$ are given by $\tilde{A}:=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} A & 0\\ 0 & A\end{smallmatrix}\right),\tilde{B}:=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} B & 0\\ 0 & B\end{smallmatrix}\right),\tilde{C}:=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} C & 0\\ 0 & C\end{smallmatrix}\right),\tilde{D}:=\left( \begin{smallmatrix} D & 0\\ 0 & D\end{smallmatrix}\right).$ Let $\omega = (\omega_1^W,\ldots,\omega_g^W,\omega_1^B,\ldots,\omega_g^B)$ be the canonical basis of discrete holomorphic differentials corresponding to $(a,b)$. Labeling the columns of the matrices by discrete differentials and their rows by first all white and then all black cycles we get $$\int_{Wa',Ba'} \omega=\tilde{A}+\tilde{B}\tilde{\Pi}, \quad \int_{Wb',Bb'} \omega=\tilde{C}+\tilde{D}\tilde{\Pi}.$$ Thus, the canonical basis $\omega'$ corresponding to $(a',b')$ is given by $\omega'=\omega\left(\tilde{A}+\tilde{B}\tilde{\Pi}\right)^{-1}$ and $$\tilde{\Pi}'=\int_{Wb',Bb'} \omega'=\int_{Wb',Bb'} \omega \left(\tilde{A}+\tilde{B}\tilde{\Pi}\right)^{-1} =\left(\tilde{C}+\tilde{D}\tilde{\Pi}\right)\left(\tilde{A}+\tilde{B}\tilde{\Pi}\right)^{-1}.\qedhere$$ Discrete theory of Abelian differentials {#sec:Abelian_theory} ======================================== After introducing discrete Abelian differentials in Section \[sec:Abelian\_differentials\] and discussing several properties of them, the aim of Section \[sec:RR\] is to state and prove the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem \[th:Riemann\_Roch\]. We conclude this chapter by discussing discrete Abel-Jacobi maps in Section \[sec:Abel\]. Throughout this section, we consider a compact discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ of genus $g$. Let $\{a_1,\ldots,a_g,b_1,\ldots,b_g\}$ be a canonical basis of its homology, $\{\omega_1, \ldots, \omega_g\}$ the canonical set and $\{\omega_1^B, \omega_1^W \ldots, \omega_g^B, \omega_g^W\}$ the canonical basis of discrete holomorphic differentials. Discrete Abelian differentials {#sec:Abelian_differentials} ------------------------------ A discrete differential $\omega$ of type $\Diamond$ is said to be a *discrete Abelian differential*. For a vertex $v\in V(\Lambda)$ and its corresponding face $F_v \in F(X)$, the *residue* of $\omega$ at $v$ is defined as $$\textnormal{res}_v (\omega) := \frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{\partial F_v} \omega.$$ By definition, the discrete integral of a discrete differential of type $\Diamond$ around a face $F_Q$ corresponding to $Q \in V(\Diamond)$ is always zero. For this reason, a residue at faces $Q \in V(\Diamond)$ is not defined. \[prop:residue\] Discrete residue theorem: Let $\omega$ be a discrete Abelian differential. Then, the sum of all residues of $\omega$ at black vertices vanishes as well as the sum of all residues of $\omega$ at white vertices: $$\sum_{b \in V(\Gamma)} \textnormal{res}_b (\omega)=0=\sum_{w \in V(\Gamma^*)} \textnormal{res}_w (\omega).$$ Since $\omega$ is of type $\Diamond$, $\int_{[Q,b_-]} \omega=-\int_{[Q,b_+]} \omega$ if $b_-,b_+$ are two black vertices incident to a quadrilateral $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ and $[Q,b_-]$ and $[Q,b_+]$ are oriented in such a way that they go clockwise around $F_Q$. Equivalently, they are oriented in such a way that they go counterclockwise around $F_{b_-}$ and $F_{b_+}$, respectively. It follows that the sum of all residues of $\omega$ at black vertices can be arranged in pairwise canceling contributions. Thus, the sum is zero. Similarly, $\sum_{w \in V(\Gamma^*)} \textnormal{res}_w (\omega)=0$. Let $\omega$ be a discrete Abelian differential, $v\in V(\Lambda)$, $Q \in V(\Diamond)$, and $F_Q$ the face of $X$ corresponding to $Q$. If $\omega$ has a nonzero residue at $v$, then $v$ is a *simple pole* of $\omega$. If $z_Q$ is a chart of $Q$ and $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}$ is not of the form $p dz_Q$, $p\in {{\mathds C}}$, then $Q$ is a *double pole* of $\omega$. If $\omega|_{\partial F_Q}=0$, then $Q$ is a *zero* of $\omega$. To say that quadrilaterals $Q$ where $\omega \neq pdz_Q$ are double poles of $\omega$ is well motivated. In [@BoG15], the existence of functions $K_Q$ on $V(\Lambda)$ that are discrete holomorphic at all but one fixed face $Q \in V(\Diamond)$ was shown. These functions appeared in the discrete Cauchy’s integral formulae and model $z^{-1}$ besides its asymptotics. Similarly, $\partial_\Lambda K_Q$ models $-z^{-2}$. Now, $dK_Q$ should be like $-z^{-2} dz$, modeling a double pole at $Q$. By construction, $dK_Q$ is a discrete Abelian differential that is of the form $pdz_{Q'}$ in any chart $z_{Q'}$ around a face $Q' \neq Q$. But in a chart $z_Q$, $dK_Q=pdz_Q+qd\bar{z}_Q$ with $q\neq 0$. Let $\omega$ be a discrete Abelian differential. If $\omega$ is discrete holomorphic, then we say that $\omega$ is a *discrete Abelian differential of the first kind*. If $\omega$ is not discrete holomorphic, but all its residues vanish, then it is a *discrete Abelian differential of the second kind*. A discrete Abelian differential whose residues do not vanish identically is said to be a *discrete Abelian differential of the third kind*. As in the classical setup, there exists a set of normalized discrete Abelian differentials with certain prescribed poles and residues that can be normalized such that their $a$-periods vanish. In the case of a Delaunay-Voronoi quadrangulation, the existence of corresponding normalized discrete Abelian integrals of the second kind and discrete Abelian differentials of the third kind was shown in [@BoSk12]. Our proofs will be similar, but in addition, we obtain the existence of certain discrete Abelian differentials of the second kind as a corollary. The computation of the $b$-periods of the normalized discrete Abelian differentials of the third kind is also new. \[prop:existence\_third\] Let $v,v' \in V(\Gamma)$ or $v,v' \in V(\Gamma^*)$. Then, there exists a discrete Abelian differential of the third kind $\omega$ whose only poles are at $v$ and $v'$ and whose residues are $\textnormal{res}_\omega(v)=-\textnormal{res}_\omega(v')=1$. Any two such discrete differentials differ just by a discrete holomorphic differential. Clearly, the difference of two discrete Abelian differentials of the third kind with equal residues and no double poles has no poles at all, so it is discrete holomorphic. Let $V$ be the vector space of all discrete Abelian differentials that have no double poles. For any $Q \in V(\Diamond) \cong F(\Lambda)$, we choose one chart $z_Q$. By definition, each $\omega \in V$ is of the form $pdz_Q$ at $Q$. Conversely, any function $p:V(\Diamond)\to{{\mathds C}}$ defines by $pdz_Q$ a discrete Abelian differential that has no double poles. Thus, the complex dimension of $V$ equals $|F(\Lambda)|$. Now, let $W$ be the image in ${{\mathds C}}^{|V(\Lambda)|}$ of the linear map $\textnormal{res}$ that assigns to each $\omega \in V$ all its residues at vertices of $\Lambda$. By Proposition \[prop:residue\], the residues at all black points sum up to zero as well as all residues at white vertices. Thus, the complex dimension of $W$ is at most $|V(\Lambda)|-2$. Since $\Lambda$ is a quad-decomposition, $|V(\Lambda)|-2=|F(\Lambda)|-2g$. Therefore, the dimension of $W$ is at most $|F(\Lambda)|-2g$. On the other hand, the dimension of $W$ equals $|F(\Lambda)|$ minus the dimension of the kernel of the map $\textnormal{res}$. But if $\omega \in V$ has vanishing residues, then it is discrete holomorphic. Due to Corollary \[cor:dimension\], the space of discrete holomorphic differentials is $2g$-dimensional. For this reason, $\textnormal{dim }W=|F(\Lambda)|-2g=|V(\Lambda)|-2$. In particular, we can find a discrete Abelian differential without double poles for any prescribed residues that sum up to zero at all black and at all white vertices. \[cor:existence\_second\] Given a quadrilateral $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ and a chart $z_Q$, there exists a unique discrete Abelian differential of the second kind that is of the form $$pdz_Q-\frac{\pi}{2\textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))} d\bar{z}_Q$$ in the chart $z_Q$, that has no other poles, and whose black and white $a$-periods vanish. This discrete differential is denoted by $\omega_Q$. Here, $\textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))$ denotes the Euclidean area of the parallelogram $z_Q(F_Q)$. Consider the discrete Abelian differential of the third kind $\omega$ that is given by the local representation $-\pi/\left(2\textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))\right)d\bar{z}_Q$ at the four edges of $F_Q$ and zero everywhere else. Its only poles other than $Q$ are at the four vertices incident to $Q$ and since $\omega$ is of type $\Diamond$, residues at opposite vertices are equal up to sign. Using Proposition \[prop:existence\_third\] twice, we can find a discrete Abelian differential $\omega'$ that has no double poles and whose residues equal the residues of $\omega$. To get vanishing black and white $a$-periods, Theorem \[th:holomorphic\_existence\] allows us to add a suitable discrete holomorphic differential $\omega''$ such that $\omega_Q:=\omega-\omega'+\omega''$ is what we are looking for. Since the difference of two such discrete differentials has vanishing black and white $a$-periods, uniqueness follows by Corollary \[cor:periods\_vanish\]. As in the classical case, $\omega_Q$ depends on the choice of the chart $z_Q$. In our setting, the coefficient of $d\bar{z}_Q$ of $\omega_Q$ equals $-\bar{\partial}_\Lambda K_Q(Q) = -\pi /\left(2 \textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))\right)$. \[lem:property\_second\] Let $Q\neq Q' \in F(\Lambda)$ and let $\omega_Q,\omega_{Q'}$ be the discrete Abelian differentials of the second kind corresponding to the charts $z_Q,z_{Q'}$. Define complex numbers $\alpha, \beta$ in such a way that $\omega_Q=\alpha dz_{Q'}$ on the four edges of $F_{Q'}$ and $\omega_{Q'}=\beta dz_{Q}$ on the four edges of $F_{Q}$. Then, $\alpha=\beta$. By definition, $\omega_Q$ and $\omega_{Q'}$ are closed discrete differentials whose black and white $a$-periods vanish. So by the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\], $\iint_{F(X)} \omega_Q \wedge \omega_{Q'}=0$. Since $\omega_Q$ and $\omega_{Q'}$ have no pole at a face of $X$ corresponding to a quadrilateral $Q''\neq Q,Q'$, $\left(\omega_Q \wedge \omega_{Q'}\right)|_{F_{Q''}}=0$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned} 0&=\iint_{F(X)}\omega_Q \wedge \omega_{Q'}=-\iint_{F_Q}\omega_{Q'} \wedge \omega_Q+\iint_{F_{Q'}}\omega_Q \wedge \omega_{Q'}\\ &=\frac{\beta\pi}{2\textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))}\iint_{F_Q}dz_Q\wedge d\bar{z}_Q-\frac{\alpha\pi}{2\textnormal{area}(z_{Q'}(F_{Q'}))}\iint_{F_{Q'}}dz_{Q'}\wedge d\bar{z}_{Q'}=-2\pi i (\beta-\alpha). \qedhere\end{aligned}$$ \[prop:periods\_second\] Let $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ and let $\omega_Q$ be the discrete Abelian differential of the second kind corresponding to the chart $z_Q$. Suppose that $\omega_k|_{\partial F_Q}=\alpha_k dz_Q$ for $k=1,\ldots,g$. Then, $\int_{b_k} \omega_Q=2\pi i \alpha_k$. In a chart $z_{Q'}$ of a face $Q' \neq Q$, $\omega_k$ and $\omega_Q$ are both of the form $pdz_{Q'}$, so $\omega_k \wedge \omega_Q$ vanishes at $F_{Q'}$. It follows from the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\] applied to $\omega_k$ and $\omega_Q$ that $$\int_{b_k} \omega_Q=\int_{W b_k} \omega_Q+\int_{B b_k} \omega_Q=\iint_{F(X)} \omega_k \wedge \omega_Q=\frac{-\alpha_k\pi}{2\textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))}\iint_{F_Q} dz_Q \wedge d\bar{z}_Q=2\pi i \alpha_k$$ since black and white $a$-periods of $\omega_Q$ vanish. Since discrete Abelian differentials of the third kind have residues, periods are not well-defined. However, periods of the discrete Abelian differentials constructed in Proposition \[prop:existence\_third\] are defined modulo $2\pi i$. To normalize them, we think of $a_k,b_k$ as given closed curves $\alpha'_k,\beta'_k$ on $X$. Let $\alpha'_k,\beta'_k$, $1\leq k \leq g$, be cycles on $X$ in the homotopy classes $a_k,b_k$. Let $v,v' \in V(\Gamma)$ or $v,v' \in V(\Gamma^*)$. Then, $\omega_{vv'}$ denotes the unique discrete Abelian differential whose integrals along $\alpha'_k,\beta'_k$ are zero, whose nonzero residues are given by $\textnormal{res}_\omega(v)=-\textnormal{res}_\omega(v')=1$, and that has no further poles. Let $R$ be an oriented path on $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma^*$ and $\omega$ a discrete Abelian differential. To each oriented edge in $R$ we choose one of the corresponding parallel edges of $X$ and orient it the same. By $R_X$, we denote the resulting one-chain on $X$. Then, $\int_R \omega:=2\int_{R_X}\omega$. \[prop:periods\_third\] Let $v,v' \in V(\Gamma)$ or $v,v' \in V(\Gamma^*)$. Suppose that the cycles $\alpha'_k,\beta'_k$ on $X$ are homotopic to closed paths $\alpha_k,\beta_k$ on $\Sigma$ cutting out a fundamental polygon with $4g$ vertices on the surface $\Sigma \backslash \{v,v'\}$. In addition, let $R$ be an oriented path on $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma^*$ from $v'$ to $v$ that does not intersect any of the curves $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_g,\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_g$. Then, $$\int_{b_k}\omega_{vv'}=2\pi i \int_R \omega_k.$$ On the one hand, $\omega_k \wedge \omega_{vv'}=0$ since both discrete Abelian differentials are of the form $pdz_Q$ in any chart $z_Q$. On the other hand, we can find a discrete holomorphic multi-valued function $f:V(\tilde{\Lambda})\to {{\mathds C}}$ such that $df=\omega_k$ by Lemma \[lem:multivalued\]. Since $d$ is a derivation by Theorem \[th:derivation\], $$0=\omega_k \wedge \omega_{vv'}= d(f\omega_{vv'})-fd\omega_{vv'}$$ is true if $\omega_k,\omega_{vv'}$ are lifted to $\tilde{X}$. Now, choose a collection $\tilde{F}(X)$ of lifts of all faces of $X$ to $\tilde{X}$ such that the corresponding lifts $\tilde{v}$ and $\tilde{v}'$ of $v$ and $v'$ are connected by a lift of $R$ in $\tilde{\Gamma}$ or $\tilde{\Gamma}^*$. It is not necessary that all faces of $\tilde{X}$ intersecting the lift of $R$ are contained in $\tilde{F}(X)$. Due to discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\], $d\omega_{vv'}=0$ on all lifts of faces $F_Q$ corresponding to $Q\in V(\Diamond)$ or faces $F_{v''}$ corresponding to a vertex $v''\neq v,v'$. Using $\textnormal{res}_\omega(v)=-\textnormal{res}_\omega(v')=1$, discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\] gives $$\int_{\partial \tilde{F}(X)} f\omega_{vv'}=\iint_{\tilde{F}(X)} d(f\omega_{vv'})=\iint_{\tilde{F}(X)} fd\omega_{vv'}=2\pi i\left(f(\tilde{v})-f(\tilde{v}')\right)=2\pi i\int_{R} \omega_k.$$ The left hand side can be calculated in exactly the same way as in the proof of the discrete Riemann Bilinear Identity \[th:RBI\]. The only essential difference is that when we extend $\omega_{vv'}$ to a subdivision of lifts $\tilde{F}_{v}$ or $\tilde{F}_{v'}$, the extended one-form shall have zero residues at all new faces but one containing $v$ or $v'$, where it should remain $1$ or $-1$. As a result, we obtain $\int_{b_k}\omega_{vv'}$, observing that almost all black and white $a$-periods of $f$ and $\omega_{vv'}$ vanish. Results analogous to Propositions \[prop:periods\_second\] and \[prop:periods\_third\] are true for the black and white $b$-periods of $\omega_Q$ and $\omega_{vv'}$, replacing $\omega_k$ by $\omega_k^B$ or $\omega_k^W$. \[prop:basis\] Let a chart $z_Q$ to each $Q \in F(\Lambda)$ be given. Fix $b \in V(\Gamma)$ and $w \in V(\Gamma^*)$. Then, the normalized discrete Abelian differentials of the first kind $\omega_k^B$ and $\omega_k^W$, $k=1,\ldots,g$, of the second kind $\omega_Q$, $Q \in F(\Lambda)$, and of the third kind $\omega_{bb'}$ and $\omega_{ww'}$, $b'\neq b$ being black and $w'\neq w$ being white vertices, form a basis of the space of discrete Abelian differentials. Linear independence is clear. Given any discrete Abelian differential, we can first use the $\omega_Q$ to eliminate all double poles. For the resulting discrete Abelian differential we can find linear combinations of $\omega_{bb'}$ and $\omega_{ww'}$ that have the same residues at black and white vertices, respectively. We end up with a discrete holomorphic differential that can be represented by a linear combination of the $2g$ discrete differentials $\omega_k^B$ and $\omega_k^W$. Divisors and the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem {#sec:RR} ---------------------------------------------- We generalize the notion of divisors on a compact discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ of genus $g$ and the discrete Riemann-Roch theorem given in [@BoSk12] to general quad-decompositions. In addition, we define double poles of discrete Abelian differentials and double values of functions $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$. A *divisor* $D$ is a formal linear combination $$D=\sum_{j=1}^M m_j v_j + \sum_{k=1}^N n_k Q_k,$$ where $m_j\in \left\{-1,0,1\right\}$, $v_j \in V(\Lambda)$, $n_k \in \left\{-2,-1,0,1,2\right\}$, and $Q_k \in V(\Diamond)$. $D$ is *admissible* if even $m_j\in \left\{-1,0\right\}$ and $n_k \in \left\{-2,0,1\right\}$. Its *degree* is defined as $$\deg D:=\sum_{j=1}^M m_j + \sum_{k=1}^N \textnormal{sign}(n_k).$$ $D\geq D'$ if the formal sum $D-D'$ is a divisor whose coefficients are all nonnegative. Note that double points just count once in the degree. The reason is that these points correspond to double values and not to double zeroes of a discrete meromorphic function. Concerning discrete Abelian differentials, a double pole does not include a simple pole and therefore counts once. As noted in [@BoSk12], divisors on a discrete Riemann surface do not form an Abelian group. One of the reasons is that the pointwise product of discrete holomorphic functions does not need to be discrete holomorphic itself, another one is the asymmetry of point spaces. Whereas discrete meromorphic functions will be defined on $V(\Lambda)$, discrete Abelian differentials are essentially defined by complex functions on $V(\Diamond)$, supposed that a chart for each quadrilateral is fixed. Let $f:V(\Lambda) \to {{\mathds C}}$, $v \in V(\Lambda)$, and $Q \in F(\Lambda)\cong V(\Diamond)$. $f$ is called *discrete meromorphic*. - $f$ has a *zero* at $v$ if $f(v)=0$. - $f$ has a *simple pole* at $Q$ if $df$ has a double pole at $Q$. - $f$ has a *double value* at $Q$ if $df|_{\partial F_Q}=0$. If $f$ has zeroes $v_1,\ldots,v_M \in V(\Lambda)$, double values $Q_1,\ldots,Q_N \in V(\Diamond)$, and poles $Q'_1,\ldots,Q'_{N'} \in V(\Diamond)$, then its *divisor* is defined as $$(f):=\sum_{j=1}^M v_j + \sum_{k=1}^N 2Q_k - \sum_{k'=1}^{N'} Q'_{k'}.$$ Note that in the smooth setting, a double value of a smooth function $f$ is a point where $f-c$ has a double zero for some constant $c$. In the discrete setup, a double value at a quadrilateral $Q$ implies that the values of the discrete function $f$ at both black vertices coincide as well as at the two white vertices of $Q$. In this sense, double values are separated from the points where the function is evaluated. Let $\omega$ be a discrete Abelian differential. If $\omega$ has zeroes $Q_1,\ldots,Q_N \in V(\Diamond)$, double poles at $Q'_1,\ldots,Q'_{N'} \in V(\Diamond)$, and simple poles at $v_1,\ldots,v_M \in V(\Lambda)$, then its *divisor* is defined as $$(\omega):=\sum_{k=1}^N Q_k - \sum_{k'=1}^{N'} 2Q'_{k'}-\sum_{j=1}^M v_j.$$ In the linear theory of discrete Riemann surfaces the (pointwise) product of discrete holomorphic functions is not discrete holomorphic function in general. That is also the reason why we cannot give a local definition of poles and zeroes of higher order. However, in Section \[sec:branch\] we merged several branch points to define one branch point of higher order. In a slightly different way, we can consider a finite subgraph $\Diamond_0\subseteq\Diamond$ that forms a simply-connected closed region consisting of $F$ quadrilaterals, where each quadrilateral is a double value of the discrete meromorphic function $f$, as one multiple value of order $F+1$. Then, $f$ takes the same value at all black vertices of $\Diamond_0$ and at all white vertices of $\Diamond_0$. If $\Diamond_0$ contains no interior vertex, both the numbers of black and of white vertices equal $F+1$, and if in addition $f$ equals zero at each black vertex, then we can interpret the $F+1$ black vertices of $\Diamond_0$ as a zero of order $F+1$. In a similar way, double poles of discrete Abelian differentials can be merged to a pole of higher order. Unfortunately, we do not see a way how higher order poles of discrete meromorphic functions or multiple zeroes of discrete Abelian differentials can be defined. Let $D$ be a divisor. By $L(D)$ we denote the complex vector space of discrete meromorphic functions $f$ that vanish identically or whose divisor satisfies $(f)\geq D$. Similarly, $H(D)$ denotes the complex vector space of discrete Abelian differentials $\omega$ such that $\omega \equiv 0$ or $(\omega)\geq D$. The dimensions of these spaces are denoted by $l(D)$ and $i(D)$, respectively. We are now able to formulate and prove the following *discrete Riemann-Roch theorem*. \[th:Riemann\_Roch\] If $D$ is an admissible divisor on a compact discrete Riemann surface of genus $g$, then $$l(-D)=\deg D-2g+2+i(D).$$ We write $D=D_0-D_{\infty}$, where $D_0,D_{\infty}\geq 0$. Since $D$ is admissible, $D_0$ is a sum of elements of $V(\Diamond)$, all coefficients being one. Let $V_0$ denote the set of $Q\in V(\Diamond)$ such that $D_0\geq Q$. For each $Q \in V(\Diamond)$, we fix a chart $z_Q$. As in Proposition \[prop:basis\], we denote the normalized Abelian differentials of the first kind by $\omega_k^B$ and $\omega_k^W$, $k=1,\ldots,g$, these of the second kind by $\omega_Q$, $Q \in V(\Diamond)$, and these of the third kind by $\omega_{bb'}$ and $\omega_{ww'}$, $b'\neq b$ being black and $w'\neq w$ being white vertices, $b \in V(\Gamma)$ and $w \in V(\Gamma^*)$ fixed. Now, we investigate the image $H$ of the discrete exterior derivative $d$ on functions in $L(-D)$. $H$ consists of discrete Abelian differentials and only biconstant functions are in the kernel. Let $f\in L(-D)$. Then, $df$ is a discrete Abelian differential that might have double poles at the points of $D_0$. In addition, all the residues and periods of $df$ vanish. So since the discrete Abelian differentials above form a basis by Proposition \[prop:basis\], $$df=\sum_{Q\in V_0} f_Q \omega_Q$$ for some complex numbers $f_Q$. Now, all black and white $b$-periods of $df$ vanish. Using Proposition \[prop:periods\_second\] and the remark at the end of Section \[sec:Abelian\_differentials\] on the black and white $b$-periods of $\omega_Q$, $$\sum_{Q\in V_0} f_Q\alpha_k^B(Q)=0=\sum_{Q\in V_0} f_Q\alpha_k^W(Q),$$ where $\omega_k^B|_{\partial F_Q}=\alpha_k^B(Q) dz_Q$ and $\omega_k^W|_{\partial F_Q}=\alpha_k^W(Q) dz_Q$ for $k=1,\ldots,g$. In the chart $z_{Q'}$ of a face $Q'\neq Q$, $\omega_{Q}$ can be written as $\beta_{Q}(Q')dz_{Q'}$. So if $D_{\infty}\geq 2P$, $P\in V(\Diamond)$, then $f$ has a double value at $P$ and $df|_{\partial F_P}=0$ for the corresponding face $F_P$ of $X$. Due to Lemma \[lem:property\_second\], $$0=\sum_{Q\in V_0} f_Q\beta_Q(P)=\sum_{Q\in V_0} f_Q\beta_P(Q).$$ Suppose that $D_{\infty}\geq v+v'$, where $v,v' \in V(\Gamma)$ or $v,v' \in V(\Gamma^*)$. By definition, $f$ has zeroes at $v,v'$, so $f(v)=f(v')$. The last equality remains true when a biconstant function is added. This yields an additional restriction to $H$. Now, using discrete Stokes’ Theorem \[th:stokes\], $d\omega_{vv'}$ equals $2\pi i$ when integrated over $F_v$, $-2\pi i$ when integrated over $F_{v'}$, and zero around all other vertices. Also, it follows that $\iint_{F(X)} d\left(f\omega_{vv'}\right)=0$. Writing $\omega_{vv'}|_{\partial{F_Q}}=\gamma_{vv'}(Q) dz_Q$, we observe that for $Q\in V(\Diamond)$ such that $D_0\geq Q$, $$\left(df\wedge\omega_{vv'}\right)|_{F_Q}=f_Q\gamma_{vv'}(Q)\frac{\pi}{2\textnormal{area}(z_Q(F_Q))}dz_Q\wedge d\bar{z}_Q,$$ and $df\wedge\omega_{vv'}=0$ everywhere else. Using $d\left(f\omega_{vv'}\right)=fd\omega_{vv'}+df\wedge\omega_{vv'}$ by Theorem \[th:derivation\], we obtain $$0=2\pi i\left( f(v)-f(v')\right)=\iint_{F(X)} fd\omega_{vv'}=\iint_{F(X)} d\left(f\omega_{vv'}\right)-\iint_{F(X)} df\wedge\omega_{vv'}=2\pi i\sum_{Q\in V_0}f_Q\gamma_{vv'}(Q).$$ In the case that there are more than two black (or white) vertices $v$ that satisfy $D_{\infty}\geq v$, we fix one such black (or white) vertex as $b$ (or $w$). Denote by $B_0$ and $W_0$ the sets of these black and white vertices. Then, $f$ is constant on $B_0$ and $W_0$ if and only if for any $b' \in B_0$, $b'\neq b$, and $w'\in W_0$, $w'\neq w$: $$\sum_{Q\in V_0}f_Q\gamma_{bb'}(Q)=0=\sum_{Q\in V_0}f_Q\gamma_{ww'}(Q).$$ Consider the pmatrix $M$ whose $k$-th column is the column vector $\left(\alpha_k^B(Q)\right)_{Q \in V_0}$, whose $(g+k)$-th column is the column vector $\left(\alpha_k^W(Q)\right)_{Q \in V_0}$, and whose next columns are the column vectors $\left(\beta_P (Q)\right)_{Q \in V_0}$, $P\in V(\Diamond)$ such that $D_\infty\geq 2P$. In the case that $|B_0|\geq 2$, we add the column vectors $\left(\gamma_{bb'} (Q)\right)_{Q \in V_0}$, $b'\in B_0$ different from $b$, to $M$, and if $|W_0|\geq 2$, then we additionally add the column vectors $\left(\gamma_{ww'} (Q)\right)_{Q \in V_0}$, $w'\in W_0$ different from $w$. By our consideration above, $\sum_{Q\in V_0} f_Q \omega_Q$ is in $H$ only if the column vector $(f_Q)_{Q \in V_0}$ is in the kernel of $M^T$. Conversely, any element of the kernel is a closed discrete differential with vanishing periods, so it can be integrated to a discrete meromorphic function $f$ using Lemma \[lem:multivalued\]. $f$ can have poles only at $Q\in V_0$, it is biconstant on $B_0 \cup W_0$, and it has double values at all $P \in V(\Diamond)$ such that $D_{\infty} \geq 2P$. Hence, $H$ is isomorphic to the kernel of $M^T$. We obtain $$\textnormal{dim } H=\textnormal{dim } \textnormal{ker } M^T=|V_0|-\textnormal{rank } M^T=\deg D_0-\textnormal{rank } M.$$ Let us first suppose that $B_0$ and $W_0$ are both nonempty. This means that at least one zero of $f$ at a black and one at a white vertex is fixed. Therefore, $d:L(-D)\to H$ has a trivial kernel and $l(-D)=\dim H$. In addition, $\textnormal{rank } M=2g+\deg D_{\infty}-2-\textnormal{dim }\textnormal{ker } M.$ But with complex numbers $\lambda_j$, the kernel of $M$ consists of discrete Abelian differentials $$\omega=\sum_{k=1}^g \left(\lambda_k \omega_k^B+\lambda_{k+g} \omega_k^W\right)+\sum_{P: D_\infty\geq 2P} \lambda_P \omega_P+\sum_{b'\in B_0, b'\neq b}\lambda_{b'}\omega_{bb'}+\sum_{w'\in W_0, w'\neq w}\lambda_{w'}\omega_{ww'}$$ such that $\omega|_{\partial {F_Q}}=0$ for any $Q \in V_0$, so the kernel is exactly $H(D)$. It follows that $$\begin{aligned} l(-D)=\textnormal{dim } H&=\deg D_0-\textnormal{rank } M\\&=\deg D_0-2g-\deg D_{\infty}+2+\textnormal{dim }\textnormal{ker } M=\deg D-2g+2+i(D).\end{aligned}$$ If $B_0$ or $W_0$ is empty, then we can add an additive constant to all values of $f$ at black or white vertices, respectively, still getting an element of $L(-D)$. Thus, the kernel of $d:L(-D)\to H$ is one- or even two-dimensional, when both $B_0$ and $W_0$ are empty. But $\textnormal{rank } M$ is now $2g+\deg D_{\infty}-x-\textnormal{dim }\textnormal{ker } M$ with $x=1$ or $x=0$. Again, we get $l(-D)=\deg D-2g+2+i(D).$ The difference between the classical and the discrete Riemann-Roch theorem is explained by the fact that $\Lambda$ is bipartite: The space of constant functions is no longer one- but two-dimensional; instead of just $g$ $a$-periods of Abelian differentials we have $2g$, namely black and white. Furthermore, note that the interpretation of several neighboring double values (or poles) as a multiple value (or pole) of higher order is compatible with the discrete Riemann-Roch theorem. Let us just state the following corollary for a quadrangulated flat torus that was already mentioned in [@BoSk12]. The proof is a consequence of the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem \[th:Riemann\_Roch\] and the fact that $dz$ is a discrete holomorphic differential on the torus. For the second part, one uses the decomposition of a function into real and imaginary part. For details, see the thesis [@Gue14]. \[cor:torus\_poles\] Let $\Sigma={{\mathds C}}/({{\mathds Z}}+{{\mathds Z}}\tau)$ be bipartitely quadrangulated and $\operatorname{Im}\tau >0$. 1. There exists no discrete meromorphic function with exactly one simple pole. 2. Suppose that in addition the diagonals of all quadrilaterals are orthogonal to each other. Then, there exists a discrete meromorphic function with exactly two simple poles at $Q,Q' \in V(\Diamond)$ if and only if the black diagonals of $Q,Q'$ are parallel to each other. The first part of Corollary \[cor:torus\_poles\] does not remain true if we consider general discrete Riemann surfaces: \[prop:counterexample\_cauchykernel\] For any $g\geq 0$, there exists a compact discrete Riemann surface of genus $g$ such that there exists a discrete meromorphic function $f:V(\Lambda)\to{{\mathds C}}$ that has exactly one simple pole. We start with any compact discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma',\Lambda',z')$ of genus $g$ and pick one quadrilateral $Q'\in V(\Diamond')$. Now, $Q'$ is combinatorially replaced by the five quadrilaterals of Figure \[fig:stamp\]. We define the discrete complex structure of the central quadrilateral $Q$ by the complex number $\varrho_1$ and the discrete complex structure of the four neighboring quadrilaterals $Q_k$ by $\varrho_2$, $\operatorname{Re}(\varrho_k)>0$. Clearly, this construction yields a new compact discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ of genus $g$. \[white/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=white,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{}, black/.style=[circle,draw=black,fill=black,thin,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=1.2mm]{},scale=0.7\] in [-2,-1]{} [ (p\_\_1) – (p\_\_2); ]{} in [1,2]{} [ (p\_\_1) – (p\_\_2); ]{} in [-2,-1,1,2]{} [; (p\_\_1) – (p\_\_2); ]{} in [1]{} [; (p\_-\_1) – (p\_\_1); (p\_-\_2) – (p\_\_2); ; (p\_\_1) – (p\_\_1); (p\_\_2) – (p\_\_2); ]{} (phi0) at (0,0); (phi1) at (0,1.5); (phi2) at (1.5,0); (phi3) at (0,-1.5); (phi4) at (-1.5,0); (phi5) at (0.63,-0.7); (phi6) at (-0.61,0.64); (phi7) at (-0.56,-0.64); (phi8) at (0.7,0.7); For a complex number $x\neq0$, consider the function $f:V(\Lambda)\to\mathds{C}$ that fulfills $f(b_-)=x=-f(b_+)$, $f(w_+)=i\varrho_2 x=-f(w_-)$, and $f(v)=0$ for all other vertices. Then, $f$ is a discrete meromorphic function that has exactly one simple pole, namely at $Q$. Discrete Abel-Jacobi maps {#sec:Abel} ------------------------- Due to the fact that black and white periods of discrete holomorphic one-forms do not have to coincide, we cannot define a discrete Abel-Jacobi map on all of $V(\Lambda)$ and $V(\Diamond)$. However, by either restricting to black vertices (and faces) or white vertices (and faces) or considering the universal covering of the compact discrete Riemann surface $(\Sigma,\Lambda,z)$ of genus $g$, we get reasonable discretizations of the Abel-Jacobi map. Let $\omega$ denote the column vector with entries $\omega_k$, $\{\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_g\}$ being the canonical set of discrete holomorphic differentials. The $g\times g$-matrices $\Pi^B$ and $\Pi^W$ with entries $\Pi^B_{jk}:=2\int_{Bb_j}\omega_k$ and $\Pi^W_{jk}:=2\int_{Wb_j}\omega_k$ are called the *black* and *white period pmatrix*, respectively. Let $L$ denote the lattice $L:=\left\{Im+\Pi n | m,n \in \mathds{Z}^g\right\}$, where $I$ is the $(g\times g)$-identity pmatrix. Similarly, the lattices $L^B$ and $L^W$ with $\Pi^B$ and $\Pi^W$ instead of $\Pi$ are defined. Then, the complex tori $\mathcal{J}:=\mathds{C}^g/L$, $\mathcal{J}^B:=\mathds{C}^g/L^B$, and $\mathcal{J}^W:=\mathds{C}^g/L^W$ are the *discrete*, the *black*, and the *white Jacobian variety*, respectively. In the notation of Section \[sec:period\_matrices\], $\Pi^B=\Pi^{B,W}+\Pi^{B,B}$ and $\Pi^W=\Pi^{W,W}+\Pi^{W,B}$. Let $\tilde{Q},{\tilde{Q}'}\in F(\tilde{\Lambda})$, $v\in V(\tilde{\Gamma})$, $v' \in V(\tilde{\Gamma}^*)$. Let $R$ be an oriented path on $\tilde{\Gamma}$ connecting a black vertex $b\sim\tilde{Q}$ with $v$, and let $d$ be an edge of $\tilde{X}$ parallel to the black diagonal of $\tilde{Q}$ oriented toward $b$. Lifting the discrete differentials of $\omega$ to the universal covering $(\tilde{\Sigma},\tilde{\Lambda},z \circ p)$, $$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}(v):=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^B_{\tilde{Q}}(v):=\int_{\tilde{Q}}^v \omega:=\int_d \omega + \int_{R} \omega.$$ Similarly, we define $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}(v'):=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^W_{\tilde{Q}}(v'):=\int_{\tilde{Q}}^{v'} \omega$ by replacing the graph $\tilde{\Gamma}$ by $\tilde{\Gamma}^*$. Furthermore, we define $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^B_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'}):=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^B_{\tilde{Q}}(b)-\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^B_{\tilde{Q}'}(b)$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^W_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'}):=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^W_{\tilde{Q}}(w)-\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^W_{\tilde{Q}'}(w)$ for a white vertex $w$ incident to $\tilde{Q}$. Since all discrete differentials $\omega_k$ are closed, the above definitions do not depend on the choice of paths. Furthermore, $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^B_{\tilde{Q}}: V(\tilde{\Gamma}) \cup F(\tilde{\Lambda}) \to \mathds{C}^g$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^W_{\tilde{Q}}: V(\tilde{\Gamma}^*) \cup F(\tilde{\Lambda}) \to \mathds{C}^g$ actually project to well-defined maps $\mathcal{A}^B_Q : V(\Gamma) \cup V(\Diamond) \to \mathcal{J}^B$ and $\mathcal{A}^W_Q : V(\Gamma^*) \cup V(\Diamond) \to \mathcal{J}^W$ for $Q:=p(\tilde{Q})$. These *black* and *white Abel-Jacobi maps* discretize the Abel-Jacobi map at least for divisors that do not include white or black vertices, respectively. Clearly, they do not depend on the base point $Q$ for divisors of degree 0. $\tilde{Q}$ can be connected with another $\tilde{Q}'\in F(\tilde{\Lambda})$ in a more symmetric way that does not depend on a choice of either black or white, using the medial graph. Let $\tilde{Q},{\tilde{Q}'}\in F(\tilde{\Lambda})$. Let $x$ be a vertex of the face $F_{\tilde{Q}}\in F(\tilde{X})$ corresponding to $\tilde{Q}$ and $e,e'$ the two oriented edges of $F_{\tilde{Q}}$ pointing to $x$. We lift the discrete differentials of $\omega$ to the universal covering $(\tilde{\Sigma},\tilde{\Lambda},z \circ p)$. Defining $\int_{\tilde{Q}}^x \omega:=\int_e \omega/2 + \int_{e'}\omega/2$ and similarly $\int_{{\tilde{Q}'}}^{x'} \omega$ for a vertex $x'$ of $F_{\tilde{Q}'}$, $$\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'}):=\int_{\tilde{Q}}^{{\tilde{Q}'}} \omega:=\int_{\tilde{Q}}^x \omega+\int_x^{x'} \omega-\int_{{\tilde{Q}'}}^{x'} \omega.$$ $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'})$ is well-defined and does not depend on $x,x'$. In Figure \[fig:contours2\], we described how a closed path on the medial graph induces closed paths on the black and white subgraph. Similarly, a “path” connecting $\tilde{Q}$ with ${\tilde{Q}'}$ as above induces two other paths connecting both faces, a black path just using edges of $\tilde{\Gamma}$ and a white path just using edges of $\tilde{\Gamma}^*$ (and half of a diagonal each). This construction shows that $2\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'})=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^B_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'})+\tilde{\mathcal{A}}^W_{\tilde{Q}}({\tilde{Q}'})$. Thus, $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}$ defines a *discrete Abel-Jacobi map* on the divisors of the universal covering $(\tilde{\Sigma},\tilde{\Lambda},z \circ p)$ and it does not depend on the choice of base point $\tilde{Q}$ for divisors of degree 0 that contain as many black as white vertices (counted with sign). \[prop:Abel\_holomorphic\] $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}|_{V(\tilde{\Lambda})}$ is discrete holomorphic in each component. Let $\tilde{Q}' \in F(\tilde{\Lambda})$ and $z_{Q'}$ be a chart of $Q'=p(\tilde{Q}')$. Then, $\omega_k|_{\partial F_{Q'}}= p_kdz_{Q'}$ for some complex numbers $p_k$. If $\tilde{b}_-,\tilde{w}_-,\tilde{b}_+,\tilde{w}_+$ denote the vertices of $Q$ in counterclockwise order, starting with a black vertex, then $$\begin{aligned} \left(\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}\left(\tilde{b}_+\right)-\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}\left(\tilde{b}_-\right)\right)_k&=p_k\left(z_{Q'}\left(p\left(\tilde{b}_+\right)\right)-z_{Q'}\left(p\left(\tilde{b}_-\right)\right)\right),\\ \left(\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}\left(\tilde{w}_+\right)-\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}\left(\tilde{w}_-\right)\right)_k&=p_k\left(z_{Q'}\left(p\left(\tilde{w}_+\right)\right)-z_{Q'}\left(\left(\tilde{w}_-\right)\right)\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the discrete Cauchy-Riemann equation is fulfilled. In such a chart $z_{\tilde{Q}'}=z_{Q'} \circ p$, $\left(\partial_\Lambda \tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{\tilde{Q}}\right)\left(\tilde{Q}'\right)=p,$ exactly as in the smooth case. In particular, the discrete Abel-Jacobi map is an injection unless there is $Q \in V(\Diamond)$ such that all discrete holomorphic differentials vanish at $Q$. By the discrete Riemann-Roch Theorem \[th:Riemann\_Roch\], this would imply that there exists a discrete meromorphic function with exactly one simple pole at $Q$. In contrast to the classical theory, this could happen for any genus $g$ due to Proposition \[prop:counterexample\_cauchykernel\]. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for his comments and suggestions, in particular for his idea of Figure \[fig:cover\]. The first author was partially supported by the DFG Collaborative Research Center TRR 109, “Discretization in Geometry and Dynamics”. The research of the second author was supported by the Deutsche Telekom Stiftung. Some parts of this paper were written at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques in Bures-sur-Yvette, the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, and the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics in Vienna. The second author thanks the European Post-Doctoral Institute for Mathematical Sciences for the opportunity to stay at these institutes. The stay at the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences was funded through an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council Visiting Fellowship, Grant EP/K032208/1. [^1]: Institut für Mathematik, MA 8-3, Technische Universität Berlin, Stra[ß]{}e des 17. Juni 136, 10623 Berlin, Germany. [^2]: European Post-Doctoral Institute for Mathematical Sciences: Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, 35 route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France; Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences, 20 Clarkson Road, Cambridge CB30EH, United Kingdom; Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics, Boltzmanngasse 9, 1090 Vienna, Austria

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'During the past century, the electromagnetic field momentum in material media has been under debate in the Abraham-Minkowski controversy as convincing arguments have been advanced in favor of both the Abraham and Minkowski forms of photon momentum. Here we study the photon momentum and optical forces in cavity structures in the cases of dynamical and steady-state fields. In the description of the single-photon transmission process, we use a field-kinetic one-photon theory. Our model suggests that in the medium photons couple with the induced atomic dipoles forming polariton quasiparticles with the Minkowski form momentum. The Abraham momentum can be associated to the electromagnetic field part of the coupled polariton state. The polariton with the Minkowski momentum is shown to obey the uniform center of mass of energy motion that has previously been interpreted to support only the Abraham momentum. When describing the steady-state nonequilibrium field distributions we use the recently developed quantized fluctuational electrodynamics (QFED) formalism. While allowing detailed studies of light propagation and quantum field fluctuations in interfering structures, our methods also provide practical tools for modeling optical energy transfer and the formation of thermal balance in nanodevices as well as studying electromagnetic forces in optomechanical devices.' author: - | Mikko Partanen,$^1$ Teppo Häyrynen,$^{1,2}$ Jani Oksanen,$^1$ and Jukka Tulkki$^1$$^1$Engineered Nanosystems group, School of Science\ Aalto University, P.O. Box 12200, 00076 Aalto, Finland\ $^2$DTU Fotonik, Department of Photonics Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Ørsteds Plads, Building 343, DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby, Denmark title: Photon momentum and optical forces in cavities --- Introduction ============ Investigations of radiation pressure and the momentum of light in dielectrics have frequently involved arguments about the correct form of the electromagnetic field momentum in material media [@Cho2010; @Leonhardt2006; @Barnett2010b; @Barnett2010a; @Leonhardt2014]. The Abraham and Minkowski forms for the single photon momentum are given by $\hbar k_0/n$ and $\hbar k_0n$, which naturally depend on the vacuum wavenumber $k_0$ but also introduce contradicting and confusing dependencies on refractive index $n$. During the past century, powerful arguments have been advanced in favor of both momenta [@Barnett2010b; @Barnett2010a] and various experimental setups measuring the forces due to light also seem to support both momenta [@Campbell2005; @Sapiro2009; @Jones1954; @Jones1978; @Walker1975; @She2008; @Zhang2015]. In this work, we investigate the propagating field momentum and optical forces in cavity structures. The light pulses and single photon fields are described by using a field-kinetic theory that is based on the covariance principle [@Schwartz2014], which states that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers. The steady-state field distributions are instead described by using the quantized fluctuational electrodynamics (QFED) formalism [@Partanen2014a; @Partanen2014c; @Partanen2015a]. The QFED approach for formulating the field operators is based on defining position-dependent photon ladder operators that obey canonical commutation relations [@Partanen2014a]. Our methods allow detailed studies of quantum field fluctuations in interfering structures, but also provide practical tools for modeling optical energy transfer and the formation of thermal balance in nanodevices as well as studying electromagnetic forces in optomechanical devices. The manuscript is organized as follows: The field-kinetic model of photon propagation is presented in Sec. \[sec:fieldkineticmodel\]. Section \[sec:qfed\] covers the principles of calculating electromagnetic forces in cavity structures by using the QFED model. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].  Schematic illustration of a single photon transmission through a crystal block with refractive index $n$. The photon is first incident from vacuum. When entering the medium it couples to the induced electric dipoles in the medium forming a polariton quasiparticle. At the second end of the crystal the photon continues to propagate in vacuum. At the photon entrance and exit the medium block experiences forces $\mathbf{F}_1$ and $\mathbf{F}_2$.](fig1){width="80.00000%"} Field-kinetic theory of photon propagation {#sec:fieldkineticmodel} ========================================== In this section, we present theoretical observations regarding the single photon transmission through a crystal block with refractive index $n$ illustrated in Fig. \[fig:problem\](a) by using a field-kinetic one-photon model. In our theory, we generalize the Feynman’s description of light propagating in solids [@Feynman1964] where the light quantum interacts with the induced atomic dipoles in the medium and forms a coupled state of light and matter that we call a polariton. Here we use the concept of the polariton in a meaning that differs from its conventional use in the context of the phonon-polariton and the exciton-polariton quasiparticles. In these conventional cases the total energy of the polariton oscillates between two different eigenstates that represent physically different expressions of the total polariton energy. As discussed above, in our case the polariton is sooner a coupled state of electrons, ions, and the electromagnetic wave and it behaves like a Bloch state of electrons in solids. It propagates through the crystal without scattering preserving its energy and momentum and also conveys with itself a small but fixed amount of rest mass. It is also vital that the photon energy is far from the energy of the elementary electronic or ionic excitations of the medium so that absorption and spontaneous emission processes do not occur. In the presentation of the field-kinetic one-photon model we first consider the energy and momentum conservation laws and the related covariance condition. The energy-momentum covariance only gives the relation between the energy and momentum, but does not uniquely determine the polariton momentum in the medium. Therefore, we also consider further physical conditions which can be used to determine the polariton momentum. Energy and momentum conservation -------------------------------- We consider the total energy-momentum four-vectors of different parts of the composite system. These vectors consist of energy and momentum as $(E/c,p_x,p_y,p_z)$ [@Schwartz2014]. The initial total four-momentum is written as a sum of the free photon four-momentum $P_0=(\hbar k_0,\hbar k_0,0,0)$ and the four-momentum $P_M=(Mc,0,0,0)$ for the medium block at rest as $P_\mathrm{tot}=P_0+P_M$. In the field-kinetic description of the polariton, we assume that the induced dipoles of the medium carry a small but finite rest mass $\delta m$ that will be determined from the conservation laws and the covariance conditions. The total polariton energy is then given by the sum of the initial electromagnetic energy $E_\mathrm{f}=\hbar\omega$ and the rest energy $E_\mathrm{d}=\delta mc^2$ corresponding to $\delta m$ as $E=\hbar\omega+\delta mc^2$. In the medium, the total polariton energy $E$ propagates with velocity $v=c/n$. The total momentum of the polariton denoted by $p$ is a sum of the field and dipoles related contributions $p_\mathrm{f}$ and $p_\mathrm{d}$ and it will be uniquely determined in Sec. \[sec:polaritonmomentum\]. When the photon enters the medium, the photon couples with the atoms in the medium and the total energy and momentum of the system are shared by the propagating polariton $P_\mathrm{pol}=(E/c,p,0,0)$ and the recoiling medium block $P_\mathrm{med}=(M_\mathrm{r}c,M_\mathrm{r}V_\mathrm{r},0,0)$. Here $M_\mathrm{r}=M-\delta m$ is the recoil mass of the medium block and $V_\mathrm{r}$ is the recoil velocity in the $x$-direction in Fig. \[fig:problem\]. The total four-momentum must be conserved and thus we have $P_\mathrm{tot}=P_\mathrm{pol}+P_\mathrm{med}$. The unknown quantities of the model can be uniquely solved for a given total polariton momentum $p$ by applying the energy and momentum conservation laws and the energy-momentum covariance condition $E^2/c^2-p_x^2-p_y^2-p_z^2=m_0^2c^2$, where $m_0$ is the effective rest mass [@Schwartz2014]. The conservation of energy corresponds to the conservation of the first component of the four-momentum and it is written as $$\hbar\omega+Mc^2=E+M_\mathrm{r}c^2. \label{eq:energyconservation}$$ The momentum conservation instead corresponds to the conservation of the other components of the four-momentum and it is given for the nonzero second component by $$\hbar k_0=p+M_\mathrm{r}V_\mathrm{r}. \label{eq:momentumconservation}$$ The principle of covariance also requires that the four-momenta obey the energy-momentum covariance condition. The covariance-condition-obeying energy $E=\gamma m_0c^2$ and momentum $p=\gamma m_0v$, where $m_0$ is the effective rest mass and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$ is the Lorentz factor, obey $E=pc^2/v$. The covariance condition therefore directly relates the corresponding momenta $p_\mathrm{f}=E_\mathrm{f}v/c^2$ and $p_\mathrm{d}=E_\mathrm{d}v/c^2$ to the electromagnetic field and dipoles related energies $E_\mathrm{f}=\hbar\omega$ and $E_\mathrm{d}=\delta mc^2$. By applying the conservation laws and the covariance condition, the induced dipoles related mass $\delta m$ and the medium block recoil velocity $V_\mathrm{r}$ can be uniquely determined for a given total polariton momentum $p$ as $\delta m=np/c-\hbar\omega/c^2$ and $V_\mathrm{r}=(\hbar\omega-cp)/(M_\mathrm{r}c)$. The energy and momentum contributions are presented in Table \[tbl:table\] for the general, Abraham, and Minkowski form polariton momenta $p$. It can be seen that, in the case of the Abraham momentum, the dipoles related quantities are zero, whereas, in the case of the Minkowski momentum, the total polariton quantities include dipoles related parts that make the total polariton momentum to be given by the Minkowski form. ------------------------ ------------------- --------------- ---------------------------- General Abraham Minkowski \[2pt\] $E$ $npc$ $\hbar\omega$ $n^2\hbar\omega$ \[2pt\] $E_\mathrm{f}$ $\hbar\omega$ $\hbar\omega$ $\hbar\omega$ \[2pt\] $E_\mathrm{d}$ $npc-\hbar\omega$ $0$ $(n^2-1)\hbar\omega$ \[2pt\] $p$ $p$ $\hbar k_0/n$ $n\hbar k_0$ \[2pt\] $p_\mathrm{f}$ $\hbar k_0/n$ $\hbar k_0/n$ $\hbar k_0/n$ \[2pt\] $p_\mathrm{d}$ $p-\hbar k_0/n$ $0$ $(n-\frac{1}{n})\hbar k_0$ \[2pt\] ------------------------ ------------------- --------------- ---------------------------- : \[tbl:table\] Polariton model energies and momenta calculated by using the general, Abraham, and Minkowski form polariton momenta $p$. Here $E=E_\mathrm{f}+E_\mathrm{d}$ and $p=p_\mathrm{f}+p_\mathrm{d}$ are the total energy and momentum of the polariton and the quantities with subscripts f and d are, respectively, related to the electromagnetic field and the induced dipoles. Isolated systems like the photon plus the medium block in Fig. \[fig:problem\] are known to obey uniform motion described by a constant center of mass of energy velocity (CEV). According to our results, the CEV is written for the isolated system of a medium block and the photon before and after the photon has entered the medium as $$V_\mathrm{CEV}=\frac{\sum_iE_iv_i}{\sum_iE_i}=\frac{\hbar\omega c}{\hbar\omega+Mc^2}=\frac{Ev+M_\mathrm{r}c^2V_\mathrm{r}}{E+M_\mathrm{r}c^2}. \label{eq:uniformmotion2}$$ The equality of the numerators is nothing else than the conservation of momentum in Eq.  and the equality of the denominators corresponds to the energy conservation in Eq. . The above calculations are independent of the exact form of the polariton momentum $p$, which essentially shows that a covariant theory obeying the constant CEV motion can be formulated for both the Abraham and Minkowski momenta. This is essential as before only the Abraham momentum has been reasoned to obey the constant CEV motion [@Barnett2010b; @Barnett2010a]. However, as described below, there exist further conditions that may uniquely define the polariton momentum. Determination of the polariton momentum {#sec:polaritonmomentum} --------------------------------------- As the above covariant theory does not uniquely define the exact form of the polariton momentum $p$, we next consider further physical conditions which can be used to directly determine the polariton momentum. One approach to determine the polariton momentum is given by the polariton Bloch state concept in which the polariton is considered to be a coupled Bloch state of light and matter. We follow the theory of the electronic structure of solids and suggest that the wavefunction of the polariton Bloch state, which can propagate through the medium without scattering or absorption, must be of the form $e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}}u_{\mathbf{k}}(\tau)$, where $\mathbf{r}$ is the position vector, $\mathbf{k}$ is the wavevector of the polariton, and $u_{\mathbf{k}}(\tau)$ is the amplitude function which includes the microscopic structure of matter and its coupling with light through the generalized coordinate $\tau$. The quantum mechanical momentum operator is given by $\hat{\mathbf{p}}=-i\hbar\nabla$, where $\nabla$ is the vector differential operator. The momentum expectation value then obviously becomes $\langle\hat{p}\rangle=\hbar k$. Inside a medium, the wavelength of light decreases to $\lambda=\lambda_0/n$, where $\lambda_0$ is the wavelength in vacuum. Therefore, from the momentum expectation value, it directly follows that $\langle\hat{p}\rangle=\hbar k=2\pi\hbar/\lambda=n2\pi\hbar/\lambda_0=n\hbar k_0$ and thus the Minkowski momentum is a natural consequence of the polariton Bloch state concept. This will be discussed further in the forthcoming manuscript where we also use the Lorentz force law and the Maxwell’s equations to show that this simplified model is indeed fully consistent with the semiclassical continuum picture and the energy-momentum tensors of light and matter. Physical consequences --------------------- One of the most evident physical consequences of our analysis is that energy corresponding to the rest mass $\delta m$ is effectively attached to the photon when the photon propagates inside the medium as a polariton quasiparticle. Note, however, that the nonzero rest mass is a property of the polariton not the photon. As we obtained the Minkowski momentum for the polariton, we have $\delta m=(n^2-1)\hbar\omega/c^2>0$, which essentially means that the polariton transfers the mass $\delta m$ from the first to the second interface of the block and the medium is left in a nonequilibrium state which later on returns to equilibrium through relaxation processes. Since the photon energy is conserved in the transmission process, the energy of this nonequilibrium state is very close to the energy of the initial state and the relaxation processes are practically elastic. As an example of the Minkowski form polariton momentum for $\hbar\omega=1$ eV and $n=2$, we have $\delta mc^2=3$ eV. If the mass density of the medium is 1000 kg/m$^3$, this mass transfer effectively corresponds to a displacement of a medium cube with side length $2\times 10^{-13}$ m, which corresponds to a small fraction of an atom. This displacement is divided into a region of many atoms and one can well expect that the energy required to produce such a small displacement of atoms along the path of the photon is meaningless in a dispersionless medium and the photon does not lose energy in the transmission process. One can also respectively speculate that in dispersive media the atomic displacements may be inelastic when the photon loses energy which leads to dispersion.  (a) Polariton energy and (b) polariton momentum as a function of the refractive index. The solid lines denote the total polariton energy $E=E_\mathrm{f}+E_\mathrm{d}$ and momentum $p=p_\mathrm{f}+p_\mathrm{d}$ and the dashed lines denote the electromagnetic field associated parts $E_\mathrm{f}=\hbar\omega$ and $p_\mathrm{f}=\hbar k_0/n$ of the corresponding quantities. The differences of the solid and dashed lines correspond to the energy and momentum parts $E_\mathrm{d}=\delta mc^2=(n^2-1)\hbar\omega$ and $p_\mathrm{d}=(n-\frac{1}{n})\hbar k_0$ carried by the induced electric dipoles in the medium.](fig2){width="78.00000%"} Our results suggest that the experimental measurements that directly measure the polariton momentum or the force due to a light beam inside a medium [@Jones1954; @Jones1978; @Campbell2005; @Sapiro2009] must give the Minkowski momentum for the polariton. The Abraham momentum seems to be only supported by indirect measurements [@Walker1975; @She2008; @Zhang2015] and theoretical arguments that do not take the polariton associated rest mass and the related mass transfer and its relaxation into account. The uniquely defined polariton model quantities corresponding to the Minkowski form polariton presented in the last column in Table \[tbl:table\] are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:polariton\]. Figure \[fig:polariton\](a) shows the total polariton energy and its contributions associated to the electromagnetic field and the induced electric dipoles in the medium as a function of the refractive index. The total polariton energy in Fig. \[fig:polariton\](a) increases as a function of the refractive index due to the increasing polariton associated rest mass. The increased rest mass is also related to the reduction of the propagation velocity of light in the medium. The energy contribution associated to the electromagnetic field part of the coupled polariton state remains constant $\hbar\omega$. The polariton momentum is presented as a function of the refractive index in Fig. \[fig:polariton\](b). The Minkowski form total polariton momentum increases linearly with the increasing refractive index. Its electromagnetic field contribution given by the Abraham momentum instead decreases with the increasing refractive index. The difference of the Minkowski and Abraham momenta is carried by the induced electric dipoles in the medium. Quantized fluctuational electrodynamics {#sec:qfed} ======================================= To provide additional insight on the forces present at the interfaces in Fig. \[fig:problem\], we briefly review the methods to calculate the forces $\mathbf{F}_1$ and $\mathbf{F}_2$ of the figure by using the QFED formalism [@Partanen2014a; @Partanen2014c; @Partanen2015a; @Partanen2014b]. Fully equivalent steady-state forces can also be obtained directly from the corresponding Maxwell’s stress tensor. Since, in the QFED formalism, we study time-independent steady-state fields, we do not face the problem of defining the photon momentum and the Abraham-Minkowski controversy. In the QFED, the forces are calculated by using the operator form of the classical Maxwell’s stress tensor. It follows that the $x$-component of the spectral force density expectation value is given by [@Partanen2014c] $$\begin{aligned} \langle\hat{\mathcal{F}}_x(x,t)\rangle_\omega & =-\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\rho(x,\omega)\Big) -\hbar\omega\Big(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\rho(x,\omega)\Big)\langle\hat n(x,\omega)\rangle -\hbar\omega\rho(x,\omega)\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\langle\hat n(x,\omega)\rangle, \label{eq:forcedensity}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(x,\omega)$ is the electromagnetic local density of states (LDOS) and $\langle\hat n(x,\omega)\rangle$ is the position-dependent photon number expectation value. The first term in Eq.  corresponds to the familiar zero-point Casimir force (ZCF) [@Rodriguez2011; @Antezza2008], the second term is known as the thermal Casimir force (TCF) [@Passante2007; @Sushkov2011; @Klimchitskaya2008], and the last term arising from the changes in the total photon number is called a nonequilibrium Casimir force (NCF) [@Partanen2014c] since it disappears at thermal equilibrium when the derivative of the photon number is zero. The net force on an area $S$ of a solid object extending from $x_1$ to $x_2$ can then be obtained by integrating the force density in Eq.  as $\langle\hat{F}(t)\rangle_\omega=S\int_{x_1}^{x_2}\langle\hat{\mathcal{F}}_x(x,t)\rangle_\omega dx$ [@Partanen2014c]. Equivalently, the net force can be also obtained by using the concept of electromagnetic pressure. The electromagnetic pressure along the $x$ direction is given by [@Partanen2014c] $$\langle\hat{\mathcal{P}}(x,t)\rangle_\omega=\hbar\omega\rho(x,\omega)\Big(\langle\hat n(x,\omega)\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\Big). \label{eq:pressure}$$ Therefore, the net force on an object extending from $x_1$ to $x_2$ can be obtained as $\langle\hat{F}(t)\rangle_\omega=S[\langle\hat{\mathcal{P}}(x_1,t)\rangle_\omega-\langle\hat{\mathcal{P}}(x_2,t)\rangle_\omega]$ [@Partanen2014c].  Optical cavity structure consisting of three homogeneous layers. The left and right propagating field photon-number expectation values and LDOSs are presented in each layer.](fig3){width="48.00000%"} The photon numbers propagating to the left and right in different parts of the cavity geometry corresponding to the medium block in Fig. \[fig:problem\] are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:cavity\]. As there are no losses, the left and right propagating and total field photon numbers are piecewise continuous and only depend on the cavity geometry and the input fields $\langle\hat n_{1+}\rangle$ and $\langle\hat n_{3-}\rangle$ incident from the left and right. The refractive indices of the three media are given by $\sqrt{\varepsilon_1}$, $\sqrt{\varepsilon_2}$, and $\sqrt{\varepsilon_3}$. In different regions of the geometry, the propagating photon numbers are written as [@Partanen2015a] $$\begin{aligned} \langle\hat n_{1-}\rangle & =\textstyle|\mathcal{R}_1|^2\langle\hat n_{1+}\rangle+\sqrt{\varepsilon_1/\varepsilon_3}\,|\mathcal{T}_1'\mathcal{T}_2'|^2\langle\hat n_{3-}\rangle,\nonumber\\ \langle\hat n_{2+}\rangle & =\frac{\sqrt{\varepsilon_2/\varepsilon_1}\,|\mathcal{T}_1|^2\langle\hat n_{1+}\rangle+\sqrt{\varepsilon_2/\varepsilon_3}\,|\mathcal{T}_2'\mathcal{R}_1'|^2\langle\hat n_{3-}\rangle}{\mathrm{Re}[1+2\mathcal{R}_1'\mathcal{R}_2\nu_2e^{2ik_2d_2}]},\nonumber\\ \langle\hat n_{2-}\rangle & =\frac{\sqrt{\varepsilon_2/\varepsilon_1}\,|\mathcal{T}_1\mathcal{R}_2|^2\langle\hat n_{1+}\rangle+\sqrt{\varepsilon_2/\varepsilon_3}\,|\mathcal{T}_2'|^2\langle\hat n_{3-}\rangle}{\mathrm{Re}[1+2\mathcal{R}_1'\mathcal{R}_2\nu_2e^{2ik_2d_2}]},\nonumber\\ \langle\hat n_{3+}\rangle & =\textstyle\sqrt{\varepsilon_3/\varepsilon_1}\,|\mathcal{T}_1\mathcal{T}_2|^2\langle\hat n_{1+}\rangle+\textstyle|\mathcal{R}_2'|^2\langle\hat n_{3-}\rangle, \label{eq:photons}\end{aligned}$$ where $d_2$ is the width of the cavity, $k_2$ is the wavenumber inside the cavity, $\nu_2=1/(1+r_1r_2e^{2ik_2d_2})$, $\mathcal{R}_1=(r_1+r_2e^{2ik_2d_2})\nu_2$, $\mathcal{R}_2=r_2$, $\mathcal{T}_1=t_1\nu_2$, $\mathcal{T}_2=t_2$, $\mathcal{R}_1'=r_1'$, $\mathcal{R}_2'=(r_2'+r_1'e^{2ik_2d_2})\nu_2$, $\mathcal{T}_1'=t_1'$, and $\mathcal{T}_2'=t_2'\nu_2$ with the conventional single interface Fresnel reflection and transmission coefficients for left incidence $r_i$ and $t_i$, $i\in\{1,2\}$, and right incidence $r_i'$ and $t_i'$, $i\in\{1,2\}$. In contrast to the electric and magnetic field values where resonance effects can substantially increase the magnitude of the field inside a resonator, the photon-number values inside the cavity and at the outputs in Eq.  are always between the input field photon numbers. This essentially ensures that in global thermal equilibrium all the photon numbers are equal and no photon-number accumulation can occur inside the cavity at the equilibrium state. The total force on the medium block due to a light beam incident from vacuum can be calculated as a difference of electromagnetic pressures on both sides of the cavity multiplied with the area $S$. The LDOSs on different sides of the cavity are equal and, therefore, by using the spectral electromagnetic pressure in Eq.  the total spectral force due to a light beam becomes $$\langle\hat F\rangle_\omega=\frac{\langle\hat n_1\rangle-\langle\hat n_3\rangle}{\langle\hat n_{1+}\rangle}\langle\hat F_0\rangle_\omega, \label{eq:totalforce}$$ where $\langle\hat F_0\rangle_\omega$ is the spectral force in the case of a perfect reflector in vacuum. When applying the propagating photon numbers in Eq.  and the identity $|\mathcal{R}_1|^2+|\mathcal{T}_1\mathcal{T}_2|^2=1$, the force in Eq.  becomes $\langle\hat F\rangle_\omega=|\mathcal{R}_1|^2\langle\hat F_0\rangle_\omega$. The force is thus naturally proportional to the total power reflection coefficient of the structure $|\mathcal{R}_1|^2$. If the medium block would be coated with anti-reflective coatings, the total force would be zero meaning that the interface forces on the first and the second interface cancel each other in accordance with the field-kinetic one-photon model in Sec. \[sec:fieldkineticmodel\]. The spectral interface forces are, in this case, explicitly given by $\langle\hat F_1\rangle_\omega=(1-n)\langle\hat F_0\rangle_\omega$ and $\langle\hat F_2\rangle_\omega=(n-1)\langle\hat F_0\rangle_\omega$, where $n=\sqrt{\varepsilon_2}$ is the refractive index of the medium block. Conclusions {#sec:conclusions} =========== In conclusion, our analysis suggests that when a photon enters the crystal its energy and momentum will be shared by the crystal and the propagating light wave or the polariton. As the ratio of energy and momentum of the polariton is different from that of light in vacuum, the light wave can not be covariantly described by a pure photon state that has no rest mass. The covariance can be restored by assuming that the polariton propagating in a crystal is a coupled state of a photon and the induced dipoles in the medium with a small but finite polariton rest mass. In contrast to the previous interpretations that only the Abraham momentum would obey the constant CEV motion of an isolated body, we have shown that the constant CEV motion can also be obeyed by the polariton with the Minkowski momentum. We have also used the QFED formalism to study the steady-state interface forces in the corresponding medium block geometry. This work has in part been funded by the Academy of Finland and the Aalto Energy Efficiency Research Programme. [10]{} A. Cho, “Century-long debate over momentum of light resolved?,” [ *Science*]{} [**327**]{}, p. 1067, 2010. U. Leonhardt, “Momentum in an uncertain light,” [*Nature*]{} [**444**]{}, pp. 823–824, 2006. S. M. Barnett, “Resolution of the [A]{}braham-[M]{}inkowski dilemma,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{}, p. 070401, Feb 2010. S. M. Barnett and R. Loudon, “The enigma of optical momentum in a medium,” [*Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A*]{} [**368**]{}(1914), pp. 927–939, 2010. U. Leonhardt, “Abraham and [M]{}inkowski momenta in the optically induced motion of fluids,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**90**]{}, p. 033801, Sep 2014. G. K. Campbell, A. E. Leanhardt, J. Mun, M. Boyd, E. W. Streed, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, “Photon recoil momentum in dispersive media,” [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, p. 170403, May 2005. R. E. Sapiro, R. Zhang, and G. Raithel, “Atom interferometry using [K]{}apitza-[D]{}irac scattering in a magnetic trap,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [ **79**]{}, p. 043630, Apr 2009. R. V. Jones and J. C. S. Richards, “The pressure of radiation in a refracting medium,” [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A*]{} [**221**]{}(1147), pp. 480–498, 1954. R. V. Jones and B. Leslie, “The measurement of optical radiation pressure in dispersive media,” [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A*]{} [**360**]{}(1702), pp. 347–363, 1978. G. B. Walker and D. G. Lahoz, “Experimental observation of [A]{}braham force in a dielectric,” [*Nature*]{} [**253**]{}, pp. 339–340, 1975. W. She, J. Yu, and R. Feng, “Observation of a push force on the end face of a nanometer silica filament exerted by outgoing light,” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{}, p. 243601, Dec 2008. L. Zhang, W. She, N. Peng, and U. Leonhardt, “Experimental evidence for [A]{}braham pressure of light,” [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{}(5), p. 053035, 2015. M. D. Schwartz, [*Quantum field theory and the standard model*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014. M. Partanen, T. Häyrynen, J. Oksanen, and J. Tulkki, “Thermal balance and photon-number quantization in layered structures,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [ **89**]{}, p. 033831, Mar 2014. M. Partanen, T. Häyrynen, J. Oksanen, and J. Tulkki, “Unified position-dependent photon-number quantization in layered structures,” [ *Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**90**]{}, p. 063804, Dec 2014. M. Partanen, T. Häyrynen, J. Tulkki, and J. Oksanen, “Commutation-relation-preserving ladder operators for propagating optical fields in nonuniform lossy media,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**92**]{}, p. 033839, Sep 2015. R. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands, [*The Feynman Lectures on Physics*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1964. M. Partanen, T. H[ä]{}yrynen, J. Oksanen, and J. Tulkki, “Position-dependent photon operators in the quantization of the electromagnetic field in dielectrics at local thermal equilibrium,” in [*Proc. SPIE 9136, Nonlinear Optics and Its Applications VIII; and Quantum Optics III*]{}, (91362B), SPIE, 2014. A. W. Rodriguez, F. Capasso, and S. G. Johnson, “The [C]{}asimir effect in microstructured geometries,” [*Nature Photonics*]{} [**5**]{}, pp. 211–221, 2011. M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, and V. B. Svetovoy, “[C]{}asimir-[L]{}ifshitz force out of thermal equilibrium,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**77**]{}, p. 022901, Feb 2008. R. Passante and S. Spagnolo, “Casimir-[P]{}older interatomic potential between two atoms at finite temperature and in the presence of boundary conditions,” [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**76**]{}, p. 042112, Oct 2007. A. O. Sushkov, W. J. Kim, D. A. R. Dalvit, and S. K. Lamoreaux, “Observation of the thermal [C]{}asimir force,” [*Nature Physics*]{} [**7**]{}, pp. 230–233, 2011. G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, “Thermal [C]{}asimir-[P]{}older force between an atom and a dielectric plate: thermodynamics and experiment,” [*J. Phys. A*]{} [**41**]{}(43), p. 432001, 2008.

ArXiv

--- bibliography: - 'refs.bib' nocite: - '[@Cohen:2003xe]' - '[@Cohen:2003qw]' - '[@Giedt:2003ve; @Onogi:2005cz]' - '[@Ohta:2006qz]' - '[@Catterall:2004np]' - '[@Sugino:2004qd]' - '[@Sugino:2004uv]' - '[@D''Adda:2005zk]' - '[@Kaplan:1983sk]' - '[@Maru:1997kh]' - '[@Neuberger:1997bg]' - '[@Kaplan:1999jn]' - '[@Fleming:2000fa]' - '[@Cohen:2003xe]' - '[@Cohen:2003qw]' --- [**Exact Vacuum Energy of Orbifold Lattice Theories**]{} \ [*The Niels Bohr Institute,\ The Niels Bohr International Academy,\ Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark*]{} [**Abstract**]{} We investigate the orbifold lattice theories constructed from supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix theories (mother theories) with four and eight supercharges. We show that the vacuum energy of these theories does not receive any quantum correction perturbatively. Introduction ============ Recently, there has been a rapid development in supersymmetric lattice gauge theories. A systematic way to construct supersymmetric lattice formulations is developed in [@Kaplan:2002wv]–[@Kaplan:2005ta], where a space-time lattice is generated by an orbifold projection of a supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix theory (mother theory), and a lattice spacing is introduced by “deconstruction” [@Arkani-Hamed:2001ca]. By choosing the orbifold projection properly, one can make at least one supercharge or BRST charge preserved on the lattice. These formulations are further analysed in [@Giedt:2003xr]–[@Damgaard:2007be][^1]. A prescription to generate a lattice theory from a topologically twisted continuum supersymmetric gauge theory is proposed by Catterall [@Catterall:2003wd]–[@Catterall:2005fd]. In these formulations, the BRST charge of the continuum theory is preserved on the lattice. A characteristic feature of these formulations is that all the degrees of freedom on the lattice except for site variables are doubled by a complexification and the path-integral is performed along “the real line”. Numerical simulations are carried out for the model of two-dimensional ${{\cal N}}=(2,2)$ supersymmetric gauge theory [@Catterall:2006jw], which reproduce the Ward-Takahashi identities in fairly good accuracy. Other formulations constructed from topologically twisted supersymmetric gauge theories are developed by Sugino [@Sugino:2003yb]–[@Sugino:2006uf], where it is shown that the BRST transformation for the continuum fields can also be defined for lattice variables. The lattice action is straightforwardly generated from the $Q$-exact form of the continuum action by replacing all the fields by the lattice variables. A common feature of the above three formulations is that they possess at least one preserved supercharge or BRST charge. Alternative approach (the link approach) has been developed in [@D'Adda:2004jb]–[@D'Adda:2007ax], where it is claimed that all the supersymmetry of the continuum theory is preserved on the lattice. They first explicitly construct a supersymmetry algebra on a lattice and next make a lattice action based on the algebra, although there are some discussions on this approach [@Bruckmann:2006ub][@Bruckmann:2006kb]. For conventional but useful approaches to supersymmetric lattice gauge theories, see [@Nishimura:1997vg]–[@Montvay:2001aj] in which the theories do not have any supersymmetry on a lattice but they flow to supersymmetric theories without fine-tuning because of a discrete chiral symmetry on the lattice. See also [@Suzuki:2007jt] for a recent lattice approach to two-dimensional ${{\cal N}}=(2,2)$ supersymmetric gauge theory. The above seemingly different supersymmetric lattice formulations with a supercharge on the lattice are related to the orbifold lattice theories. In fact, the prescription given by Catterall can be reproduced using the orbifolding procedure [@Damgaard:2007xi]. Sugino’s formulations can be obtained from Catterall’s formulations by restricting the degrees of freedom of the complexified fields with preserving the supercharge [@Takimi:2007nn]. Furthermore, the formulations given by the link approach have been shown to be equivalent to those given by orbifolding [@Damgaard:2007eh]. In this sense, it seems important to examine quantum mechanical properties of the orbifold lattice theories. In the next section, we examine the vacuum energy of the orbifold lattice theories constructed from $Q=4$ and $Q=8$ mother theories. We show that the vacuum energy exactly vanishes to all orders of the perturbation theory and the flat directions of these theories are never lifted up by any perturbative effect. The final section is devoted to conclusion and discussion. Quantum Corrections to Vacuum Energy ==================================== Orbifold lattice theories from $Q=4$ mother theory {#Q=4} -------------------------------------------------- As discussed in detail in [@Kaplan:2002wv]–[@Kaplan:2005ta], an orbifold lattice theory is obtained by performing an appropriate orbifold projection to a supersymmetric Yang-Mills matrix theory (mother theory) followed by deconstruction, that is, by expanding the orbifolded matrix theory around a classical vacuum. Let us start with the orbifold lattice theories constructed from the dimensionally reduced four-dimensional ${{\cal N}}=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory [@Cohen:2003xe]. As discussed in [@Damgaard:2007be], the lattice gauge theory obtained from this mother theory is essentially unique to be a lattice formulation for two-dimensional ${{\cal N}}=(2,2)$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory[^2]. The action of the orbifolded matrix theory (before deconstruction) is given by $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} &= \frac{1}{g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_N^2}\Biggl( \frac{1}{4}\Bigl|z_m({{{\mathbf n}}}) z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) - z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr|^2 \cr & + \frac{1}{8}\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}})-\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\Bigr)^2 \cr & + \psi_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}})\eta({{\mathbf n}})-\eta({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) \bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr)\cr & - \frac{1}{2}\chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})\psi_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n) -\psi_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n) -(m\leftrightarrow n)\Bigr)\Biggr) ~, \label{orbifold action Q=4}\end{aligned}$$ where $m,n=1,2$, ${{\mathbf e}}_m$ are two linearly independent integer valued two-vectors, and all the fields are complex matrices with the size $M$. Although this action does not contain any lattice spacing nor kinetic terms, we can regard it as a lattice action by identifying ${{\mathbf n}}$ as the label of a site on a two-dimensional square lattice with the size $N$. In this sense, the variables $z_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and ${\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})$ are bosonic fields living on the links $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m)$ and $({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m,{{\mathbf n}})$, respectively, and $\eta({{\mathbf n}})$, $\psi_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and $\chi_{12}({{\mathbf n}})=-\chi_{21}({{\mathbf n}})$ are fermionic fields living on the site ${{\mathbf n}}$, the link $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m)$ and the link $({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_1+{{\mathbf e}}_2,{{\mathbf n}})$, respectively. Note the action (\[orbifold action Q=4\]) is invariant under a $U(M)$ “gauge transformation” $z_m({{\mathbf n}})\to g^{-1}({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}})g({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m)$ $(g({{\mathbf n}})\in U(M))$, and so on. As mentioned above, kinetic terms and a lattice spacing $a$ are introduced by expanding $z_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and ${\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})$ as $$z_m({{\mathbf n}}) = \frac{1}{a}{\mathbf 1}_M + z'_m({{\mathbf n}}), \quad {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) = \frac{1}{a}{\mathbf 1}_M + {\bar{z}}'_m({{\mathbf n}}), \label{shift}$$ then we obtain a lattice formulation for two-dimensional ${{\cal N}}=(2,2)$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. Since the potential terms of this theory are given by $$\frac{1}{4}\Bigl|z'_m({{{\mathbf n}}}) z'_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) - z'_n({{\mathbf n}})z'_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr|^2 + \frac{1}{8}\Bigl(z'_m({{\mathbf n}})\bar{z'}_m({{\mathbf n}})-\bar{z'}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z'_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\Bigr)^2,$$ the classical moduli space (the flat directions) of this theory is parametrized by the vacuum expectation values of $z'_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and ${\bar{z}}'_m({{\mathbf n}})$, $$z'_m({{\mathbf n}})=\left( \begin{matrix}b_m^1 & & \\ & \ddots & \\ && b_m^M\end{matrix} \right)\equiv b_m, \qquad {\bar{z}}'_m({{\mathbf n}})=\left( \begin{matrix}\bar{b}_m^1 & & \\ & \ddots & \\ && \bar{b}_m^M\end{matrix} \right)\equiv \bar{b}_m, \label{lattice vacuum}$$ with $b_m^i\in {\mathbb{C}}$ ($i=1,\cdots,M$) up to gauge transformations. In this paper, we are interested in quantum corrections to this classical moduli space. To examine them, we will estimate the vacuum energy at the point (\[lattice vacuum\]) in the classical moduli space. Perturbatively, this is achieved by expanding the lattice action (after deconstruction) around the vacuum (\[lattice vacuum\]) and summing up all 1PI vacuum graphs. However, recalling that the action of the lattice gauge theory is obtained by substituting (\[shift\]) into the action of the orbifolded matrix theory (\[orbifold action Q=4\]), we see that the same result is obtained by directly replacing $z_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and ${\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})$ in the action (\[orbifold action Q=4\]) with $$\begin{aligned} z_m({{\mathbf n}})&\to z_m({{\mathbf n}})+\frac{1}{a}{\mathbf 1}_M + b_m \equiv z_m({{\mathbf n}})+ a_m, {\nonumber}\\ {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})&\to {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})+\frac{1}{a}{\mathbf 1}_M + {\bar{b}}_m \equiv {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})+{\bar{a}}_m, \label{comment}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. In the following calculation, we will use this notation and estimate the vacuum energy as a function of $a_m^i$ $(i=1,\cdots,M)$. We first calculate the 1-loop vacuum energy. It is convenient to fix the gauge by imposing a gauge condition, $$D^-_m {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) - \bar{D}^-_m z_m({{\mathbf n}}) =0, \label{gauge fix}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} D^-_m f({{\mathbf n}})\equiv a_m f({{\mathbf n}}) - f({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m) a_m, \qquad \bar{D}^-_m f({{\mathbf n}}) \equiv -{\bar{a}}_m f({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m) + f({{\mathbf n}}) {\bar{a}}_m. \label{D-}\end{aligned}$$ For the purpose of the later discussion, we also define $$\begin{aligned} D^+_m f({{\mathbf n}})\equiv a_m f({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) - f({{\mathbf n}}) a_m, \qquad \bar{D}^+_m f({{\mathbf n}})\equiv -{\bar{a}}_m f({{\mathbf n}}) + f({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) {\bar{a}}_m. \label{D+}\end{aligned}$$ By introducing gauge fixing terms and FP ghost fields corresponding to the gauge condition (\[gauge fix\]) in a standard way, the second-order action is obtained as $$\begin{aligned} S^{(2)} = \frac{1}{g^2}{{\rm Tr}\,}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_N^2}\Biggl( &\frac{1}{2}\bar{D}^-_n z_m({{\mathbf n}}) D^-_n z_m({{\mathbf n}}) +\frac{1}{2}\bar{D}^-_n B({{\mathbf n}}) D^-_n C({{\mathbf n}}) {\nonumber}\\ &+\eta({{\mathbf n}}) \bar{D}^-_m \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}) -\frac{1}{2}\chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(D^+_m \psi_n({{\mathbf n}})- D^+_n \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigr) \Biggr), \label{2nd order action}\end{aligned}$$ where $B({{\mathbf n}})$ and $C({{\mathbf n}})$ are FP ghost fields. By integrating over the fields, we get the 1-loop contribution to the partition function as[^3] $$\begin{aligned} Z\Bigr|_{\rm 1-loop} &= \int \prod_{{{\mathbf n}}}d\Phi({{\mathbf n}}) e^{-S^{(2)}[\Phi({{\mathbf n}})]} {\nonumber}\\ &= \frac{\det \Delta}{\det \Delta} =1, \label{1-loop result}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\equiv \sum_m \bar{D}_m^+ D_m^-$ is the Laplacian and the lattice variables have been abbreviated as $\Phi({{\mathbf n}})$. The denominator of the second line comes from the contributions from the bosonic fields and the ghost fields and the numerator comes from the fermionic fields. The result (\[1-loop result\]) means that the vacuum energy is equal to zero and the classical flat directions remain flat at the 1-loop level. Note that the same calculation is carried out at the origin of the moduli space in [@Onogi:2005cz]. We can reproduce it by setting $b_m^i=0$ (or $a_m^i=1/a$) in our calculation. One might think that, even though the 1-loop contribution to the vacuum energy is zero, higher-loop contributions would give non-trivial corrections to the vacuum energy, since the supersymmetry is almost broken except for the only one preserved supercharge (or BRST charge). However, we can show that it is not the case and the above 1-loop result is exact. The key point is that the action (\[orbifold action Q=4\]) can be written in a $Q$-exact form [@Cohen:2003xe]: $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} = \frac{1}{2g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_N^2}Q\Biggl( & \eta({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl({z}_m({{\mathbf n}}) {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m){z}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)+d({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr) {\nonumber}\\ & - \chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n) -z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr)\Biggr) ~, \label{Q-exact action Q=4}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ is a BRST charge that acts on the fields as $$\begin{aligned} Q z_m({{\mathbf n}}) &= \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}), \quad Q {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) = 0, {\nonumber}\\ Q d({{\mathbf n}}) &= \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\psi_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m), {\nonumber}\\ \label{BRST Q=4} Q\eta({{\mathbf n}}) &= \frac{1}{4}\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}}){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)-d({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr), \\ Q\chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}) &= \frac{1}{2}\Bigl({\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n){\bar{z}}_n({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr), {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ and $d({{\mathbf n}})$ is an auxiliary bosonic field which makes $Q$ be nilpotent off-shell. Recalling the discussion in topological field theory [@Witten:1988ze], we see that the partition function of this theory does not depend on the coupling constant $g$. In fact, if we write the partition function as $Z(g)=\int {{\cal D}}\Phi e^{\frac{1}{g^2}Q\Xi[\Phi]}$, the derivative of the partition function by $g$ gives $$\frac{d}{dg} Z(g) \propto \Bigl\langle Q\Xi[\Phi] \Bigr\rangle=0, \label{g-independence}$$ where $\langle {{\cal O}}\rangle$ denotes the expectation value of an operator ${{\cal O}}$ and we have used the fact that, as long as the BRST symmetry is not broken spontaneously, the expectation value of a $Q$-exact operator vanishes when the action is $Q$-exact. This means that the partition function evaluated in the weak coupling limit, that is, the 1-loop result given above is exact. In particular, we can expect that all the higher-loop contributions to the vacuum energy vanish. Note that one might think that the partition function given above expresses not the vacuum energy but the Witten index of the theory since we impose the periodic boundary condition to the fermionic fields in the time direction. Although it is actually the case, the boundary conditions do not affect the perturbative contributions in the limit that the period of the time direction goes to infinity. Therefore we can conclude that there is no perturbative correction to the vacuum energy from (\[g-independence\]).[^4] Another note is that we can apply the same analysis to a deformed theory given by[^5] $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} = \frac{1}{2g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_N^2}Q\Biggl( & \eta({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl({z}_m({{\mathbf n}}) {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m){z}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)+d({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr) {\nonumber}\\ & -\beta \chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n) -z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr)\Biggr) ~, \label{deformed Q-exact action Q=4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and the BRST transformation is given by (\[BRST Q=4\]). By construction, this deformation does not spoil the $Q$-exactness of the action and it becomes identical with the original orbifolded matrix theory (\[orbifold action Q=4\]) by setting $\beta=1$. We can show that the vacuum energy of this deformed theory also vanishes at the 1-loop level. Therefore, repeating the same argument above, we can conclude that there is no perturbative correction to the vacuum energy of this theory. Orbifold lattice theories from $Q=8$ mother theory {#Q=8} -------------------------------------------------- Next we consider the lattice theories constructed from the mother theory with eight supercharges, that is, the dimensionally reduced six-dimensional ${{\cal N}}=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory [@Cohen:2003qw]. By performing an orbifold projection to the mother theory, we obtain the action of the orbifolded matrix theory [@Damgaard:2007be]: $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} &= \frac{1}{g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_N^d}\Biggl( \frac{1}{4}\Bigl| z_m({{{\mathbf n}}}) z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) - z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr|^2 \cr & + \frac{1}{8}\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}}){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\Bigr)^2 \cr & - \psi_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl({\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})\eta({{\mathbf n}})-\eta({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr)\cr & +\frac{1}{2} \xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})\psi_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) -\psi_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)-(m\!\leftrightarrow\!n)\Bigr) \cr & -\frac{1}{2}\chi_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl( {\bar{z}}_l({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}) -\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_l){\bar{z}}_l({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigr)\Biggr)~, \label{orbifold action Q=8}\end{aligned}$$ where $l,m,n=1,2,3$, ${{\mathbf e}}_m$ are integer valued three-component vectors, $d$ is the number of linearly independent vectors in $\{{{\mathbf e}}_m\}$, and again we assume that all the fields are complex matrices with the size $M$. Note that $d$ is the maximal dimensionality of the lattice theory obtained after deconstruction. The fields $z_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and ${\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})$ are bosonic fields living on links $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m)$ and $({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m,{{\mathbf n}})$, respectively, and $\eta({{\mathbf n}})$, $\psi_m({{\mathbf n}})$, $\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})$ and $\chi_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})$ are fermionic fields on the site ${{\mathbf n}}$, the link $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m)$, the link $({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m+{{\mathbf e}}_n,{{\mathbf n}})$ and the link $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_l+{{\mathbf e}}_m+{{\mathbf e}}_n)$, respectively. The fields $\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})$ and $\chi_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})$ are antisymmetric in terms of a permutation of the indices. In this case, we can construct several kinds of supersymmetric lattice gauge theories with a different dimensionality, with a different number of preserved supercharges and with a different lattice structure by changing the vectors ${{\mathbf e}}_m$ and the number of bosonic fields to shift as (\[shift\]) [@Damgaard:2007be]. Recalling the discussion around (\[comment\]), however, we can estimate the vacuum energy of these theories at once by directly expanding the orbifolded matrix theory (\[orbifold action Q=8\]) around $$z_m({{\mathbf n}})=\left( \begin{matrix}a_m^1 & & \\ & \ddots & \\ && a_m^M\end{matrix} \right)\equiv a_m, \qquad {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})=\left( \begin{matrix}\bar{a}_m^1 & & \\ & \ddots & \\ && \bar{a}_m^M\end{matrix} \right)\equiv \bar{a}_m. \label{vacuum Q=8}$$ By fixing the gauge by the gauge condition (\[gauge fix\]), we obtain the second-order action, $$\begin{aligned} S^{(2)} = \frac{1}{g^2}{{\rm Tr}\,}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_N^d}\Biggl( &\frac{1}{2}\bar{D}^-_n z_m({{\mathbf n}}) D^-_n z_m({{\mathbf n}}) +\frac{1}{2}\bar{D}^-_n B({{\mathbf n}}) D^-_n C({{\mathbf n}}) +\eta({{\mathbf n}}) \bar{D}^-_m \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}){\nonumber}\\ &-\frac{1}{2}\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(D^+_m \psi_n({{\mathbf n}})- D^+_n \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigr) +\frac{1}{2}\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\bar{D}_l^- \chi_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}}) \Biggr). \label{2nd order action Q=8}\end{aligned}$$ From this expression, it is easy to show that the 1-loop contribution to the vacuum energy vanishes again. As for the case of the $Q=4$ orbifold lattice theories, the lattice theory (\[orbifold action Q=8\]) possesses a BRST charge $Q$ that acts on the fields as [@Cohen:2003qw] $$\begin{aligned} Q z_m({{\mathbf n}}) &= \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}), \quad Q {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) = 0, {\nonumber}\\ Q d({{\mathbf n}}) &= \psi_m({{\mathbf n}}){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\psi_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m), {\nonumber}\\ \label{BRST Q=8 old} Q\eta({{\mathbf n}}) &= \frac{1}{4}\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}}){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)-d({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr), \\ Q\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}) &= \frac{1}{2}\Bigl({\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n){\bar{z}}_n({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr), {\nonumber}\\ Q\chi_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})&=0, {\nonumber}\end{aligned}$$ where $d({{\mathbf n}})$ is again an auxiliary field to make $Q$ nilpotent off-shell. Here we can extend (\[BRST Q=8 old\]) by supplementing the fields with an additional bosonic field $f_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned} Qf_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})&=\chi_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}}). \label{new field}\end{aligned}$$ Then the action of the orbifolded matrix theory (\[orbifold action Q=8\]) can be equivalently expressed in a $Q$-exact form: $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} = \frac{1}{2g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}_N^d}Q\Biggl( & \eta({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl({z}_m({{\mathbf n}}) {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m){z}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)+d({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr) {\nonumber}\\ & - \chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n) -z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr){\nonumber}\\ &-\frac{1}{2}f_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl( {\bar{z}}_l({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}) -\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_l){\bar{z}}_l({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigr)\Biggr) ~. \label{Q-exact action Q=8}\end{aligned}$$ Note that, although the partition function diverges by integration over $f_{lmn}({{\mathbf n}})$, it is irrelevant for the vacuum energy. Therefore, the 1-loop result given above is shown to be exact by repeating the argument in the previous subsection, and the vacuum energy is expected to be zero in all order of the perturbative expansion. In summary, we can conclude that [*the flat directions of the orbifold lattice theories constructed from the mother theory with four and eight supersymmetries do not receive any quantum correction perturbatively.*]{} Conclusion and Discussion ========================= In this paper, we examined quantum corrections to the classical moduli space of orbifold supersymmetric lattice theories constructed from the $Q=4$ and $Q=8$ mother theories. We showed that the classical moduli space does not receive any quantum correction perturbatively, namely, the flat directions of these theories remain flat even if we take into account quantum effects. We also modified the action of the $Q=4$ orbifolded matrix theory without spoiling the $Q$-exactness and showed that the classical moduli space of the deformed theory does not receive any perturbative correction either. We conclude this paper by making some comments on other orbifold lattice theories. Let us first consider an orbifolded matrix theory, $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} = &\frac{1}{g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}}\Biggl( \frac{1}{4}\Bigl|z_m({{{\mathbf n}}}) z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) - z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr|^2 {\nonumber}\\ &+\frac{1}{8}\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\Bigr)^2 {\nonumber}\\ & + \eta({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigl(\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\psi_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m) -\psi_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}})\bar{z}_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}})\Bigr)\cr & - \frac{1}{2}\chi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})\psi_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) -\psi_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}}_n) -(m \leftrightarrow n) \Bigr)\Biggl), \label{general orbifold action}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mathbf e}}_m$, ${{\mathbf a}}$, ${{\mathbf a}}_m$ and ${{\mathbf a}}_{12}$ are three-component vectors satisfying $${{\mathbf a}}+{{\mathbf a}}_m = {{\mathbf e}}_m, \quad {{\mathbf a}}_{12}+{{\mathbf a}}_m=-|{\epsilon}_{mn}|{{\mathbf e}}_n, \quad {{\mathbf a}}+{{\mathbf a}}_1+{{\mathbf a}}_2+{{\mathbf a}}_{12}=0, \label{a-relations}$$ $z_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and ${\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})$ are the same bosonic fields as in (\[orbifold action Q=4\]) but $\eta({{\mathbf n}})$, $\psi_m({{\mathbf n}})$ and $\chi_{12}({{\mathbf n}})$ are fermionic fields living on the links $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}})$, $({{\mathbf n}},{{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf a}}_m)$ and $({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf a}}_{12},{{\mathbf n}})$, respectively. In particular, we assume that any of the vectors ${{\mathbf a}}$, ${{\mathbf a}}_m$ and ${{\mathbf a}}_{12}$ is not zero. The action (\[general orbifold action\]) has been first given in [@D'Adda:2005zk] and is shown to be obtained from $Q=4$ mother theory by an orbifold projection with no preserved supercharge in any usual sense [@Damgaard:2007eh]. It is easy to show that the vacuum energy of this theory again vanishes at the 1-loop level. However, in this case, there seems to be no guarantee that higher-loop contributions to the vacuum energy vanish, since there is no usual BRST symmetry in this theory. It would be interesting, however, to investigate quantum corrections to this theory from the view point of the supersymmetry algebra on lattice discussed in [@D'Adda:2004jb][@D'Adda:2005zk]. Interesting orbifold lattice theories are those constructed from $Q=16$ mother theory [@Kaplan:2005ta], that is, IKKT matrix theory [@Ishibashi:1996xs]. The action of the corresponding orbifolded matrix theory is written as $$\begin{aligned} S_{\rm orb} &= \frac{1}{g^2}{\rm Tr}\sum_{{{\mathbf n}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}_N^d}\Biggl( \frac{1}{4}\Bigl| z_m({{{\mathbf n}}}) z_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) - z_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)\Bigr|^2 \cr & + \frac{1}{8}\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}}){\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}) -{\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)z_m({{\mathbf n}}-{{\mathbf e}}_m)\Bigr)^2 \cr & - \psi_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl({\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})\eta({{\mathbf n}})-\eta({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) {\bar{z}}_m({{\mathbf n}})\Bigr)\cr & +\frac{1}{2} \xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl(z_m({{\mathbf n}})\psi_n({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_m) -\psi_n({{\mathbf n}})z_m({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_n)-(m\!\leftrightarrow\!n)\Bigr) \cr & -\frac{1}{2}{\epsilon}_{mnpqr}\xi_{mn}({{\mathbf n}})\Bigl( {\bar{z}}_p({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_q+{{\mathbf e}}_r)\xi_{pq}({{\mathbf n}}) -\xi_{pq}({{\mathbf n}}+{{\mathbf e}}_p){\bar{z}}_p({{\mathbf n}}) \Bigr)\Biggr)~, \label{orbifold action Q=16}\end{aligned}$$ where $m,n=1,\cdots,5$, ${{\mathbf e}}_m$ are five-component vectors satisfying $\sum_{m=1}^5 {{\mathbf e}}_m=0$ and $d$ is the number of the linearly independent vectors in $\{{{\mathbf e}}_m\}$. Again the classical vacua are parametrized as (\[lattice vacuum\]) with $m=1,\cdots 5$, and it is straightforward to show that the vacuum energy is zero at the 1-loop level. However, we cannot apply the same argument in the previous section since the last term of the action (\[orbifold action Q=16\]) is not $Q$-exact but $Q$-closed [@Kaplan:2005ta]. Thus, there is a possibility that the classical flat directions would be lifted up by quantum effects. In fact, from the viewpoint of the superstring theory, we can expect that non-trivial quantum corrections to the vacuum energy exist in this case. Recalling that the mother theory with sixteen supercharges is identical with the low energy effective theory on D-instantons on a ten-dimensional flat space-time, the orbifolded matrix theory (\[orbifold action Q=16\]) can be regarded as the low energy effective theory on D-instantons in the background of an orbifold[^6]. In this interpretation, the background (\[lattice vacuum\]) can be regarded as the positions of D-instantons. The point is that this orbifold background breaks the supersymmetry on the ten-dimensional space-time, so (\[lattice vacuum\]) or (\[vacuum Q=8\]) gives a non-BPS configuration of D-branes. Therefore, it seems that there should be some force between the separated D-instantons. In terms of the theory on the D-instantons, this means the classical flat directions parametrized by $a_m$ are no longer flat if we take into account quantum corrections to the orbifolded matrix model. It would be interesting to analyse these theories along this way [@DM]. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The author would like to thank P. H. Damgaard and S. Hirano for useful discussions and valuable comments. He would also like to thank D. B. Kaplan, M. Ünsal, H. Suzuki, F. Sugino and T. Takimi for useful comments. This work is supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for Research Abroad. [^1]: For a nice review, see [@Giedt:2006pd]. [^2]: In this paper, we restrict ourselves to consider gauge theories in $d$ dimensional space-time with $d\ge 2$. [^3]: In this calculation, the constant modes are treated by shifting the difference operators (\[D-\]) and (\[D+\]) as $D_m^\pm \to D_m^\pm + i\mu$, which corresponds to adding mass terms as done in [@Cohen:2003xe]. Although this modification breaks the BRST symmetry, the final result of the following discussion still holds in the limit of $\mu\to 0$ since the breaking of the symmetry is soft. [^4]: The author would like to thank to H. Suzuki for discussing this point. [^5]: The physical interpretation of this deformation is still unclear. In fact, the continuum limit of this deformed theory is not Lorentz invariant, though it has a BRST symmetry generated by $Q$. The author would like to thank M. Ünsal for pointing it out. [^6]: For a related work, see [@Unsal:2005us].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We describe the time- and position-dependent point spread function (PSF) variation of the Wide Field Channel (WFC) of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) with the principal component analysis (PCA) technique. The time-dependent change is caused by the temporal variation of the $HST$ focus whereas the position-dependent PSF variation in ACS/WFC at a given focus is mainly the result of changes in aberrations and charge diffusion across the detector, which appear as position-dependent changes in elongation of the astigmatic core and blurring of the PSF, respectively. Using $>400$ archival images of star cluster fields, we construct a ACS PSF library covering diverse environments of the $HST$ observations (e.g., focus values). We find that interpolation of a small number ($\sim20$) of principal components or “eigen-PSFs” per exposure can robustly reproduce the observed variation of the ellipticity and size of the PSF. Our primary interest in this investigation is the application of this PSF library to precision weak-lensing analyses, where accurate knowledge of the instrument’s PSF is crucial. However, the high-fidelity of the model judged from the nice agreement with observed PSFs suggests that the model is potentially also useful in other applications such as crowded field stellar photometry, galaxy profile fitting, AGN studies, etc., which similarly demand a fair knowledge of the PSFs at objects’ locations. Our PSF models, applicable to any WFC image rectified with the Lanczos3 kernel, are publicly available.' author: - 'M.J. JEE, J.P. BLAKESLEE, M. SIRIANNI, A.R. MARTEL, R.L. WHITE, AND H.C. FORD' title: 'PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF THE TIME- AND POSITION-DEPENDENT POINT SPREAD FUNCTION OF THE ADVANCED CAMERA FOR SURVEYS' --- INTRODUCTION \[section\_introduction\] ====================================== Even in the absence of atmospheric turbulence, the finite aperture of Hubble Space Telescope ($HST$) causes light from a point source to spread at the focal plane with the diffraction pattern mainly reflecting the telescope’s aperture and optical path difference function. Although the point-spread-function (PSF) of $HST$ is already far smaller than what one can achieve with any of the current ground-based facilities, astronomers’ endless efforts to push to the limits of their scientific observations with $HST$ ever increase the demand for the better knowledge of the instrument’s PSF. Especially, since the installation of the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) on $HST$, there have been concentrated efforts to carefully monitor and understand the instrument’s PSFs, and to utilize the unparalleled resolution and sensitivity of ACS in gravitational weak-lensing (e.g., Jee et al. 2005a; Heymans et al. 2005; Schrabback et al. 2007; Rhodes et al. 2007). Modeling the PSFs of ACS has proven to be non-trivial because of its complicated time- and position-dependent variation. The time-dependent change occurs due to the variation in the $HST$ focus, which relates to the constant shrinking of the secondary mirror truss structure and the thermal breathing of $HST$. The former is the main cause of the long-term focus change, and the secondary mirror position has been occasionally adjusted to compensate for this shrinkage (Hershey 1997). The latter is responsible for the short-term variation of the $HST$ focus and is affected by the instrument’s earth heating, sun angle, prior pointing history, roll angle, etc. Even at a fixed focus value of $HST$, the PSFs of ACS also significantly change across the detector from the variation of the CCD thickness and the focal plane errors, which appear as position-dependent changes in charge diffusion and elongation of the astigmatic cores, respectively. The strategies to model these PSF variations can be categorized into two types: an empirical approach based on real stellar field observations and a theoretical prediction based on the understanding of the instrument’s optics. The first method treats the optical system of the instrument nearly as a blackbox and mainly draws information from observed stellar images. Although the PSF variation pattern can be most straightforwardly described by the variation of the pixel intensity as a function of position (e.g., Anderson & King 2006), frequently orthogonal expansion of the observed PSFs (e.g., Lauer 2002; Bernstein & Jarvis 2002; Refregier 2003) have been utilized to make the description compact and tractable. On the other hand, the second approach mainly relies on the careful analysis of the optical configurations of the instrument and receives feedbacks from observations to fine-tune the existing optics model. The TinyTim software (Krist 2001) is the unique package of this type applicable to most instruments of $HST$. In this paper, we extend our previous efforts of the first kind (Jee et al. 2005a; 2005b; 2006; 2007) to describe the time- and position-dependent PSF variations of ACS/WFC now with the principal component analysis (PCA). In our previous work, we used “shapelets” (Bernstein & Jarvis 2002; Refregier 2003) to perform orthogonal expansion of the PSFs. Shapelets are the polar eigenfunctions of two-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillators, which form a highly localized orthogonal set. Although the decomposition of the stars with shapelets is relatively efficient and has proven to meet the desired accuracy for cluster weak-lensing analyses, the scheme is less than ideal in some cases. One important shortcoming is that it is too localized to capture the extended features of PSFs (Jee et al. 2007; also see \[section\_basis\_function\]). In principle, the orthonormal nature of shapelets should allow us to represent virtually all the features of the target image when the number of basis functions are sufficiently large. However, this is not a viable solution not only because the convergence is slow, but also because the orthonormality breaks down in pixelated images for high orders as the function becomes highly oscillatory within a pixel. The PCA technique provides us with a powerful scheme to obtain the optimal set of basis functions from the data themselves. Unlike “shapelets”, the basis functions derived from the PCA are by nature non-parametric, discrete, and highly customized for the given dataset. Therefore, it is possible to summarize the multi-variate statistics, with a significantly small number of basis functions (i.e., much smaller than the dimension of the problem). For example, PCA has been applied to the classification of object spectra in large area surveys (Connolly et al. 1995; Bromley et al. 1998; Madgwick et al. 2003). It has been shown that only a small number ($10\sim 20$) of the basis functions or $eigenspectra$ are needed to reconstruct the sample. The application of PCA to the PSF decomposition is used by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to model the PSF variations (e.g., Lupton et al. 2001; Lauer 2002). Jarvis & Jain (2004) used the PCA technique to describe the variation in the PSF pattern in the CTIO 75 square-degree survey for cosmic shear analyses. They fit the “rounding” kernel component with PCA, not the PSF shape directly. This scheme is motivated by their shear measurement technique (i.e., reconvolution to remove systematic PSF anisotropy). However, in the current study we choose to fit the PSF shapes directly because this is more general in the sense that the rounding kernel components are not uniquely determined for a given PSF. In addition, our PSF library generating the PSF shapes directly has more uses in other studies. We aim to construct a high-quality PSF library for the broadband ACS filters (F435W, F475W, F555W, F606W, F625W, F775W, F814W, and F850LP) from $>400$ archival stellar images, which sample a wide range of the $HST$ environments (e.g., the focus values). Our PSF models describe ACS PSFs in rectified images, specifically, drizzled using the Lanczos3 kernel with an output pixel scale of 0.05(see \[section\_drizzling\_kernel\] for the justification of this choice). The results from this work are made publicly available on-line via the ACS team web site[^1]. We will present our works as follows. The justification and the basic mathematical formalism of PCA are briefed in \[section\_PCA\]. In \[section\_application\_acs\], we demonstrate how the technique can be applied to ACS data with some test results. Focus dependency of the ACS PSFs, comparison with TinyTim, and strategies to find matching templates are discussed in \[section\_discussion\] before we conclude in \[section\_conclusion\]. PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS OF POINT SPREAD FUNCTIONS \[section\_PCA\] ======================================================================== Optimal Basis Functions for Modeling a PSF Variation \[section\_basis\_function\] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The concept that any vector in a vector space can be represented as a linear combination of the orthonormal basis vectors can be easily extended to a two-dimensional image analysis. The most natural set of basis vectors for a $m\times n$ resolution image is a set of $m\times n$ unit vectors, where the $i^{th}$ unit vector represents the $i^{th}$ Cartesian coordinate axis in the $m\times n$ dimension; the $i^{th}$ pixel value represents the amplitude along the $i^{th}$ axis. These $m\times n$ unit vectors form the most intuitive set of orthonormal vectors and are in fact still a popular choice for describing a variation especially when the dimension is low. For larger images, however, it is obvious that one needs to find alternative basis vectors, which can describe the image features and their variations more compactly with less number of basis vectors than $m\times n$. In the following, we will briefly review our experiments with two potentially useful methods, namely wavelet and shapelet decomposition schemes in an attempt to compactly model PSF features. By discussing some fundamental limits of these two approaches, we will justify the need for the new scheme, PCA, to overcome these pitfalls. In astronomy, a $wavelet$ analysis has been among the most popular choices in compressing object images, identifying objects, recognizing patterns, filtering noise, etc. The method has significant advantages over a traditional Fourier method particularly when the signal contains discontinuities and sharp spikes. Wavelets refer to finite and fast-decaying orthogonal basis functions, which can efficiently represent localized signals. Because PSFs are in general compact, sharp, and localized, the wavelet transform can be considered as a tool for describing the PSF and its variation. However, we find that, although the scheme is very powerful in representing the global feature, the wavelet representation with a small subset of the entire basis functions cannot fully capture the sophisticated details of a ACS PSF. Shown in Figure \[fig\_psf\_compare\]b is a $Haar$ wavelet representation of the ACS/WFC PSF (Figure \[fig\_psf\_compare\]a) with $\sim16$% (157 out of 961) of the total basis vectors retained. The PSF core within $\sim3$ pixel radius is satisfactory whereas most of other features beyond $\sim3$ pixel radius are severely smeared. Although it is possible to improve the quality of the wavelet representation by employing more basis functions, we observe that the convergence is slow and one has to include more than $\sim80$% of the entire basis functions to achieve the goal. Bernstein & Jarvis (2002) and Refregier (2003) proposed to use shapelets to decompose astronomical objects. Shapelets, also forming an orthogonal set, are derived from Gaussian-weighted Hermite polynomials, which are eigenfunctions of two-dimensional quantum harmonic oscillators. As shapelets are based on two dimensional circular Gaussian functions, they are somewhat more localized than $wavelets$, thus potentially more efficient in describing the PSF core. Figure \[fig\_psf\_compare\]c shows that indeed the central region of the PSF is nicely recovered with 78 basis functions (shapelet order of 12); the second diffraction ring at $r\sim6$ pixels is clear. It is not surprising however to observe that the other features beyond $\sim~8$ pixels are completely washed out in Figure \[fig\_psf\_compare\]c because the Gaussian nature of the shapelets truncates the profile too early to capture the apparent PSF wings. The fraction of the flux distributed outside the second diffraction ring is less than 5 % (compared to the original 31$\times$31 PSF) and thus is negligible for some applications. In particular, if one looks for lensing signals in galaxy clusters, the inaccuracy in shear measurement caused by this PSF wing truncation is overwhelmed by the shear-induced ellipticity changes. However, in modern cosmic shear studies, the required level of systematic errors are much more stringent, and thus we still want to develop an even better scheme that robustly describes the PSF features on both small and large scales. From the above two experiments, it becomes clear that any basis functions that are derived from some analytic functions have fundamental limits in their efficiency when we require both small and large scale features (i.e., central cuspiness and extended diffraction pattern) of PSFs to be stringently recovered. This implies that the ideal basis functions for a given dataset must be derived from the dataset itself. One powerful method to achieve such a goal is PCA. Also known as Karhunen-Loeve transformation (KLT), PCA provides a method for obtaining optimal basis functions highly tailored to a given problem. As will be briefly summarized in \[section\_PCA\_formalism\], PCA allows us to keep the subset of basis functions that has the largest variance. The principal components (hereafter we use the terms, principal component, basis function, and eigen-PSF interchangeably) with the lowest variances are dominated by noise and can be safely discarded to reduce the dimension of the problem. We display the PSF image constructed with the first 20 principal components in Figure \[fig\_psf\_compare\]d. The 20 principal components are obtained by analyzing $\sim870$ stars in the same exposure. The dramatic improvement in the recovery of the original PSF is apparent not only in the core, but also in the diffraction pattern far from the core. This is again verified in the comparison of the radial profiles in different representation of the PSF (Figure \[fig\_psf\_profile\]). The PCA method gives the radial profile closest to that of the original (we note that the PCA method slightly fits noise at $r>8\arcsec$ because the signal outside the second diffraction ring is very weak. Potentially one can improve the sampling by including the wings of saturated stars as is done by Anderson & King \[2006\]). The shapelet method generates the PSF that truncates at $r\simeq8$ pixels. The representation with 150 $Haar$ wavelets appears to approximate the radial profile of the original closely, but we see in Figure \[fig\_psf\_compare\] that the two-dimensional representation is unacceptable. Therefore, considering both the relatively small number of basis functions and the quality of the reproduction, we choose the PCA approach for our subsequent analysis of the time- and position-dependent PSF of WFC. Mathematical Formalism \[section\_PCA\_formalism\] --------------------------------------------------- Imagine that we have a dataset consisting of $N$ observations (e.g., stars), each with $M$ observable properties (e.g., pixel values). If the $M$ observable properties do not change greatly between observations, the dataset forms a cloud of $N$ points in an $M$-dimensional space. We want to construct a set of $P$ ($\ll Min\{N,M\}$) orthonormal vectors that describes the subspace in the following manner. - The first significant vector is defined as the axis with a minimal mean distance from each point. - The second significant vector is orthogonal to the first significant vector and minimizes the mean distance from each point. - The $P^{th}$ significant vector is orthogonal to the previous $(P-1)$ significant vectors and minimizes the mean distance. These $P$ significant vectors are called principal components (PC) of the system. One way to construct such a new orthonormal basis is Singular Value Decomposition (SVD; Press et al. 1992). We can express the above dataset as a $N \times M$ matrix ${\textbf{S}}$. According to the SVD theory, any $N \times M$ matrix whose number of rows $N$ is greater than or equal to its number of columns $M$, can be rewritten as the product of an $N \times M$ column-orthogonal matrix ${\textbf{U}}$, an $M \times M$ diagonal matrix ${\textbf{W}}$ with positive or zero elements, and the transpose of an $M \times M$ orthogonal matrix ${\textbf{V}}$ $${\textbf{S}}={\textbf{UWV}}^{T}$$ It is easy to show that once the matrix ${\textbf{S}}$ is expanded in the way above, any $ij^{th}$ element of the matrix ${\textbf{S}}$ can be reconstructed by $$S_{ij} = \sum_{k=1}^{M} w_k U_{ik} V_{jk}. \label{eqn_svd}$$ Equation \[eqn\_svd\] helps us to realize that, if some of the singular values $w_k$ (elements of ${\textbf{W}}$) are tiny, we can approximate the matrix ${\textbf{S}}$ by replacing those small $w_k$’s with zeros. This effectively reduces the number of columns in ${\textbf{U}}$ and ${\textbf{V}}$. The remaining columns of ${\textbf{V}}$ serve as the principal components that form an orthonormal basis. A geometric meaning of these principal components is that they define the principal axes of the error ellipsoid. Consequently, they are eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the dataset ${\textbf{C}}$, diagonalizing ${\textbf{C}}$ with eigenvalues of $w_i$, which also illustrates that PCA is the rotation of the system into a new basis (i.e., principal components) to describe the data in terms of statistically independent quantities. In practice, PCA necessitates preprocessing of the data typically involving mean subtraction and normalization. The exact procedure highly depends on the statistical nature of the problem and we will discuss the issues in \[section\_implementation\]. PCA APPLICATION TO ACS DATA \[section\_application\_acs\] ========================================================== Implementation \[section\_implementation\] ------------------------------------------ In the current section, we demonstrate how we can describe the PSF variation observed in a single ACS/WFC exposure with PCA described in \[section\_PCA\_formalism\]. We select the F814W observation of the 47 Tuc field taken on 6 May 2002 in two 30s exposures (dataset ID = J8C0D1051). The image was part of a series of observations to derive flat-fielding model of the instrument (PROP ID 9018). The low level CCD processing was carried out using the STScI standard ACS calibration pipeline (CALACS; Hack et al. 2003). In correcting the geometric distortion, we used a Lanczos3 drizzling kernel with an output pixel size of 0.05$\arcsec$. In our previous analyses (Jee et al. 2005a; 2005b; 2006; 2007), this combination of drizzling parameters has been verified to be among the optimal choices in minimizing the aliasing, the noise correlation, and the broadening of the PSF. We discuss some important differences arising from different choices of drizzling parameters in \[section\_drizzling\_kernel\]. The field is moderately crowded (Figure \[fig\_starfield\_image\]) and we were able to select $\sim 870$ bright ($m_{VEGAMAG}\lesssim 13.3$), unsaturated, and isolated (no adjacent stars within a $\sim20$ pixel radius) stars. After creating a postage stamp image ($31$ pixel $\times31$ pixel) for each star, we applied sub-pixel shifts so that the peak always lies on the center of a pixel. Omitting this procedure would result in the variance of the system largely dominated by the location of the peaks within pixels. The sub-pixel shifts were carried out with bicubic interpolation, which closely approximates the theoretically optimal, windowed sinc interpolation by cubic polynomials. We find that although bicubic interpolation slightly softens PSF cores relative to the results from windowed sinc interpolation, the latter creates more frequent other types of artifacts such as occasional negative pixels (in theory, the sinc interpolant is valid for a Nyquist-sampled image). We need to express the PSF images with one-dimensional vectors. Because the modeling size is $31\times 31$, each vector has 961 elements. Our matrix ${\textbf{S}}$ describing the dataset has $M=961$ columns and $N=870$ rows. There are more columns than rows, and the SVD above will yield $M-N$ (or more because of the degeneracies) zero or negligible $w_j$’s. However, the remaining ${\textbf{V}}$ still contains useful principal components of the system, which can efficiently represent the sample. We normalized ${\textbf{S}}$ in such a way that the sum of the elements in each row is unity after subtracting the background value (flux normalization). Next, we created a mean PSF by taking averages along the columns. Then, we subtracted this mean PSF from each row. The resulting matrix ${\textbf{S}}$ consists of deviations from this mean PSF. We perform SVD of ${\textbf{S}}$ by diagonalizing the covariance matrix ${\textbf{C}}$, which is the outer product of ${\textbf{S}}$ with itself. The resulting eigenvectors and the eigenvalues are the PCs and the variances of the matrix, respectively. Finally, we sort the result in order of decreasing variances. Figure \[fig\_variance\] illustrates that the first $\sim20$ PCs account for more than 90% of the total variance. Each of the remaining 900 principal components is responsible for less than 1% of the total, likely to be associated with noise rather than to contain the real signal. We determined the PC coefficients (i.e., amplitudes along the eigenvectors) down to the 20th largest component by multiplying ${\textbf{S}}$ to the eigenvectors for the selected stars. The spatial variation of each coefficient is fit with the following polynomial: $$P_{i} = a_{00} + a_{10} x + a_{01} y + a_{20} x^2 + a_{11} xy + a_{02} y^2 + \cdot \cdot \cdot .$$ We found that a fifth order in $x^i y^j$ (i.e. $i+j \le 5$) is sufficient to describe the pattern and higher order polynomials do not improve (sometimes worsen) the agreement between model and data. The total number of coefficients necessary to model the PSF variation for a entire WFC frame is $15\times20=300$. Test Results \[section\_test\_result\] -------------------------------------- There might exist a number of ways to compare our PSF model obtained in \[section\_implementation\] with the real PSFs, depending on how one chooses to characterizes PSFs. In this paper, we characterize PSFs by their ellipticity and width because these parameters are natively related to the systematics in weak-lensing measurements and also are sensitive to the charge diffusion and the local focus offset. We measure a star’s ellipticity and width using the following quadrupole moments, $$Q_{ij} = \frac{ \int d^2 \theta W({\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}}) I({\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}}) (\theta_i - \bar{\theta_i})(\theta_j - \bar{\theta_j}) } {\int d^2 \theta W({\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}}) I({\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}}) }, \label{eqn_quadrupole}$$ where $I({\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}})$ is the pixel intensity at ${\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}}$, $\bar{\theta}_{i(j)}$ is the center of the star, and $W({\mbox{\boldmath${\theta}$}})$ is the weight function required to suppress the noise in the outskirts (we choose a Gaussian with a FWHM of 2 pixels throughout the paper). With Equation \[eqn\_quadrupole\] at hand, it is now possible to define the star’s ellipticity in the following two ways: $${\mbox{\boldmath${\delta}$}} = \left ( \frac{Q_{11}-Q_{22}} {Q_{11}+Q_{22}} , \frac {Q_{12}} {Q_{11}+Q_{22}} \right )$$ and $${\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}} = \left ( \frac{Q_{11}-Q_{22}} {Q_{11}+Q_{22}+2(Q_{11} Q_{22}-Q^2_{12})^{1/2}} , \frac {Q_{12}} {Q_{11}+Q_{22}+2(Q_{11} Q_{22}-Q^2_{12})^{1/2}} \right ) \label{eqn_delta}$$ For an ellipse with axis ratio $r$, $|{\mbox{\boldmath${\delta}$}}|$ and $|{\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}}|$ correspond to $(1-r^2)/(1+r^2)$ and $(1-r)/(1+r)$, respectively. In the current paper, we select Equation \[eqn\_delta\] as our definition of ellipticity, referring to the first and second components of ${\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}}$ as $\epsilon_{+}$ and $\epsilon_{\times}$, respectively. The size of a star can be similarly defined using the above quadrupole moments $Q_{ij}$. One common choice is $$b=\sqrt{Q_{11}+Q_{22}} \label{eqn_psf_width},$$ which we adopt in this work. In the left panel of Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\], we display the ellipticities of the $\sim870$ isolated stars found in Figure \[fig\_starfield\_image\]. The size and the orientation of the “whiskers" represent the magnitude of ellipticity and the direction of elongation, respectively. The majority of the stars are stretched approximately parallel to the $y=x$ line. This direction is roughly tangential to the vector pointing towards the telescope axis, and this type of pattern is observed when $HST$ is at its nominal “negative” focus (the actual focus offsets on the surface of the WFC detector can be positive in certain regions because of the curvature of the focal plane and the detector height variation). We repeat this ellipticity measurement for our model PSFs and the results are shown in the middle panel of Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\], which displays the predicted ellipticities of PSFs at the same star positions. We plot the residual ellipticities in the right panel. It is apparent that our PSF model obtained through PCA robustly recovers the observed ellipticities. With 3 $\sigma$ outliers discarded, the mean absolute deviation $<|\delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}}|>$ is $(6.5\pm0.1)\times 10^{-3}$, and the mean ellipticity $< \delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}} >$ is $[ (1.1\pm2.2)\times10^{-4} , (2.3\pm1.4)\times10^{-4}]$. Another way to quantify the quality of the ellipticity representation of a PSF model is to investigate the ellipticity correlation as a function of separation $\theta$: $$\xi_{+} (\theta) = < \epsilon_{+} (r) \epsilon_{+} (r+\theta) >$$ and $$\xi_{\times} (\theta) = < \epsilon_{\times} (r) \epsilon_{\times} (r+\theta) >.$$ We show in Figure \[fig\_e\_corr\] the ellipticity correlation functions for the the observed PSF (left), the model (middle), and the residual (right). The solid and dash lines represent $\xi_{+}$ and $\xi_{\times}$, respectively. The amplitude of the residual ellipticity correlation is $\sim10^{-7}$ (after discarding the values at $\theta > 220\arcsec$, which are spuriously high due to the poor statistics in this regime and an artifact of the interpolation), approximately three orders of magnitude lower than the uncorrected values. A size of the PSFs (eqn. \[eqn\_psf\_width\]) is also a useful quantify in characterizing PSFs. In general, both the aberration-induced elongation and the charge diffusion are responsible for the broadening of WFC PSFs. Krist (2003) noticed that the PSF width variation by charge diffusion remarkably resembles the pattern of the WFC CCD thickness variation. The blurring is most severe in the central region where the CCD layer is the thickest, and the $r\sim 100 \arcsec$ annulus surrounding this region has the least charge diffusion, consistent with its lowest thickness. The left panel of Figure \[fig\_psf\_width\] shows our estimation of the position-dependent WFC PSF width variation measured from the stars in Figure \[fig\_starfield\_image\]. The global pattern nicely agrees with the result of Krist (2003) (i.e., the detection of the “hill” at $x\sim1500$ and $y\sim2200$ and the “moat” surrounding the hill). Because the image is taken in F814W, the charge diffusion effect is somewhat reduced (compare this with Figure 2 of Krist 2003 showing the variation in F550M). In addition, we note that the PSF widths are greatest along the field boundary, which is by and large due to the optically induced PSF elongation. We display the PSF width variation predicted from our model in the right panel of Figure \[fig\_psf\_width\]. The employed polynomial interpolation smooths the variation and slightly flattens the “hill” and “moat" features. The stars in the hill in the right panel are $\sim0.4$% smaller whereas the stars in the moat are $\sim0.3$% larger. Krist (2003) claimed that there was a height difference of $\sim0.02\mu \mbox{m}$ between the two CCDs, which manifested itself as a discontinuity of the PSF pattern across the gap. The observed PSF size variation (left panel of Figure \[fig\_psf\_width\]) seems to show faint indications of the height difference. However, we do not find any noticeable discontinuity in the PSF ellipticity pattern across the gap in Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\]. DISCUSSION \[section\_discussion\] ================================== Effects of Drizzling Methods on PSF Characteristics \[section\_drizzling\_kernel\] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aliasing occurs when a signal that is continuous in space is sampled with finite resolution. PSF shapes from rectified ACS images suffer this aliasing twice, first when photons are collected in the discrete CCD grid, and second when the raw data are remeshed for the geometric distortion correction. Dithering mainly helps to reduce the first aliasing by changing the sub-pixel position of the PSF centers within a pixel, effectively increasing the sampling resolution of the detector beyond its physical pixel size. The second aliasing arising from the input and output pixel offsets is mitigated by carefully selecting an interpolation scheme. Here, we focus on the second issue: the relation between interpolation scheme (i.e., parameters set in drizzling) and observed PSF characteristics. Although quite a few combinations of drizzling kernels, output pixel sizes, and drop sizes are possible, we consider the following three cases: - Lanczos3 kernel, $0.05\arcsec$ output pixel, and pixfrac$=1$, - Square kernel, $0.05\arcsec$ output pixel, and pixfrac$=1$, and - Gaussian Kernel, $0.03\arcsec$ output pixel, and pixfrac$=0.8$. The first case is of course the choice in the current paper. The second case is selected because it is the default setting in the STScI pipeline and is most frequently used. The last one is favored by Rhodes et al. (2007), who argued that this combination gave the minimal aliasing in their experiments. We compare the results from these three methods by examining the PSF ellipticity and width distribution across the WFC detector (Figure \[fig\_kernel\]). As noted by Rhodes et al. (2007), it is obvious that drizzling with square kernel and 0.05$\arcsec$ output pixel produces the most severe aliasing among the three. The residuals between the observed (top middle) and the PCA interpolated stars (as calculated in the second panel of Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\]) have a mean absolute deviation of $<|\delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}}|>=(1.29\pm0.03)\times 10^{-2}$ with a center at $< \delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}} >=[ (3.5\pm4.9)\times10^{-4} , (4.7\pm1.2)\times10^{-4}]$. In addition, the PSF blurring is also the largest ($bottom$ $middle$) in the square-kernel-drizzled image. The mean PSF width is $1.486\pm0.001$, about 5.4% larger than the value we obtain from the Lanczos3-kernel-drizzled image ($1.410\pm0.001$). Drizzling with a Gaussian kernel with a pixel scale of 0.03$\arcsec$ ($top$ $right$) reduces the aliasing in the ellipticity measurements compared to that in the square kernel image. The residuals have a mean absolute deviation of $<|\delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}}|>=(6.9\pm0.1)\times10^{-3}$ with a center at $< \delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}} >=[ (2.5\pm2.3)\times10^{-4} , (4.8\pm1.5)\times10^{-4}]$. However, the mean absolute deviation is $\sim6$% higher than in the Lanczos3 case. Also, although it is true that the PSF broadening is mitigated compared to the square-kernel drizzling, the mean PSF width ($1.445\pm0.001$) is $\sim3$% larger than the Lanczos3-kernel PSF width. Based on the above experiment, we claim that the Lanczos3 kernel with an output pixel size of 0.05 $\arcsec$ should be a preferred choice in weak-lensing analyses (and also perhaps in other analyses that require sharpest images). Although the choice of the Gaussian kernel with a pixel scale of 0.03provides a competitive performance in terms of the reduction of aliasing and the sharpness of PSF, we have observed that noise correlation is the most severe in this case (this pitfall is also noted by Rhodes et al. \[2007\]). Noise correlation between adjacent pixels creates visible moir[é]{} patterns in the image. However, we comment that the Lanczos3 kernel occasionally produces some cosmetic artifacts in the region where flux gradients change abruptly (e.g., centers of saturated stars, wings of bright stars, missing data points, etc.). Nevertheless, these occasional cosmetic artifacts in individual stars are not of concern in the current PSF sampling because they are efficiently filtered out through PCA. Focus Dependency ---------------- In \[section\_test\_result\], we studied how the ellipticity and the size of WFC PSFs vary across the field for the particular dataset (the F814W filter on 19 April 2002). If the pattern remained the same throughout the life of $HST$ or if the change were negligible, the issue of correcting PSF effects would be trivial. Unfortunately, an observed PSF pattern is not stable, but changes over time, depending largely on the focus status of $HST$. The main cause of the $HST$ focus variation is the combination of both the constant shrinkage and the thermal breathing of the optical telescope assembly (OTA) truss structure. Occasional adjustments of the secondary mirror position were applied (e.g., on 24 December 2004) to compensate for the former long-term change. The latter thermal breathing occurs as the OTA truss structure expands during Earth occultation and contracts after the occultation. The typical amplitude of the focus change during an orbit is $3\sim5 \mu m$. This small focus variation does not severely affect the quality of ACS observations in general. However, it produces conspicuous changes in the PSF ellipticity and width variation across the detector. In Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\] and \[fig\_many\_pattern\_width\], we show the time-dependent PSF pattern in ellipticity and width, respectively, observed in 30 different F435W exposures. In both figures, time increases to the right and to the bottom; the observation date and time are denoted in the $year-month-day$ and $hour-minute-second$ (UT) format above each panel. The exposures are not homogeneously sampled in time (e.g., the first 9 exposures are taken on the same observation date). It is clear that the PSF ellipticity and width patterns vary quite significantly. When the instrument is at negative focus, the “whiskers” are on average elongated from lower left to upper right as already seen for the case in \[section\_test\_result\]. We observe that these negative focus patterns dominate over positive focus patterns not only in F435W, but also in other filter observations. At positive focus, the whiskers are approximately perpendicular to the pattern observed at negative focus (e.g., plots in the fourth row of the second and the sixth columns). Comparison between Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\] and \[fig\_many\_pattern\_width\] show that the average PSF widths per pointing are in general proportional to the average magnitudes of ellipticities (i.e., size of whiskers). Moreover, we realize that the PSF width variation pattern is potentially a more sensitive measure of the HST focus and helps us to characterize the pattern more precisely. For example, the first 9 exposures taken on the same observation date appear to possess ellipticity patterns very similar to one another. If one is somehow asked to select two PSF patterns that were observed under similar circumstances, the task based on the visual inspection of these ellipticity plots is quite challenging. However, with the aid of Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\_width\] one can easily tell that the first one can pair with the fourth one, the second one with the third one, the sixth one with the seventh one, etc. A close examination of the time-dependent variation of the pattern suggests that the patterns are repeatable even if their observation epochs are quite apart. For example, the two observations taken on 24 October 2002 (2nd row and 5th column) and 6 September 2003 (3rd row and 6th column) match each other not only in the ellipticity pattern, but also in the PSF width pattern. Although this repeatability does not necessarily guarantee that the PSF pattern is uniquely determined by a single parameter (focus), it provides important justification that we can apply the PSF templates obtained from these stellar fields to science observations taken at different epochs. We suspect that other factors such as velocity aberration, detector plane tilt, pointing accuracy degradation, etc. also might modulate the observed pattern. As suggested by Jarvis & Jain (2006), PCA of the polynomial coefficients may help us to determine the number of degrees of freedom in future investigations. Comparison with a shapelet approach ----------------------------------- In our previous studies, we used shapelets to interpolate PSF variations across WFC. Although shapelets provide competitive efficiency in describing ACS PSFs, their performance is somewhat inferior to the current method obviously because the basis functions derived from PCA is optimally customized to the given data. In the following, we present quantitative comparison using the same dataset (J8C0D1051) analyzed with PCA in \[section\_implementation\]. We choose a shapelet order to be eight and apply a 4th order polynomial interpolation. As stated in Jee et al. (2005a), increasing the order of polynomials beyond the third order does not improve the fit. A shapelet order of eight contains 45 independent basis functions. We again emphasize that increasing the order of shapelet beyond this at the expense of computation time does not noticeably improve the quality of the ACS PSF representation (sometimes this makes the interpolation unstable as the high order terms start fitting the noise). The left panel of Figure \[fig\_shapelet\_performance\] shows the ellipticity residuals between the observed stars and the shapelet model. The mean absolute deviation $<|\delta {\mbox{\boldmath${\epsilon}$}}|>$ is $(6.8\pm0.1)\times 10^{-3}$ after 3 $\sigma$ outlier rejection. This is very close to the value that we obtained from the PCA method ($(6.5\pm0.1)\times 10^{-3}$). However, the residual ellipticity correlation (middle panel of Figure \[fig\_shapelet\_performance\]) illustrates that the systematic errors of the shapelet model (black) is somewhat higher than the PCA model (red); we see higher correlation on small scales ($\lesssim 100\arcsec$) and higher anti-correlation on large scales ($\gtrsim 150\arcsec$). In the right panel of Figure \[fig\_shapelet\_performance\], we display the ACS PSF width variation predicted by the shapelet model. Comparison of this plot with Figure \[fig\_psf\_width\] shows that the shapelet model dampens the variation pattern. The “moat” and “hill” features are hard to identify although the model satisfactorily describes the broadening at the field boundaries (the lower-right and upper-right corners). We note that the widths of “hill” stars here are $\sim4$% smaller than those of the observed stars. In summary, the ACS PSF variation model through shapelet coefficient interpolation performs competitively well in representing the ellipticities although we note that the systematics in the shapelet PSF model is higher than in the PCA PSF model. The shapelet PSF model does not fully describe the ACS PSF width variation, under-representing the “moat” and “hill’ features. These shortcomings are not worrisome in typical cluster weak-lensing analyses, where the residual systematics are still far smaller than galaxy shape or foreground-contamination noise. However, the under-representation of the PSF widths makes the shapelet model inadequate for some applications (e.g., precision stellar photometry, cosmic shear measurement, etc.); in particular, the PSF width variation is directly related to shear calibration (dilution correction) biases of cosmic shear measurements. Comparison with TinyTim ----------------------- TinyTim is a software package for generating simulated PSFs for various instruments installed on $HST$. The diffraction pattern is modeled by careful understanding of the telescope’s aperture and the optical path difference functions. Because the current publicly available version of TinyTim is also capable of modeling field-dependent variations in aberrations and charge diffusion for a full set of ACS filters at different focus offsets, in principle it can obviate our empirical efforts to model PSFs $if$ the results are consistent with stellar observations. In order to compare TinyTim PSFs with those of real observations, we generated PSF templates with TinyTim by varying focus values and star positions. We changed the focus values at the $1 \mu m$ interval from $-10 \mu m$ to $+4 \mu m$, and for a given focus we placed stars at the $\sim 125$ pixel interval, uniformly covering the WFC detector. Because the final products by TinyTim are the ACS PSFs in a distorted frame, we applied drizzle with the Lanczos3 kernel (the choice that we also made for the observation) to simulate the geometric distortion correction effect. We determined the “focus” of the observation in Figure \[fig\_starfield\_image\] to be $-7 \mu m$ by searching for the TinyTim PSF template that best matched the observed ellipticity variation (shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\]). The first panel of Figure \[fig\_tiny\_performance\] shows the ellipticity pattern for the observation predicted by TinyTim. Comparison with the left panel of Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\] gives a visual impression that TinyTim PSFs can reproduce the global feature of the ACS PSF variation. However, when examined star-by-star, the TinyTim PSFs give large systematic residuals (second panel); in general TinyTim stars appear to have more vertical elongation (i.e., smaller $\epsilon_{+}$). Obviously, these large systematic residuals translate into the high amplitudes of ellipticity correlations (third panel). The PSF width variation (fourth panel) predicted by TinyTim closely resembles the observed pattern (see Figure \[fig\_psf\_width\] for comparison). We note, however, that the PSF widths of the TinyTim stars are systematically smaller ($\sim2$%) than the observed values. The large systematic residuals in ellipticity are worrisome. This non-negligible discrepancy between the TinyTim prediction and the observation suggests that TinyTim ACS PSFs cannot be directly applied to ACS observations if PSF anisotropy is of critical concern. For example, most weak-lensing studies draw lensing signal from faint, small galaxies that are only slightly larger than instrument PSFs. The large residual ellipticities shown in Figure \[fig\_tiny\_performance\] can mimic (false) lensing signals. Of course, this TinyTim vs. observation mismatch is not confined to this particular observation (J8C0D1051). To compare with the observed PSF patterns presented in Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\] and \[fig\_many\_pattern\_width\] for F435W, we generate TinyTim PSF ellipticities of the same filter for the focus values ranging from -10 $\mu$ m to $+4 \mu$ m in Figure \[fig\_many\_tinytim\] and  \[fig\_many\_tinytim\_width\]. Again, we emphasize that the TinyTim PSFs reproduce the global feature of the PSF variation; as described by Krist (2003), we note that at negative focus values, the PSFs are on average elongated from lower-left to upper-right and at positive focus values the average elongation rotates by 90. However, a scrutiny reveals that on small scales there exist some important discrepancies similar to the ones already demonstrated in Figure \[fig\_tiny\_performance\] One additional discrepancy deserving our attention is the feature near the gap between the two CCDs. A conspicuous discontinuity in ellipticity is observed in the TinyTim predictions (especially from the focus offset of $-6\mu$m to $-2\mu$m) whereas in the observed PSFs the ellipticity change across the gap appears to be continuous. The discontinuity appears because the TinyTim assumes that there is a height offset of $0.02 \mu m$ between WFC1 and WFC2 based on the previous focus-monitoring program results (Krist 2003). Rhodes et al. (2007) also noticed this discrepancy between the observed stars in the COSMOS field and the TinyTim model stars, and attributed the absence of this discontinuity across the chip in observations to CTE degradations. This is a plausible explanation considering that the CTE-induced charge trailing in Y-axis can cause an increase in PSF ellipticity along the same direction; the regions near the chip gap are farthest from the readout registers and thus are subject to greatest charge trailing. Because Rhodes et al. (2007) relied on TinyTim for the correction of PSF effects in the COSMOS field, they introduced some empirical multiplicative factors to their quadrupole moment measurements in order to improve the agreement between TinyTim and COSMOS field stars. However, although we observe that in certain situations the CTE degradation can lead to some smearing of PSFs in $y$ direction, we attribute the TinyTim and the observation mismatch largely to the imperfection of TinyTim rather than to the imperfection of the CCDs (i.e., CTE degradation) based on the following points. First, such discontinuities as predicted by TinyTim are absent or negligibly small in real observations not only in the latest data, but also in the earliest data soon collected after the installation of ACS on Hubble in March 2002. The CTE degradation is mainly caused by exposure to high-energy charged particles in the space environment, and thus the degradation grows with time. If the effect of the CTE degradation is indeed the cause of the absence of discontinuity in ellipticity pattern across the gap, we should have observed in early ACS data the smallest discrepancies between TinyTim and real PSFs (i.e., the largest discontinuity across the gap in observed PSFs). Second, even if the charge trailing elongates PSFs, it cannot explain the absence of the discontinuity in real observations. Because the CTE degradation is largest for the regions farthest from the readout registers, the CTE-induced elongation should be equally greatest at the top of WFC2 and at the bottom of WFC1. Therefore, the effect cannot reduce the discontinuity that TinyTim predicts between the two regions; if the CTE-induced elongation is unrealistically very large, it can give a false visual impression that the discontinuity is reduced. Third, because the CTE degradation is supposed to elongate faint sources much more severely than bright ones, it is not probable that the ellipticity patterns in Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\] made from very high S/N stars are severely affected by the charge trailing. Finally, we don’t expect to observe such substantial CTE charge trailing as to cause the large discrepancy between the COSMOS stars and the TinyTim PSFs, considering the relatively high sky background level ($>40$ $e^{-}$) of the COSMOS field. The background photons are supposed to fill charge traps and substantially mitigate the CTE degradation (Riess and Mack 2004). Therefore it is difficult to imagine that the CTE degradation selectively elongates the bright COSMOS stars at the top of WFC2 and make the ellipticity change across the gap look artificially continuous. In Figure \[fig\_tiny\_hist\], we display the distribution of the mean residual ellipticity correlation for $\xi_{+}$ (left) and $\xi_{\times}$ (right) after fitting TinyTim PSF to the 30 exposures in Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\]. We used the ellipticities of all the available high S/N stars in the fields ($200\sim900$) to find the matching TinyTim PSF templates. Not surprisingly, only a small fraction of the results give reasonably small residual ellipticity correlation ($\lesssim 10^{-5}$). We observe that none of the 30 exposures finds the TinyTim PSF template that yields residual correlation of $\lesssim 10^{-6}$ for both $\xi_{+}$ and $\xi_{\times}$ simultaneously. Moreover, inspection of the $\epsilon_{+}$ residuals as a function of y-axis always shows a sudden, distinct discontinuity of $\sim0.02$ regardless of the observation epoch. We show one such example in Figure \[fig\_tiny\_discontinuity\], where we arbitrarily select the first exposure in Figure \[fig\_many\_pattern\] (taken on 6 May 2002 at 1:51:21 UT). In addition to the aforementioned discrepancies between TinyTim and observed PSFs, we also point out here that the current version of TinyTim does not model a strong scatter along the CCD serial readout direction at long wavelengths ($>8000$Å). This horizontal pattern (left panel of Figure \[fig\_psf\_scatter\]) is caused by an anti-halation layer introduced between the CCD and its glass substrate (Sirianni et al. 1998), which is effective at suppressing a near IR halo. The feature, which contains $\sim20$% of the total PSF flux at $1\mu m$, is strong in F850LP, and also visible in F814W whose transmission curve truncates at 9300 Å. The feature appears to enhance the existing horizontal diffraction spikes particularly on the left-hand side of the core. However, unlike the real diffraction spikes, this scattering feature penetrates deep into the PSF core, substantially increasing the PSF ellipticity along $x$ direction (right panel of Figure \[fig\_psf\_scatter\]). How to Select the Right PSF Template ------------------------------------ Extracting the PSF information from stellar observations to construct a library of PSF templates is one thing, but finding a matching PSF template for a given science image is quite another. Most of the existing stellar observations in the $HST$ archive are taken in short exposures ($30\sim60$s) whereas typical science observations require integration of one or more orbits. Particularly, weak-lensing analysis of distant clusters ($z\gtrsim0.8$) needs multi-orbit integration (with some dithering pattern) to achieve the aimed depth and field of view. Therefore, we must justify that the PSF template compiled from these short exposure observations can reliably represent the PSF pattern for the long-exposure science image, which should contain the intra-orbit focus variation. Fortunately, previous studies (Jee et al. 2005a; Schrabback et al. 2007) support the fact that the short-time exposure PSF pattern can adequately serve as a mean PSF for long-exposure science observations. Rhodes et al. (2007) also claim that the TinyTim PSFs even at a fixed focus value can nicely represent the COSMOS stars except for the aforementioned pattern in the detector center. Having accepted that the short-exposure PSFs can properly serve as average PSFs for long-exposure data, we can straightforwardly handle multi-orbit data by finding a matching PSF template for each exposure. This method is proposed by Jee et al. (2007), Schrabback et al. (2007), and Rhodes et al. (2007). Jee et al. (2007) implemented the idea of finding a matching template for each exposure from visual inspection of the star whiskers. This manual procedure soon becomes prohibitively time-consuming as the number of exposures increases. Rhodes et al. (2007) and Schrabback et al. (2007) suggested an automation of the procedure by fitting the ellipticities of the PSF model (whether derived from TinyTim or archival stellar fields) to the ellipticities of the stars in the target field. We find that this method is a workable solution in general, but can be improved by fitting the sizes of the PSFs, as well as the ellipticities. The merit is due to the observation that the sizes of the PSFs are also sensitive to the focus of $HST$. Therefore, our best fitting PSF template minimizes the following $\chi^2$: $$\chi^2 = \sum \left [ \frac { (Q_{11}-Q'_{11})^2 }{ \sigma^2_{Q_{11}} } + \frac { (Q_{22}-Q'_{22})^2 }{ \sigma^2_{Q_{22}} } + \frac { (Q_{12}-Q'_{12})^2 }{ \sigma^2_{Q_{12}} } \right ] \label{eqn_psf_match}$$ where $Q_{ij}$ and $Q'_{ij}$ are the measurements of the stars in the science image and the predicted values at the same locations in the model, respectively. In the current study the uncertainties of the moments in Equation \[eqn\_psf\_match\] were evaluated from Monte Carlo simulations; alternatively, one can use analytic approximations (e.g., Goldberg & Natarajan 2002). We examined the reliability of the above PSF fitting by randomly drawing a small number of stars from the catalog of J8C0D1051 and fitting the template PSF from our library to these stars. The catalog of J8C0D1051 contains $\sim870$ stars and as already shown in Figure \[fig\_ellipticity\_recovery\] a small fraction ($\sim6$%) of these stars ($\sim150$) are noisy (residual ellipticity greater than 0.02). We did not discard these noisy stars in the random selection because we want to simulate realistic cases where it is hard to judge which stars are noisy. The reliability of the PSF fitting of course depends on the properties and the locations of the selected stars. Therefore, we iterated 100 times for a given number of stars to even out the selection effect. We evaluated the quality of the fitting using the resulting ellipticity correlation functions. We consider the fitting as failure if the absolute value of the mean correlation is greater than $10^{-5}$, which is a very conservative choice (cosmic shear signals are of the order $10^{-4}$. however, they are measured from galaxies whose ellipticity correlations due to the PSF correlations are somewhat diluted). Figure \[fig\_psf\_fitting\_error\] displays the simulation result. A few points are worthy to be discussed. First, the success rate is still high even when only 5 stars are used (7 and 13 out of 100 failures for quadrupole and ellipticity fitting, respectively). Second, the number of failure incidences for quadrupole fitting is significantly lower than for ellipticity fitting (approximately a factor of two less incidences for fewer than 15 stars). Finally, we note that even for the “failure” incidences the resulting ellipticity correlation is only moderately high ($\sim10^{-4}$ or less). CONCLUSIONS \[section\_conclusion\] =================================== We showed that the time- and position-dependent ACS/WFC PSF can be robustly described through PCA. The PCA technique allows us to perform orthogonal expansion of the observed PSFs with as few as 20 eigen-PSFs derived from the data themselves. This method is superior to our previous shapelet-based decomposition of the PSFs, capturing more details of the diffraction pattern of the instrument PSF. By interpolating the position-dependent variation of the eigen-PSFs with 5th order polynomials, we are able to recover the observed pattern of the PSF ellipticity and width variation. Although the TinyTim software provides a good approximation of the observed PSFs, we demonstrate that there are some important mismatches between the TinyTim prediction and the real PSFs, which cannot be attributed to CTE degradation of WFC over time. The CTE charge trailing effect should be negligible for these bright high S/N stars, and we do not observe any long-term variation of the pattern (i.e., increasing elongation in parallel read-out direction with time) due to the CTE degradation. Because typical science observations require integration of one or more orbits in broadband filters, the background levels are high ($\sim200$ $e^{-}$ for integration of one orbit). These high background photons are supposed to fill the charge traps and thus mitigate the CTE effects. Therefore, we argue that the CTE-induced elongation is not likely to limit the application of our PSF models extracted from short-exposure observations to long-exposure science images. We have compiled WFC PSFs from $>400$ stellar field observations, which span a wide range of $HST$ focus values. Although the current paper mainly deals with the ACS/WFC PSF issue in the context of weak-lensing analysis, we believe that our PSF model can be used in a wide range of the astronomical data analyses where the knowledge of the position-dependent WFC PSF is needed (e.g., crowded field stellar photometry, robust profile fitting of small objects, weak-lensing analyses, etc.). ACS was developed under NASA contract NAS5-32865, and this research was supported by NASA grant NAG5-7697. Anderson, J. & King  2006, $Instrument$ $Science$ $Report$ $ACS$ 2006-01, Space Telescope Science Institute Bernstein, G. M., & Jarvis, M. 2002, , 123, 583 Bromley, B. C., Press, W. H., Lin, H., & Kirshner, R. P. 1998, , 505, 25 Connolly, A. J., Szalay, A. S., Bershady, M. A., Kinney, A. L., & Calzetti, D. 1995, , 110, 1071 Goldberg, D. M., & Natarajan, P. 2002, , 564, 65 Hack, W., Busko, I., & Jedrzejewski, R. 2003, ASP Conf. Ser. 295: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, 295, 453 Hershey, J. 1997, Modeling HST Focal-Length Variations V.1.1, SESD-97-01 Heymans, C., et al.  2005, , 361, 160 Jarvis, M., & Jain, B. 2004, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0412234 Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ben[í]{}tez, N., Ford, H. C., Blakeslee, J. P., Rosati, P., Demarco, R., & Illingworth, G. D. 2005a, , 618, 46 Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ford, H. C., Blakeslee, J. P., Illingworth, G. D., Coe, D. A., & Tran, K.-V. H. 2005b, , 634, 813 Jee, M. J., White, R. L., Ford, H. C., Illingworth, G. D., Blakeslee, J. P., Holden, B., & Mei, S.  2006, , 642, 720 Jee, M. J., Ford, H. C., Illingworth, G. D., , White, R. L., Broadhurst, T. J., Coe, D. A., Meurer, G. R., van der Wel, A., Benitez, N., Blakeslee, J. P., Bouwens, R. J., Bradley, L., Demarco, R., Homeier, N.  L. , Martel, A. R., & & Mei, S.  2007, , 661, 728 Krist, J. 2003, $Instrument$ $Science$ $Report$ $ACS$ 2003-06, Space Telescope Science Institute Lauer, T. R.   2002, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0208247 Lupton, R., Gunn, J. E., Ivezi[ć]{}, Z., Knapp, G. R., & Kent, S. 2001, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, 238, 269 Madgwick, D. S., et al. 2003, , 599, 997 Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T., Flannery, B.P. 1992, Numerical Recipes. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press) Refregier, A. 2003, , 338, 35 Rhodes, J. D., et al.  2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0702140 Riess, A. & Mack, J. 2004, $Instrument$ $Science$ $Report$ $ACS$ 2004-006, Space Telescope Science Schrabback, T., et al. 2007, , 468, 823 Sirianni, M., et al.  1998, , 3355, 608 [^1]: The full PSF library of ACS will become available at http://acs.pha.jhu.edu/$\sim$mkjee/acs\_psf/.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Current state-of-the-art NMT systems use large neural networks that are not only slow to train, but also often require many heuristics and optimization tricks, such as specialized learning rate schedules and large batch sizes. This is undesirable as it requires extensive hyperparameter tuning. In this paper, we propose a [*curriculum learning framework for NMT*]{} that reduces training time, reduces the need for specialized heuristics or large batch sizes, and results in overall better performance. Our framework consists of a principled way of deciding which training samples are shown to the model at different times during training, based on the estimated [*difficulty*]{} of a sample and the current [*competence*]{} of the model. Filtering training samples in this manner prevents the model from getting stuck in bad local optima, making it converge faster and reach a better solution than the common approach of uniformly sampling training examples. Furthermore, the proposed method can be easily applied to existing NMT models by simply modifying their input data pipelines. We show that our framework can help improve the training time and the performance of both recurrent neural network models and Transformers, achieving up to a 70% decrease in training time, while at the same time obtaining accuracy improvements of up to 2.2 BLEU.' author: - | Emmanouil Antonios Platanios$^\dagger$, Otilia Stretcu$^\dagger$, Graham Neubig$^\ddag$, Barnabas Poczos$^\dagger$, Tom M. Mitchell$^\dagger$\ $^\dagger$Machine Learning Department, $^\ddag$Language Technologies Institute\ Carnegie Mellon University\ `{e.a.platanios,ostretcu,gneubig,bpoczos,tom.mitchell}@cs.cmu.edu` bibliography: - 'naaclhlt2019.bib' title: | Competence-based Curriculum Learning for\ Neural Machine Translation --- Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We would like to thank Maruan Al-Shedivat and Dan Schwartz for the useful feedback they provided in early versions of this paper. This research was supported in part by AFOSR under grant FA95501710218.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The radial distribution of luminous ($L_X>10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$) X-ray point sources in the bulge of M31 is investigated using archival *Chandra* observations. We find a significant increase of the specific frequency of X-ray sources, per unit stellar mass, within 1 arcmin from the centre of the galaxy. The radial distribution of surplus sources in this region follows the $\rho_*^2$ law, suggesting that they are low-mass X-ray binaries formed dynamically in the dense inner bulge. We investigate dynamical formation of LMXBs, paying particular attention to the high velocity regime characteristic for galactic bulges, which has not been explored previously. Our calculations suggest that the majority of the surplus sources are formed in tidal captures of black holes by main sequence stars of low mass, $M_*\la 0.3-0.4M_\odot$, with some contribution of NS systems of same type. Due to the small size of the accretion discs a fraction of such systems may be persistent X-ray sources. Some of sources may be ultra-compact X-ray binaries with helium star/white dwarf companions. We also predict a large number of faint transients, both NS and BH systems, within $\sim$ 1 arcmin from the M31 galactic centre. Finally, we consider the population of dynamically formed binaries in Galactic globular clusters, emphasizing the differences between these two types of stellar environments.' author: - | R. Voss$^{1}$[^1] and M. Gilfanov$^{1,2}$\ $^{1}$Max Planck Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.1, 85741 Garching, Germany\ $^{2}$Space Research Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya 84/32, 117997 Moscow, Russia title: 'The dynamical formation of LMXBs in dense stellar environments: globular clusters and the inner bulge of M31' --- \[firstpage\] galaxies: individual: M31 – X-rays: binaries – X-rays: galaxies Introduction ============ It is a well known fact that the ratio of the number of low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) to stellar mass is $\sim$ two orders of magnitude higher in globular clusters (GCs) than in the Galactic disc [@Clark]. With the advent of *Chandra* and *XMM-Newton*, studies of X-ray point sources in external galaxies have become possible, and have shown that also there globular clusters are especially abundant in LMXBs. This is attributed to dynamical processes, through which LMXBs are formed in two-body encounters. Due to the $\rho_*^2$ dependence on the stellar density such encounters are frequent in globular clusters and are negligible in the field. Currently, there are 13 LMXBs [@Liu] in the 150 globular clusters [@Harris] known in the Galaxy. In the central parts of massive galaxies, the stellar densities can reach values similar to the densities in less luminous GCs. Except for the very inner parts, these densities are still an order of magnitude smaller than the densities found in the most luminous GCs, where the LMXBs are preferentially found. However, the large volume compensates for the smaller density and LMXBs can be formed near the galactic centres in two-body encounters in non-negligible numbers. Whereas dynamical interactions in globular clusters have been intensively investigated, the parameter range typical of galactic centres remains unexplored. Due to an order of magnitude higher stellar velocities, the character of the dynamical interactions and relative importance of different formation channels in the galactic centres differ from those in globular clusters. Due to the large stellar mass contained in the central region of a galaxy, a number of “primordial” LMXBs formed through the standard evolutionary path exist there too. Although these can not be easily distinguished from the binaries formed in two-body encounters, an argument of the specific LMXB frequency (per unit stellar mass) can be employed, in the manner similar to the one that led to the discovery of dynamical formation of binaries in globular clusters. The volume density of the primordial LMXBs follows the distribution of the stellar mass in a galaxy [@Gilfanov] whereas the spatial distribution of the dynamically formed binaries is expected to obey the $\rho_*^2/v$ law [@Fabian]. Hence the latter should be expected to be much more concentrated towards the centre of the host galaxy and reveal themselves as a population of “surplus” sources near its centre. M31 is the closest galaxy with a bulge density large enough to host a number of LMXBs formed through dynamical interactions. At a distance of 780 kpc [@Stanek; @Macri] X-ray sources can be easily resolved with *Chandra*, even near the centre of the galaxy. It has been studied extensively with *Chandra* and we use these observations to explore the radial distribution of bright X-ray point sources in the bulge. The results of this study are presented in the Section \[sect:data\] where it is demonstrated that the specific frequency of X-rays sources increases sharply inside $\approx 1$ arcmin. The possible nature of surplus sources is discussed in section \[sect:origin\]. The details of dynamical formation of binaries in dense stellar environments and dependence on the stellar velocity dispersion are considered in the section \[sect:intro\]. The results of this section are applied to the inner bulge of M31 and to the Galactic globular clusters in sections \[sect:realistic\]. Our conclusions are presented in the section \[sect:conclusions\]. ![The radial distribution of the X-ray point sources in M31, excluding globular cluster sources and subtracting expected level of CXB source density (shown by the dashed line). The histogram shows the distribution of primordial LMXB sub-population as traced by the stellar mass distribution. The normalization of the latter is from the best fit to the data outside 1 arcmin. []{data-label="fig:fit"}](fig1.eps){width="\hsize"} Radial distribution of the X-ray point sources {#sect:data} ============================================== With the currently available *Chandra* data it is possible to study the spatial distribution of the X-ray point sources in the bulge, without being affected by incompleteness, down to the limiting lumionosity of 10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$. We restrict our analysis out to a distance of 12 arcmin from the centre and combine 26 ACIS observations with telescope pointings within the central 10 arcmin region of the M31 bulge for a total exposure time of 201 ks. Details of the data analysis, the source lists and the luminosity functions of various sub-populations in the bulge are presented in @Voss2. We model the radial distribution of the X-ray sources by a superposition of primordial LMXBs and CXB sources, as in @Voss. The spatial distribution of the former is assumed to follow the stellar mass distribution of the galaxy, as traced by the K-band light [@Gilfanov]. We used the K-band image of M31 provided by 2MASS LGA [@Jarret]. The distribution of CXB sources is assumed to be flat on the angular scales of interest. Before proceeding with the fit we removed the contribution the from sources other than primordial LMXBs and background galaxies. Firstly, we removed 4 identified foreground sources, 1 supernova remnant and one extended source. Secondly, we excluded X-ray binaries associated with globular clusters, as their origin and spatial distribution are different from the “field” LMXBs. Among our X-ray sources 13 are coincident with confirmed GCs from @Bologna and 8 with GC candidates. We estimated the number of random matches by displacing the sources by 10 arcsec in 4 directions. We found an average of 0.25 coincidences with confirmed GCs and 1.0 with GC candidates. It is well known that the inner parts of M31 are depleted of GCs. @Barmby estimate that 70 per cent of the GCs within 5 arcmin from the centre of M31 have been detected, leaving $\sim$16 GCs undetected. As only a fraction, $\sim 1/5$, of the GCs in M31 contain LMXBs the expected contribution of LMXBs from undetected GCs is $\sim$3. Due to selection effects, the majority of the undetected GCs are of low luminosity (absolute visual magnitudes $\textit{V}\gtrsim-7$), and as LMXBs are preferentially found in high luminosity GCs the actual number of LMXBs in undetected GCs is expected to be $\lesssim 1$. A large fraction of the GC candidates are not real globular clusters. However, an association with an X-ray source raises the probability of the GC candidates actually being GCs considerably. We therefore remove these sources from our source list too, noting that all conclusions of this paper remain unchanged if the analysis is performed with a source list in which these sources are included. We fit the relative normalizations of the LMXBs and CXBs, using the maximum likelihood (ML) test. The best fit is given by a model, in which the normalization of CXBs is zero, meaning that all the sources are LMXBs. As an alternative, we performed a $\chi^2$-fit on the binned data, with $>15$ sources in each bin, and obtained the same result. The probability that the data can be a realization of the model is 0.06 using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test, and $6\cdot 10^{-4}$ for the $\chi^2$ test. The KS test is less sensitive to deviations at the end of a distribution, and therefore the result of the $\chi^2$-test is more restrictive. We conclude that the LMXB+CXB model is rejected. The visual examination of the data (Fig. \[fig:fit\]) suggests that the reason for the rejection of the model is an overdensity of sources in the inner 1 arcmin region of M31. Motivated by this we did a $\chi^2$ fit of the same model to the distribution outside 1 arcmin. The best fit value of the normalization of the CXB component gives the total number of 26$\pm$9 sources CXB sources in the entire $r<12$ arcmin. This value is consistent with the expectation of 29 background galaxies, estimated from the soft band of @Moretti, using the method described in @Voss. We therefore fix the normalization of the CXB component at the value corresponding to 29 sources. This gives a total number of the LMXBs of 64$\pm$7 in the entire $r<12$ arcmin image. The $\chi^2$-value is 2.63 for 3 degrees of freedom. The best fit model is shown in Fig. \[fig:fit\] together with the observed distribution. Using the best-fit model it is possible to investigate the distribution of sources in the inner 1 arcmin and quantify the excess in the surface density of the sources. The total number of sources detected in the the $r<60$ arcsec region is 29. The extrapolation of the best fit model into this region predicts 8.4$\pm0.9$ sources, and therefore the number of surplus sources is 20.6$\pm5.5$. The error in the latter estimate accounts for the Poissonian uncertainty in the total number of sources inside 60 arcsec and for the uncertainty of the best fit model normalization. As it is obvious from Fig.\[fig:fit\], the contrast between the observed number of sources and that predicted from the K-band light distribution increases towards the centre of the galaxy. Inside $r<15$ arcsec, for example, 9 sources are detected with only 1.1 sources predicted. The formal probability of such an excess to happen due to statistical fluctuation is $\sim 3\cdot 10^{-6}$, assuming Poissonian distribution. Origin of the surplus binaries {#sect:origin} ============================== Non-uniform extinction, peaking at the centre of M31, could cause the distribution of the *K*-band light to deviate from the distribution of stellar mass. This possibility can be excluded, however, as the extinction towards the centre of M31 is low, $A_V$=0.24 mag and $A_I$=0.14 mag [@Han], which extrapolated to the *K*-band gives $A_K$=0.03 [@Binney]. Moreover, a non-uniform extinction distribution would also cause non-uniformity in the apparent colours of the stellar population, which is not observed [@Walterbos]. The surplus sources can be high-mass X-ray binaries associated with star formation in the inner bulge of M31. We derive upper limits for the star formation rate and the number of HMXBs from the H$\alpha$ and FIR luminosities reported by @Devereux. The combined H$\alpha$ luminosity of the nuclear region and from diffuse emission inside the star forming ring (which lies at a radius $\sim$50 arcmin, i.e. much larger than the region analysed in this paper) is 4.3$\cdot$ 10$^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (transformed to the distance of 780 kpc used in this paper). From @Grimm we find that this corresponds to 3.2 HMXBs with a luminosity above 10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The FIR luminosity in this region is 5.25$\cdot$10$^{8}$ L$_\odot$, which corresponds to 5.9 HMXBs with a luminosity above 10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$. It should be stressed out, that the region these luminosities refer to is almost 20 times larger than the region analysed in this paper. Moreover it is very likely that the main part of the H$\alpha$ and FIR emission is not associated with star formation, as the number of O-type stars is a factor of $\sim$ 200 lower than what would be expected otherwise [@Devereux]. To conclude, the HMXB nature of the sources in the inner bulge can be excluded. The surplus sources could have been created in globular clusters that remain undetected. In the catalogue of @Bologna there are 64 confirmed GCs hosting 13 LMXBs in the region we analysed. The fraction of GCs containing X-ray sources is therefore 0.2. This number is larger than what is found in other galaxies [@Sarazin; @Maccarone], due to the better sensitivity of our study, but consistent with the results for the inner parts of galaxies in @Kim. Attributing the $\approx 20$ surplus sources to undetected GCs would therefore indicate that $\sim$ 100 unobserved GCs exist in the inner 1 arcmin region of M31. This is much larger than allowed by the completeness level of the present studies of GC population in M31, consistent with only a few undetected globular clusters in this region [@Barmby]. ![The radial distribution of the “surplus” X-ray sources, computed as a difference between the data and best fit model shown in figure \[fig:fit\]. The histograms show distributions of the confirmed globular clusters (thick grey line) and globular cluster candidates (thin grey line).[]{data-label="fig:surplus2"}](fig2.eps) In a related scenario, the surplus sources could have been created in globular clusters at larger distances from the centre of M31. Due to the mass segregation the globular clusters drift towards the centre of the bulge, where they are destroyed, leaving behind remnant LMXBs. This scenario has been motivated by Fig.\[fig:surplus2\] where the radial distribution of surplus sources is compared with that of the globular clusters. Indeed, for a GC of mass $10^5 M_{\odot}$ the mass segregation timescale is $\sim 10^9$ yr at a radius of 5 arcmin and $\sim 10^{10}$ yr at a radius of 12 arcmin [@Spitzer]. Assuming that a neutron star turns accreted matter into radiation with an efficiency of $\sim$ 0.2, the lifetime of an LMXB is $\la 10^9 m_d/L_{37}$ yr, where $m_d$ is the mass of the donor star at the onset of mass transfer expressed in solar masses, and $L_{37}$ is the average luminosity of an LMXB in units of $10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Taking into account that on average $\sim1/5$ of GCs in M31 contain LMXBs, a destruction rate of $\sim$ 100 globular clusters per Gyr is required to explain $\approx 20$ sources observed near the centre of M31. This number is comparable to the total number of GCs within the entire region analysed in this study, and is $\sim$ 30 per cent of the total number of GCs in M31. As GCs are not continually formed in large numbers in M31, the globular cluster system of this galaxy will not be able to sustain such a destruction rate and, consequently, the population of X-ray sources observed in the inner bulge, for any significant length of time. Finally, the stellar density in the central part of the M31 bulge, $\sim 10^4$ M$_\odot$/pc$^3$, is high enough that LMXBs can be formed through dynamical interactions in the same manner as in globular clusters. In the following sections we investigate this possibility, and apply it to the population of X-ray sources in the inner bulge of M31 and in globular clusters in the Milky Way. Dynamical interactions in dense stellar environments {#sect:intro} ==================================================== There are three main channels of dynamical LMXB formation operating in dense stellar environments[^2]: 1. In a tidal capture of a neutron star (NS) by a non-degenerate single star, a close passage of the two stars induces oscillations in the non-degenerate star, and the energy for this is taken from the orbital energy. If the energy of the oscillations exceeds the originally positive orbital energy, the stars are captured in a bound orbit [@Fabian]. 2. A collision between an NS and an evolved single star on the subgiant or red giant branch (RGB) or the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) can lead to the formation of an X-ray binary, in which the donor star is a white/brown dwarf or a helium star, depending on the evolutionary stage of the evolved star before the collision [@IvanovaU]. In the case of a white dwarf donor an ultra compact X-ray binary is formed. In this scenario, orbital energy is transferred to the envelope of the evolved star, which is expelled, leaving the NS and the core of the evolved star in a bound orbit [@Verbunt2]. 3. In an exchange reaction, an NS exchanges place with a star in a pre-existing binary during a close binary-single encounter [@Hills]. In the context of LMXB formation in globular clusters in the Milky Way, the attention has been initially drawn to the tidal captures [@Fabian], while the potential importance of the two other mechanisms has been realized few years later [@Hills; @Verbunt2]. The estimates of the LMXB production rates, which followed, revealed that each of the channels could give significant contribution to the population of LMXBs found in the Galactic GCs [e.g. @VerbuntH; @DaviesB]. Since then large amount of work has been done to understand physics of stellar encounters in detail, explore their parameter space and derive accurate mathematical prescriptions for the crossections and rates [e.g. @Press; @Lee; @McMillan; @Rasio; @Davies; @Sigurdsson; @Heggie3]. However, there have been surprisingly few studies making specific predictions of numbers of dynamically formed binaries which could be directly compared with their observed population in Galactic GCs. With the exception of a few studies considering a handful of individual GCs [@DaviesB; @IvanovaU], the rates are usualy computed for a set of the representative values of parameters (such as stellar density, velocity dispersion etc.) and then extrapolated to the entire Galactic globular cluster system [e.g. @Verbunt2]. An often used assumption is also that the number of LMXBs is proportional to $\rho_{\ast}^2/\sigma_v$ [@VerbuntH; @Pooley]. Although acceptable as an initial approximation, it is too crude to perform a quantitative comparison of the theory with observations. Another major limitation of the most of these investigations is that the subsequent evolution of the newly formed binary, into and through the X-ray active phase, is ignored. Due to lack of the attention and effort in this direction, it is currently unclear if any of the channels strongly dominates over the others in real globular clusters. Even less understood is the operation of these processes in the environment of the galactic centers. It is the goal of this paper to fill these gaps. In particular, a special attention will be paid to the following aspects of the problem, which have often been ignored in the previous publications on this subject: 1. calculation of the encounter crossections and rates in the high velocity regime typical for the galactic centers and investigations of their velocity dependence 2. critical review and comparison of the stellar environments (present day mass function, metallicity, abundance of compact objects etc) in globular clusters and galactic centers and investigations of their impact on the overall LMXB production rates via different LMXB formation channels. Reasonably accurate calculation of the encounter rates in the Galactic globular clusters and inner bulge of M31, based on their structural properties. 3. account for evolution of the newly formed binary before and during the X-ray active phase and estimates of the expected numbers of LMXBs based on the derived encounter rates General considerations ---------------------- In the following we compute cross-sections and rates of the three formation channels, consider their dependence on the velocity dispersion of the stars and discuss various factors affecting their efficiency in the high velocity regime. In section \[sect:realistic\] we use these results to calculate theoretical formation rates and numbers of observable LMXBs in the bulge of M31 and in the Galactic GCs. Each of the processes depends on the rate of encounters between two types of objects, which in a unit volume is given by $n_1n_2\gamma$, where $$\label{eq:rate1} \gamma=\int_0^\infty F(v_{rel},\sigma_v)\sigma(v_{rel},M_1,M_2) v_{rel}dv_{rel}$$ where $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the number densities and $M_1$ and $M_2$ are the masses of object type 1 and 2, respectively, $\sigma (v_{rel})$ is the cross-section of the encounter, and $F(v_{rel})$ is the distribution of relative velocities at infinity. Assuming that the velocity distributions of the two kinds of objects are both Maxwellian and have the same three-dimensional velocity dispersion $\sigma_v$, the distribution of relative velocities is given by $$\label{eq:veldis} F(v_{rel})dv_{rel}=\left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\right)^{-3/2}\sigma_v^{-3} exp\left(-\frac{3v_{rel}^2}{4\sigma_v^2}\right)4\pi v_{rel}^2dv_{rel}$$ Due to the effect of gravitational focusing, the cross-section for two objects to pass within a distance $D$ of each other is given by $$\label{eq:sigma} \sigma (v_{rel})=\pi D^2\left( 1+\frac{2G(M_1+M_2)}{Dv_{rel}^2}\right)$$ In most cases, the gravitational focusing (the second term in the brackets) dominates. Only for very fast encounters (large $D$ and/or $v_{rel}$) is $Dv_{rel}^2 > 2G(M_1+M_2)$. If $D$ is independent on the relative velocity, $\gamma \propto \rho^2/v_{rel}$ for slow encounters, and $\gamma \propto \rho^2v_{rel}$ for the fast ones. Several remarks are in place, concerning the subsequent evolution of the newly created binary system with a compact object. Capture of a neutron star in a bound orbit with a companion will lead to formation of an X-ray binary provided that the companion star will fill its Roche lobe and mass transfer will commense within a reasonable time, shorter than $\sim 5-10$ Gyr. If the initial binary separation is too large for this to occur immediately after the capture, it can be decreased in the course of evolution of the binary. There are 3 main mechanisms, which affect the orbital separation: (i) magnetic braking, (ii) gravitational braking and (iii) binary-single interactions. The former two are familiar from the standard theory of the binary evolution [see @Heuvel for a review]. For the companion mass in the $0.3-1.0 M_{\odot}$ range they will bring the system in to the Roche lobe contact within 5 Gyr if the initial orbital separation does not exceed $\sim 3.0-7.0 R_{\odot}$ and $\sim 2.5-3.0 R_{\odot}$ respectively. The braking mechanism due to interaction of the binary with single “field” stars is specific for high stellar density environments. Its properties are briefly summarized below. When considering evolution of a binary due to binary-single interactions it is conventional to divide the binaries into soft and hard, depending on the ratio of their binding energy to the kinetic energy of the single star at infinity [@Heggie1]. Soft binaries have relatively wide orbits, and interactions with single stars tend to widen the orbit further or to ionize the binary. Hard binaries, on the contrary, are on average hardened by encounters with single stars [@Hut]. The effect of this is that over time most binaries with a separation above a critical value are disrupted, while the compact ones become more compact. The boundary between soft and hard binaries depends on the stellar velocity dispersion and the mass ratios and ranges from $a\sim 300-1000 R_{\odot}$ in a typical globular cluster to $a\sim$ few $R_{\odot}$ in the high velocity environment of the M31 bulge. Due to a linear dependence of the crossection on the binary separation the collisional braking is mostly important at wide binaries, where magnetic braking and gravitational radiation, decreasing as inverse power of the binary separation, are inefficient. The initial orbital separation in the binaries produced through tidal captures and collisions with RGB/AGB stars is small and a large fraction of this systems will start mass transfer (i.e. become X-ray sources) soon after their formation. Only a small fraction of them ($\lesssim$20 per cent in GCs and $\lesssim2$ per cent in M31) will experience close encounters with single stars significantly affecting thery semimajor axis, therefore binary-single interactions are not an important factor in their evolution. Binaries created through exchanges, on the contrary, typically have wider orbits, and the effects of encounters can be important. If the initial binary separation is large and the braking mechanisms are insufficient to start Roche-lobe overflow, this can occur when the donor star evolves off the main sequence, as a result of its expansion during the giant phase. In these systems the accretion disc is large and X-ray emission from vicinity of the NS is insufficient for the irradiation to keep the entire disc ionized, and they are therefore transient [@King2]. Furthermore, mass transfer can only occur while the donor is on the RGB, which makes the lifetime of such systems short. While they may account for bright sources detected in massive elliptical galaxies [@Piro], they are too rare to make a significant contribution to our sample. The NSs in these systems are spun up to become millisecond pulsars, and in the Galactic GCs a large number of these have been observed [@Lorimer]. After the outer layers of the giant star have been ejected, a binary consisting of a white dwarf and an NS remains. However for the vast majority of the systems the binary separation is too large for mass transfer to begin, and they will therefore not become observable in X-rays. Single-single encounters ------------------------ The formation rates of LMXBs due to tidal captures and stellar collisions can be found by integrating the encounter rate, given by equation \[eq:rate1\], over the relevant parts of the mass function of stars $f(M)$. We assume that the latter follows the form of @Kroupa, a broken powerlaw with slope 1.3 from 0.1-0.5$M_{\odot}$ and slope 2.3 above 0.5 $M_{\odot}$, and is normalized according to $$\int_{M_{co}}^{M_{max}}f(M)dM=1.0$$ where $M_{max}$ is the maximum initial mass of stars that have not yet evolved to become stellar remnants at present, and $M_{co}$ is the lower cut-off mass. The number density of stars is then given by $n_{\ast}=\frac{\rho_{\ast}}{<M>}$, where $\rho_{\ast}$ is the stellar mass density. We assume the mass of all neutron stars to be $1.4M_{\odot}$, and that they are formed from stars with initial mass in the range $8.0-30.0M_{\odot}$. The number density of these can then be expressed as $n_{ns}=f_{ns}\frac{\rho_{\ast}}{<M>}=f_{ns}n_{\ast}$, where $f_{ns}=\int_{8M_{\odot}}^{30M_{\odot}}f(M)dM$ (for $M_{co}=0.1 M_{\odot}$ and $M_{max}=1.0 M_{\odot}$ $f_{ns}=0.0068$). We define the rate integrated with the mass function $$\Gamma=\int\gamma f(M)dM \label{eq:gamma_large}$$ where integration is performed in the relevant initial mass range (see below) and $\gamma$ is from equation \[eq:rate1\]. With this definition $n_{\ast}n_{ns}\Gamma$ gives the rate of encounters in s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-3}$. For the calculation of $\Gamma$ it is necessary to know the current radius of a star $R(M)$ as a function of its initial mass, as well as its evolutionary stage, which is used to define the mass limits of the integral. These informations we take from stellar isochrones of @Girardi. ### Collisions {#sect:coll} We define an encounter between two stars as a collision if the stars come so close that considerable amounts of material is exchanged between them, and hydrodynamical effects become important. For the collisions with NSs, that are relevant for dynamical formation of LMXBs, we distinguish between collisions with main sequence (MS) or horizontal branch (HB) stars and with evolved stars on the RGB or AGB. Due to the different structure of the stars, the outcome of a collision with a NS is different. Simulations indicate that collisions between an NS and an MS star tend to destroy the MS star [@Davies]. We expect the same to happen to stars on the HB, as their structure is similar to that of MS stars [@Dorman]. Collisions of this type are not interesting from the point of view of formation of X-ray binaries. As the envelope of stars on the RGB or AGB is less strongly bound to the core, a collision with an NS can lead to the envelope being expelled. The outcome is a short period binary consisting of the core of the evolved star and the NS. If the evolved star had a degenerate core, an ultra-compact X-ray binary (UCXB) with a white dwarf donor will be formed [@Verbunt2; @IvanovaU; @Lombardi]. In either case an X-ray binary can be created. The maximum value of distance at periastron $R_{coll}$, for which significant amounts of material can be exchanged in an encounter of an NS with a non-degenerate star (with radius $R_{\ast}$) is between $R_{\ast}$ and the orbital separation at which the star fills its Roche-lobe [@Eggleton]: $$\label{eq:afill} a_{fill}=\frac{R_{\ast}}{0.49}\left[0.6+q^{-2/3}\ln \left( 1+ q^{1/3}\right)\right]$$ where $q=M_{\ast}/M_{NS}$. For encounters with NSs, this separation ranges from $\sim 5.4 R_{\ast}$ to $\sim 2.8 R_{\ast}$ for stars with masses in the $0.1-1.0 M_{\odot}$ range. SPH Simulations of stellar encounters have shown that for $M_{\ast} \simeq 1 M_{\odot}$, the value of $R_{coll}/R_{\ast} \sim 1.8$ [@Davies], which we adopt as the standard value. The value of $R_{coll}/R_{\ast}$ given, the encounter rate can be calculated from equations \[eq:rate1\]-\[eq:sigma\] and \[eq:gamma\_large\] (but see below regarding the choice of integration limits in equation \[eq:rate1\]). When considering collisions between NSs and evolved stars, it is important to note that the envelope of a star on the RGB/AGB is loosely bound to the core, and the orbital energy of the two stars at infinity can be comparable to the binding energy of the envelope. It is therefore possible that the envelope is expelled without carrying off enough energy to leave a bound system, or that in the high-velocity encounters, the duration of the interaction is too short for enough energy to be transferred from the NS to the envelope. While simulations indicate that the RG envelope is promptly disrupted, instead of ejected through a common envelope (CE) evolution [@Rasio; @Lombardi], the energy considerations are similar. Adopting the formalism of @Webbink and @de [@Kool], we assume that the envelope of the RG is ejected, and that energy for this (the binding energy of the envelope $E_{bind}$) is taken from the orbital energy of the two stars which is therefore changed by $\Delta E_{orb}$. Allowing energy to be lost, e.g. as radiation or as some of the envelope is ejected with a velocity higher than the escape speed, an efficiency parameter $\alpha_{ce}$ is defined, so that $E_{bind}=\alpha_{ce}\Delta E_{orb}$. The binding energy of the RG is given by $E_{bind}=-\frac{1.0}{\lambda} \frac{GM_{env}M}{R}$, where $M$ and $R$ is the mass and radius of the RG, respectively, and $M_{env}$ is the mass of the envelope of the RG. $\lambda$ is a factor that relates the simplified equation to a precise integral of the gravitational binding energy and internal energy in the envelope of the RG, see e.g. @Dewi. The change in orbital energy needed to reach an orbit with a separation $a_f$ is given by $\Delta E_{orb}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{MM_{ns}}{M+M_{ns}} v_{rel}^2+\frac{GM_{core}M_{ns}}{2a_f}$ , where $M_{core}$ is the core mass of the RG, $M_{ns}$ is the mass of the NS and $v_{rel}$ is the relative velocity of the two stars at infinity. For a given encounter velocity, we can now find the final separation of the binary by solving $$\label{eq:CE} \frac{GM_{env}M}{R}=\alpha_{ce}\lambda\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{MM_{ns}}{M+M_{ns}}v_{rel}^2+\frac{GM_{core}M_{ns}} {2a_f}\right)$$ When we calculate the rate of collisions with evolved stars, $\gamma_{coll}$, the integral over velocities (equation \[eq:rate1\]) is only carried out for velocities $V_{rel}<V_{max,c}$, defined such that the final separation $a_f<5R_{\odot}$ (this choice of the maximum separation ensures that the gravitational braking will be efficient on the formed binary) $$\label{eq:coll} \gamma_{coll}=\int_0^{v_{max,c}}F(v_{rel},\sigma_v)\sigma_{coll}v_{rel}dv_{rel}$$ where $\sigma_{coll}$ is the collisional cross-section defined by equation \[eq:sigma\] with $D=R_{coll}$. In figure \[fig:vrel\] we compare the formation rates of UCXBs due to collisions between RGB+AGB stars and NSs for different values of $\alpha_{ce}\lambda$. The rates were calculated by integrating over all evolutionary stages of stars on the RGB/AGB, using the isochrones of [@Girardi]. The details of the calculations are given below in section \[sect:comparison\]. It is obvious that the choice of $\alpha_{ce}\lambda$ is very important in the bulge of M31, with an order of magnitude difference between the rates of the highest and the lowest value, while the difference is relatively small in GCs. SPH simulations indicate that the effectivity in standard CE evolution is $\alpha_{ce} \lesssim 0.5$ [see @Taam and references therein], and in population synthesis studies, values of $\lambda\alpha_{ce}$ in the range 0.1-1.0 are most often assumed [@Portegies; @Fryer; @Hurley; @VossT; @Belczynski], and this seems to give a good fit to the observed properties of the post-CE binary population. However there are differences between the standard CE evolution and the collisions considered here. In the former, the stars are already in a bound orbit, and the energy can therefore be transferred to the envelope over a longer period of time during a large number of orbital revolutions. On the other hand, in a collision, enough energy has to be transferred from the NS to the envelope during the first periastron passage, so that the two stars remain bound. Especially for high velocity encounters, the CE formalism might not be directly applicable, as the timescale for the first passage can be so short that the NS passes through the envelope without transferring much energy to this. While the low-velocity regime has been well investigated using SPH simulations [@Davies; @Lombardi], showing that a value of $R_{coll}/R_{\ast}=1.8$ is adequate, no investigation of the high-velocity regime has been performed. We assume that $\alpha_{ce}\lambda$ is in the range 0.1–1.0 (1.0 can be considered a very conservative estimate, giving the minimum rate of LMXB formation through this process, whereas 0.1 may be a rather optimistic value), with 0.5 being our chosen standard value for calculations below. ### Tidal captures At periastron distances above $R_{coll}$, and up to a few times $ R_{\ast}$, tidal capture can happen. @Press provided a way of calculating the energy absorbed by the stars assuming $n=3/2$ polytropes and @Lee extended these calculations to other polytropic indices. In this formulation, the energy of oscillations induced in the non-degenerate star of mass $M_{\ast}$ during an encounter with a neutron star is $$\label{eq:energy} \Delta E_1=\left( \frac{GM_{\ast}}{R_{\ast}}\right)^2\left(\frac{M_{ns}}{M_{\ast}}\right)^2\sum_{l=2,3}\left(\frac{R_{\ast}}{R_{p}}\right)^{2l+2}T_l(\eta )$$ where $R_{p}$ is the distance of closest approach. Only the spherical harmonic indices $l=2$ (quadrupole) and $l=3$ (octupole) are included, as higher indices give negligible contributions to the energy [@Lee]. The parameter $\eta$ is defined as $$\eta =\left(\frac{M_{\ast}}{M_{\ast}+M_{ns}}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{R_{p}}{R_{\ast}}\right)^{3/2}$$ With the tabulated overlap integrals of @Lee, for polytropic indices $n=3/2$ and $n=3$, we use the numerical method described by @Press to calculate $T_l(\eta )$. From equation (\[eq:energy\]) it is then possible to calculate the maximum value of $R_p$ (we call this $R_{tid}$) for which capture will occur, when the mass of the star and the relative velocity at infinity is known. We use this method for the case where the non-degenerate star is on the MS. A polytropic index of $n=3/2$ is assumed for the mainly convective stars of mass, $M_*< 0.4~M_{\odot}$, and $n=3$ for stars $M_*> 0.4~M_{\odot}$ having radiative cores.[^3] For stars on the red giant branch, we use the results of @McMillan, who calculated $R_{tid}$ for captures of a neutron star by a 0.8 $M_{\odot}$ star at various evolutionary stages along the RGB. This mass is close to the MS turn-off masses for the Galactic globular clusters (GCs), whereas the turn-off mass in M31 is higher, $\sim$1 $M_{\odot}$. We use their results directly in both cases. As tidal captures by evolved stars give a negligible contribution to the overall binary formation rates we did not attempt to perform a more accurate computation for the case of M31. We neglect tidal captures during the subsequent evolutionary stages. The structure of stars on the AGB is similar to those on the RGB, but the time spent there is much shorter. The tidal capture rate must therefore be lower. The time spent on the HB is also very short, compared to the MS lifetime, and although the tidal capture rate may be comparable to the RGB rate, it is much smaller than the MS capture rates. The tidal capture rate $\gamma_{tidal}$ is computed as a rate of encounter with the periastron distance $R_{coll}<R_p<R_{tid}$, i.e. contribution of very close encounters resulting in collisions is subtracted: $$\label{eq:tid} \gamma_{tidal}=\int_0^{v_{max,t}}F(v_{rel},\sigma_v)[\sigma_{tidal}-\sigma_{coll}] v_{rel}dv_{rel} \label{eq:gamma_tid}$$ The upper integration limit $v_{max,t}$ is defined as the velocity at which $R_{coll}=R_{tid}$ i.e. the term in square brackets is required to be positive inside the integration limits. The $\sigma_{tidal}$ is calculated from equation \[eq:sigma\] with $D=R_{tid}$. Important for the following evolution of tidal capture binaries is the timescale on which the tidally induced oscillations are dissipated. If this timescale is short [as argued by @Kumar], so that a large fraction of the energy is thermalized within one orbital revolution of the binary, new oscillations will be induced at each periastron passage. The binary quickly becomes circularized with the final orbital separation (from conservation of angular momentum): $$\label{eq:afinal} a=\frac{(\sqrt{2G(M_{\ast}+M_{ns})R_p}+v_{rel}R_p)^2}{G(M_{\ast}+M_{ns})}$$ For slow encounters (low $v_{rel}$ or small $R_p$), $a\simeq 2R_p$. If the dissipation time scale is too short, the quick conversion of the energy (of the order of few per cent of the binding energy of the star) may cause the star to expand and lead to a merger. The outcome of the dissipation process depends on the thermalization timescale and the region of the star where the energy is deposited, both factors being unkown [@Podsiadlowski2]. Alternatively, if the dissipation is inefficient, coupling of the orbital motion with oscillation can cause large fluctuations in the orbital energy, substantially extending the circularization process and potentially scattering a fraction of the binaries to wider orbits [@Kochanek; @Mardling]. The details and the final outcome of this processes are poorly understood. In the following we assume that all binaries become circularized with the final separation given by equation \[eq:afinal\]. Equation \[eq:gamma\_tid\] defines the total tidal capture rate, irrespective of the subsequent evolution of the tidally formed binary. In order to calculate the rate of encounters, leading to formation of an LMXB, one needs to account for the finite braking time scales. For this, $R_{tid}$, used to calculate $\sigma_{tidal}$ in equation \[eq:gamma\_tid\], is replaced by min$(R_{tid},R_{brake})$, where $R_{brake}$ depends on the mass of the star and is chosen so that the braking time scale for the tidal capture binary is shorter than 5 Gyr. Due to small values of the tidal capture radius $R_{tid}$, this does not affect the final rates significantly. Binary-single interactions -------------------------- The rate of exchange reactions between a binary $(M_1,M_2,a)$ and a star $M_3$ is: $$\begin{aligned} \gamma_{exch}(M_3,\sigma_v)= \int f(M_1) dM_1 \int p(q) dq \nonumber \\ \times \int_{a_{min}}^{a_{max}} \gamma(M_1,M_2,M_3,a,\sigma_v) \frac{dn}{da} da \label{eq:gamma_exch}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(M)$ is the distribution of mass of one of the stars in the binary, $q$ is the binary mass ratio and $p(q)$ its probablity distribution, $dn/da$ is the binary semimajor axis distribution and $\gamma(M_1,M_2,M_3,a,\sigma_{rel})$ is the exchange rate of a star $M_3$ into a binary $(M_1,M_2,a)$ computed from the equation \[eq:rate1\]. In the context of LMXB formation the third star $M_3$ is an NS or a black hole. ---- ----------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------------------------- -------------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------------------------------- CO $\sigma_v$ (1D) $n_{\ast}$ $f_{ns}$ $N_{bin}$ Total MS-NS RG-NS $\gamma_{ex}$ $N_{bin}$ Total MS-NS RG-NS $\gamma_{ex}$ NS 3 $5\cdot10^{4}$ 0.0025 1120790 3157 318 816 1.41$\cdot10^{32}$ 2739700 3093 77 277 1.39$\cdot10^{31}$ NS 15 $3\cdot10^{5}$ 0.0025 467000 1256 163 277 2.89$\cdot10^{31}$ 1027400 1328 27 108 2.17$\cdot10^{30}$ NS 150 $10^{4}$ 0.0068 $1.68\cdot10^{8\dagger}$ 1625 66 165 1.02$\cdot10^{29\dagger}$ $8.87\cdot10^{7\dagger}$ 604 3 46 8.76$\cdot10^{27\dagger}$ BH 150 $10^{4}$ 0.0012 $8.10\cdot10^{7\dagger}$ 10938 82 739 1.49$\cdot10^{30}$ $^{\dagger}$ $8.10\cdot10^{7\dagger}$ 9557 13 559 2.37$\cdot10^{29}$$^{\dagger}$ ---- ----------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------------------- ------- ------- ------- --------------------------------- -------------------------- ------- ------- ------- -------------------------------- \ $^\dagger$ This simulation was performed for a limited range of orbital separations and $\gamma_{ex}$ have been corrected for this.\ A significant amount of effort has been invested in the past decades in studying binary-single interactions and in calculating the encounter crossections and rates. The three-body problem involved in encounters between a binary and a single star can not be solved analytically and the computational demand of the numerical solution has been prohibitive for the studies of large ensembles of binaries based on direct integration. An approach suggested and successfully implemented in 80-ies was to build large libraries of interactions covering interesting range of initial parameters and, based on these libraries, to derive various semi-analytical formulae describing the interaction crossection and outcome [e.g. @Hut; @Mikkola; @Heggie3]. This provided the basis for computation of the elementary encounter rates $\gamma(M_1,M_2,M_3,a,\sigma_{rel})$. Another ingredient required to compute the final encounter rates in an ensemble of binary and single stars using eq.\[eq:gamma\_exch\] is the semi-major axes distribution $dn/da$. This distribution has complex time evolution, defined by the counterplay of binary (de-)excitation and ionization processes which are difficult to take into account analytically, even with the elementary crossections and rates given. Furthermore, unlike in collisions with red giants and in tidal captures, the binary separation of a typical exchange binary is large and one would have to take into consideration the subsequent evolution of the binary parameters, before the Roche lobe contact is achieved and an X-ray sources appears. Not surprisingly, the Monte-Carlo methods has been proven to be more efficient. In these, the evolution of each individual binary is followed through a number of encounters with single stars and, in some implementations, with other binaries [e.g. @Hut; @Heggie3; @Sigurdsson; @Davies1993]. Due to computational limitations, these early simulations often relied on libraries of interactions and semi-analytical crossections, rather than direct integration of the three-body problem for each interaction. While making possible to evolve sizable populations of binaries, this approach has its deficiencies, as a number of distributions functions (semi-major axes, eccentricities etc.) had to be replaced by average values or treated in a simplified way [e.g. @Hut]. Rapid advance in computing power and numerical methods in recent years have allowed full simulations, with each binary-single star interaction being calculated exactly [e.g. @Fregeau; @Ivanova4]. This lifts the assumptions and approximations mentioned above, and it is this method that we employ in the current study. This approach has been implemented as early as in 90-ies [e.g. @Portegies1997], but the moderate numbers of binaries achievable then have been insufficient to study the formation of LMXBs (see table \[tab:sim\]). The next level of complication (and of computational demand) is a complete time dependent simulation of an N-body system composed of binary and single stars with realistic mass functions. Presently this is becoming feasible, but is still limited to systems containing $\lesssim$ 100.000 stars [@Portegies2007; @Hurley2007]. ### Monte-Carlo simulations In our simulations we follow the evolution of binaries in an environment of single stars, with special emphasis on interactions between the single stars and the binaries. The outcome gives a reasonable indication of the importance of this process, compared to the two paths of dynamical formation of LMXBs from single-single encounters discussed above. The simulations are based on the FEWBODY code of @Fregeau. FEWBODY numerically integrates the orbits of the stars during the interaction, and automatically classifies and terminates calculations as soon as the outcome is unambiguous, which makes it well suited for carrying out large sets of binary interactions. All binaries and single stars are assumed to be formed at the same time, and the simulation of the binaries begins 0.5 Gyr after the star formation episode. The masses of single stars are assumed to follow the initial mass function of @Kroupa. Only main sequence stars and neutron stars are included, and the main sequence turn-off mass evolves with the age of the population [as given by @Girardi]. The number density of single stars is kept constant during the simulation. The initial binaries are drawn randomly from a population with properties typical of binary population synthesis studies [e.g. @Dewey; @Pols]. The mass distribution of the primary stars ($M_p$) was chosen to be the same as the mass function of single stars, while the mass of the secondary chosen from a flat mass ratio distribution. The distribution of orbital separations $a$ was assumed flat in $\log a$ between a minimum separation corresponding to one of the stars filling its Roche-lobe, and a maximum separation of $10^4 R_{\odot}$, consistent with the distribution found by @Duquennoy in this range. The initial eccentricity of the binaries was set to 0. Each binary is evolved for 15 Gyr in the single star environment, taking into account stellar evolution and evolution of the binary orbit due to magnetic braking and gravitational radiation as well as encounters with single stars [but omitting the more complicated late phases of binary evolution of more advanced models, e.g. @Dewey; @Pols; @Portegies1996; @Hurley; @Belczynski] . The binaries are evolved in timesteps of maximally 0.01 times the average time between encounters with single stars, where an encounter is assumed to happen if a star comes closer than 6 orbital separations. For each timestep binary parameters are adjusted according to gravitational wave emission [@Landau; @Peters] and magnetic braking [@Rappaport]. We assumed the disrupted magnetic braking model, where magnetic braking is ineffective when the MS star is totally convective [@Rappaport; @Spruit]. This is the case when the mass of the star is below $\sim$ 0.3 $M_{\odot}$. The probability of an encounter between the binary and a single star within a timestep of length $\Delta t$ is given by a weighted average over the distribution of relative velocities and over the mass function of single stars. $$P_{enc}= \Delta t \ n_{\ast}\int_M\gamma f(M)dM$$ Here $n_{\ast}$ is the number density of single stars, $\gamma$ is given by equation \[eq:rate1\], with the cross-section found from equation \[eq:sigma\] with $D=6a$, where $a$ is the orbital separation of the binary. Random numbers are drawn to see whether an encounter occurs. If this is the case, the parameters of the encounter are drawn from their respective probability distributions. The mass of the single star is drawn from the mass function (allowing for neutron stars also). The probability of an encounter distance $D$ is proportional to $\frac{d\sigma}{dD}$ (where $\sigma$ is given by equation \[eq:sigma\]) out to the maximum distance of 6 orbital separations of the binary. The distribution of encounter velocities $v_{rel}$ is given by equation \[eq:veldis\]. The encounter is then solved for using the [binsingle]{} program of FEWBODY. Binary phase and encounter angle is chosen randomly by FEWBODY from a flat and an isotropic distribution, respectively. The simulation of a binary is terminated when one of the following occurs: (1) the binary is disrupted, (2) one of the stars evolves off the main sequence or (3) Roche-lobe contact is reached. If one of the binary components is an NS, possibility 3 leads to the formation of an LMXB. Possibility 2 also leads to Roche-lobe overflow, but as discussed above, such RGB-NS systems are shortlived and transient X-ray sources. The simulations are performed with several simplifying assumptions. We discuss the most important of them below. Encounters between binaries are ignored. As most wide binaries are quickly destroyed, the binary fraction decreases fast and binary-binary encounters should only matter at early times. Moreover, in most binary-binary encounters, two or more of the stars merge [@Fregeau]. Secondly we have neglected the effect of tidal interaction in the evolution of the binaries [@Zahn1; @Zahn2]. This will tend to lock the rotation of the stars to the orbit and to circularize the orbit, thus decrease somewhat the time it takes for a system to achieve Roche-lobe contact. The significance of this effect is difficult to estimate, for its implementation in population synthesis codes, see @Belczynski. Evolved stars were not included in the simulations. For the single star population this should not be a problem, as an encounter between an evolved star and a binary will probably lead to a merger of some sort due to the large radius of the evolved star. The net effect of such encounters will most likely be a decreased binary fraction. As for the evolved stars in the binaries, they will lead to Roche-lobe overflow. It is unlikely that a neutron star can be exchanged into such a system without the occurrence of a physical collision. We verified with test simulations that close encounters between tight binaries and single stars in which one of the stars is evolved in almost all cases lead to merger of two or all three stars, in accordance with the conclusions of @Fregeau. ### Results of simulations We performed three simulations with different velocity dispersions and densities, to cover the environment in both M31 and in GCs. Parameters and results of the simulations are summarized in table \[tab:sim\]. Presented in the table are the numbers of neutron star binaries created in the simulations – the total number and the numbers of Roche-lobe filling systems. The latter is divided into the following two categories: the binaries in which Roche-lobe overflow occurs due to evolution of the binary orbit, while the companion star is on the MS (MS-NS) and the systems in which the mass transfer is initiated due to the evolution of the companion star off the main sequence (RG-NS). ![The evolution of the dynamical formation rate of LMXBs due to exchange reactions in a low velocity environment of a globular cluster ($\sigma_v=15$ km s$^{-1}$). The plot shows the number of systems in which Roche-lobe contact was reached, per time bin, as a function of time from the start of the simulation. Results of simulations without and with account for mergers are shown with thick grey and thin black crosses respectively. []{data-label="fig:times"}](fig4.eps) We convert the numbers into $\gamma_{ex}$ rates, which can be directly compared to the single-single interaction rates computed in the previous section, using $$\label{eq:gamex} \gamma_{ex}=\frac{\Gamma}{n_{bin}n_{ns}}=\frac{N}{T_{sim}n_{ns}N_{bin}}$$ where $n_{bin}$ and $n_{NS}$ are the number densities of binaries and neutron stars, $N_{bin}$ is the total number of binaries in the simulation and $T_{sim}$ is the simulations time span. Note, that with the above definition, $N_{bin}$ is the total number of binaries simulated, i.e. $n_{bin}$ has the meaning of the primordial volume density of binaries. The rates for MS-NS systems are given in the Table \[tab:sim\]. The other rates can be computed from these by scaling according to numbers of binaries. The Monte-Carlo uncertainties can be estimated assuming a Poissonian distribution for the numbers of binaries. In the M31 simulations (the largest value of $\sigma_v$) we simulated binaries in a limited range of separations, as wide binaries are quickly ionized and do not contribute to the LMXB production rates. The final value of the exchange rates given in Table \[tab:sim\] has been corrected correspondingly. In the initial simulations the radii of stars were set to zero, i.e. the possibility of stellar collisions was not accounted for. We performed a second set of simulations, in which two stars with radii $R_1$ and $R_2$ were assumed to collide if the distance of closest approach was $D<1.8(R_1+R_2)$. We assumed that collisions lead to a merger and removed from simulations all binaries that experience such events. With these assumptions, the rates of LMXB formation decrease dramatically, by about an order of magnitude, i.e. in $\sim 90\%$ of binary-single interactions which could potentially lead to an exchange of the neutron star into the binary, two or more of the stars collide. This result is in agreement with @Fregeau and demonstrates that mergers are a determining factor in the formation of exchange LMXBs. Figure \[fig:times\] illustrates the time dependence of the formation rate of exchange LMXBs in a low velocity environment of a typical globular cluster (simulation with $\sigma_v=15$ km s$^{-1}$). Shown in the figure is the number of binaries per time bin, in which the Roche-lobe overflow was initiated during the given time bin, irrespective of the time when the neutron star was exchanged into the binary. There is an obvious increase with time, due to the fact that in a low velocity dispersion environment most MS-NS binaries are created with relatively large orbital separations and need to be hardened by further collisions in order to become LMXBs. This is in contrast to M31 (large velocity dispersion), where the rate is constant, due to the fact that almost all exchange LMXBs there are formed from binaries with small orbital separations, $a \lesssim 10 R_{\odot}$. For such binaries, binary-single interactions are not an important factor in their further evolution towards Roche-lobe overflow. Also shown in the plot by thin crosses is the result of simulations with account for mergers. For interactions, where the final binary is harder than the initial binary, the binding energy lost is converted to kinetic energy of the binary and the single star. The velocity of the binary obtained due to this effect is often referred to as the dynamical recoil velocity[e.g. @Sigurdsson; @Davies1993]. We find that in globular clusters, the binaries that end up as LMXBs typically undergo several encounters, in which recoil velocities in the range $\sim 30-50$ km s$^{-1}$ are obtained. The effect of this is that the binary is ejected from the core (and sometimes also from the GC) to the less dense regions of the GC, where dynamical interactions are rare. After a significant time, the binaries will re-enter the core due to mass segregation. For a recent discussion of this binary cycling in and out of the core of a GC using N-body simulations, see @Hurley2007. As this cycling can lead to significant prolongation of the binary lifetime before the formation of a LMXB, it decreases the formation rate due to this channel. In the simulations with physical collisions this effect is smaller, due to the fact that many of the encounters that lead to high recoil velocities are also the encounters that lead to collisions. We note that the encounter cross-sections of LMXBs are so small that only a small fraction of them experience significant encounters, and they are therefore retained in the GC cores. In M31 most LMXBs are formed through only one encounter, an exchange reaction in which the orbital separation is decreased significantly, for an already tight binary. The recoil velocities are therefore extremely high, typically 100-600 km s$^{-1}$. Even for the deep potential wells of galactic bulges, such velocities can be enough to eject the binaries. However, as will be shown in section \[sect:realistic\] this channel is not a significant source of LMXBs in M31 anyway. Comparison of the rates {#sect:comparison} ----------------------- The results of this section are summarized in figure \[rates1\] where we compare the rates for the three main LMXB formation processes, involving neutron stars, as a function of the stellar velocity dispersion. In computing the rates for the tidal capture and collisions with evolved stars we assumed an environment (IMF, age metallicity etc.) similar to the bulge of M31, as described in section \[sect:realistic\]. As will be discussed in section \[sect:realistic\] the stellar environment in GCs is significantly different from that in M31, in particular with regard to the present day mass function and metallicity, and this is taken into account in our final estimates. The goal of this section is to highlight the influence of the velocity dispersion. The exchange LMXB rates are from the simulations of the previous subsection, without and with account for mergers. It should be noted, that low and high velocity parts of these simulations were tailored for GC and M31 environment respectively, therefore were performed for different values of the stellar density, main sequence cut-off mass $M_{co}$, age and metallicity. For this reason, although they do correctly illustrate the general trend of the exchange rates with the stellar velocity dispersion, they should not be used to study the exact dependence. One should also keep in mind, that in order to convert the formation rates into the numbers of X-ray sources, the LMXB life-time considerations should be taken into account, as discussed in the section \[sect:lifetimes\]. Figure \[rates1\] illustrates significant velocity dependence of the relative importance of different LMXB formation channels and suggests that the relative contributions of different subclasses of LMXBs should be different in GCs and in the galactic centres. In the low velocity environment of a GCs all three processes make comparable contributions to the LMXB production rates (but not to the numbers of X-ray sources observed in any given time, see below), with some prevalence of tidal captures by the main sequence stars, depending on the exact value of the velocity dispersion. In the high velocity environment of a galactic bulge, on the contrary, the tidal capture by main sequence stars with $M_*>0.3M_{\odot}$ and exchange reactions are unimportant and the LMXB formation rates are dominated by the collisions with evolved stars and tidal captures by very low mass stars. However, the comparison between globular clusters and M31 is more complex than comparison of the velocity dependent rates, as these environments also differ in other properties of the stellar populations, such as the present day mass function, metallicity, binary fraction etc. This is considered in detail in section \[sect:realistic\]. Finally, the total rate of encounters in volume $V$ can be obtained as: $$R=\int_V\left(\frac{\rho_{\ast}}{<M>}\right)^2 f\int \gamma (M,M_{ns},\sigma_v)f(M)dMdV \label{eq:rate}$$ where $f=f_{ns}, f_{bh}, f_{bin}$. Note, that the former two coefficients refer to the present day values, while the latter is the primordial binary fraction, as clarified in the previous subsection. Black hole encounters {#sect:bh} --------------------- The discussion above was limited to the formation of LMXBs in which the compact object is an NS. Of course, the same processes are relevant for black holes (BHs), and these are considered below. We assume that stars with initial masses in the $30-100 M_{\odot}$ range become BHs, with a canonical mass of 10 $M_{\odot}$. The rates of tidal captures and and collisions with evolved stars can then be found from the equations of the previous sections, replacing $M_{ns}$ with $M_{bh}$ and $f_{ns}$ with $f_{bh}$. With the initial mass function of @Kroupa[^4], $f_{bh}=0.17\cdot f_{ns}$. Note that although there are $\approx 6$ times fewer BHs than NSs, this is countered by the the gravitational focusing term (equation \[eq:sigma\]) which makes the encounter cross-section $\sim$5 times larger for a BH. As for the neutron stars, we assume that $R_{coll}/R_{\ast}=1.8$. We note, however, that from equation \[eq:afill\] it might be expected that $R_{coll}$ may be larger for the very small mass ratios considered here. ![Comparison of the LMXB formation rates in encounters with neutron stars (thin lines) and black holes (thick lines). Shown are tidal captures by main sequence stars of mass $>0.3M_{\odot}$ (solid lines) and collisons with RGB/AGB stars (dashed lines). The normalization of the BH rates have been multiplied with $f_{bh}/f_{ns}$. []{data-label="fig:BH"}](fig6.eps) When considering various aspects of single-single encounters on the basis of the total energy arguments it should be noted that the kinetic energy at infinity in the centre-of-masses frame is defined by the reduced mass $\mu=M_1 M_2/(M_1+M_2)$ which, for the low mass stars, only depends weakly on the compact object mass. Therefore, even if the energy equipartition is inefficient and the NS and BH velocity dispersions are comparable, as is the case in the M31 bulge, the kinetic energy at infinity, $\mu v_{rel}^2/2$, will not be much higher in the case of a black hole. For this reason the energy considerations in collisions with evolved stars (section \[sect:coll\], eq.\[eq:CE\]), will not change significantly and the fraction of collisions expected to lead to a bound systems for a given velocity dispersion depends only weakly on the mass of the compact object. For tidal captures, the energy of the oscillations induced in the non-degenerate star is roughly $\propto M_{NS,BH}^2$ (see equation \[eq:energy\]), and the capture distance is therefore larger for BHs than for NSs. At low velocities, this can enhance the rate by a moderate factor of $\lesssim$2. At large velocities, on the contrary, $R_{tid}\sim R_{coll}$, and even a small increase in $R_{tid}$ can drastically increase $\sigma_{tid}-\sigma_{coll}$ and thereby the overall tidal capture rate. As the total energy to be dissipated in the interaction depends weakly on the compact object mass, the impact of the tidal oscillation on the thermal state of the normal star does not become more severe for the black hole. Therefore, if a tidal capture is possible at all, it is possible for black holes as well as for neutron stars. There is one important difference between BHs and NSs, namely that the retention factor for black holes in globular clusters is close to zero [@Portegies2002]. For this reason, black holes do not contribute to dynamical LMXB formation in globular clusters. In M31, however, the black hole fraction should be close to the IMF-based estimate given above, due to much longer energy equipartition time scale than in globular clusters. In figure \[fig:BH\] we compare the LMXB formation rates in single-single encounters involving black holes and neutron stars. Obviously, black holes can make sizable contribution to the LMXB formation rates, especially in the high velocity regime. Numbers of X-ray sources {#sect:lifetimes} ------------------------ In order to convert the encounter rates to the numbers of X-ray sources observed at any given moment of time, one needs to consider the evolution of a binary through the X-ray phase. A definitive answer can be obtained from proper population synthesis calculations, which is beyond the scope of this paper. In a simpler approach one may consider characteristic life times $\tau_X$ of binaries at different phases of its evolution. The number of X-ray sources $N_X$ can be then related to the corresponding encounter rate: $N_X\sim \gamma\,\tau_X$. Taking into account dependence of the $\tau_X$ on the mass and evolutionary status of the donor star and their mass distribution, we obtain an expression, similar to the equation \[eq:rate\] for overall encounter rate: $$N_X\approx \int_V\left(\frac{\rho_{\ast}}{<M>}\right)^2 f\int \tau_X(M)\, \gamma (M,M_{ns},\sigma_v)f(M)\,dMdV \label{eq:nx}$$ where $f$ is defined as in eq.(\[eq:rate\]) and $\tau_X(M)=\Delta M_d/\dot{M}$, $\Delta M_d=M_i-M_f$, $M_i$ is the initial mass of the donor star and $M_f$ its final mass in the given evolution stage (e.g. for a star with initial mass $>0.3 M_\odot$, $M_f=0.3 M_\odot$ – the mass corresponding to the period gap). In case of an LMXB powered through the Roche-lobe overflow, the $\dot{M}$ is defined by the orbital braking mechanism and the mass-radius relation for the donor star. The stability of the mass transfer in the accretion disc should be also taken into account in order to identify persistent/transient nature of the binary. The integral in eq.(\[eq:nx\]) is taken over the range of the masses relevant to the given type of X-ray binaries. Below we examine evolution and characteristic values of $\dot{M}$ of X-ray binaries formed formed via different dynamical processes considered in in this paper. We accept the standard prescriptions for the magnetic braking [@Rappaport] and gravitational radiation [@Landau; @Peters] and the transiency criterium in the form published by @Dubus for irradiated discs. One should keep in mind that these simple presciptions predict time averaged quantities but may fail to explain the momentary values of luminosity, which may vary significantly on the timescales of days–months–years. The dependences of the mass accretion rate on the mass of the donor star for NS and BH binaries are shown in figure \[fig:mdot\]. These dependences were computed based on standard formulae for a Roche lobe filling secondary [@Heuvel] assuming that the secondary is in the thermal equilibrium. As was demonstrated by @Stehle, this assumption gives sufficiently accurate results for the main sequence donor. For the mass-radius relation we used the 10 Gyr isochrones of @Baraffe1 and @Baraffe2 for stars $M<0.1M_\odot$ and $M>0.1M_\odot$, respectively. Also shown in figure \[fig:mdot\] are transiency limits for different types of compact object. The NS and BH masses were assumed $1.4$ and $10$ $M_\odot$ respectively. The spike in $\dot{M}$ at $\approx 0.07M_\odot$ is caused by the steepening of the mass-radius relation just above the hydrogen burning minimum mass, as given by the isochrones. This is due to the fact that correlation effects between particles becomes important, and the deviations from an ideal gas decreases the pressure (I. Baraffe, private communication). Below the hydrogen burning minimum mass, degeneracy effects dominate and the mass radius relationship becomes $R\sim M^{-1/3}$. The spike is less pronounced in the 1 Gyr isochrones (shown in figure \[fig:mdot\] by thin solid lines) which might be more appropriate for the thermal state of a mass-losing brown dwarf. ![Dependence of the mass accretion rate $\dot{M}$ in a Roche-lobe filling system on the mass of the donor star. The curves for a neutron star and a black hole binary are shown by thick and thin lines. The calcultaions based on 10 and 1 Gyr isochrones give identical result down to $\sim 0.1 M_\odot$, below which the 10 Gyr isochrones give more pronounced spike in $\dot{M}$. The transiency limits are plotted by respective dashed lines. The method of calculations and assumptions are described in section \[sect:lifetimes\] []{data-label="fig:mdot"}](fig7.eps) [*Collisions with evolved stars.*]{} In a collision with a red giant, an ultra-compact X-ray binary (UCXB) with a He white dwarf donor is formed. The white dwarf mass equals approximately the mass of the red giant’s core [@Lombardi], i.e. is in the 0.1-0.4 $M_{\odot}$ mass range, depending on the evolutionary stage of the red giant. The evolution of such a system includes a very fast initial stage of very short, $\sim$ minutes, orbital period and very high, super-Eddington $\dot{M}$. During this period the white dwarf donor is quickly reduced to a $\sim 0.06 M_\odot$ after which a more “normal” UCXB with $P_{orb}\sim 10$ min and $L_X\la 10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ emerges, similar to the ones observed in our Galaxy. Overall, such a system will spend $\sim 0.1$ Gyr with the luminosity $10^{36}-10^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$, before the white dwarf is depleted below $\approx 0.02 M_\odot$. Somewhere around this mass the sources will cross the stability threshold and will become transient [@Deloye; @Bildsten]. The cores of less evolved, sub-giant stars are not fully degenerate and/or hydrogen-depleted. In this case a collision will result in a binary with He or brown dwarf donor, depending on the core mass and chemical composition. Such a binary is also driven by gravitational radiation, but due to the larger radius the period minimum is higher, $\sim 20-30$ minutes, and super-Eddington mass transfer does therefore not occur. For such systems, a life time of $\sim 200-300$ Myrs may be expected (N.Ivanova, private communication). In order to make a crude estimate of their fraction we assume that the core of an RGB star becomes fully degenerate, when the central density exceeds $\rho_c\ga (5-10)\,\rho_{crit}$, where $\rho_{crit}$ is the critical density above which electron gas is degenerate ($\rho_{crit}\sim 2.4\cdot 10^{-8}\mu_E T^{3/2}$ g cm$^{-3}$). We estimated from the Padova stellar tracks that this occures at stellar radii of $R\sim (3-5)\times R_\odot M/M_\odot$. As discussed in section \[sect:coll\], given the high stellar velocities in M31, only RGBs with rather small radii can effectively capture a compact object through collisions, and we expect that in a large fraction, $\sim 50-80$ per cent, of X-ray sources created through this mechanism the donor star is not fully degenerate. In the low velocity environment of globular clusters this fraction is smaller, $\sim 25-40$ per cent. [*Tidal captures by main sequence stars with $M>0.3M_\odot$*]{} lead to formations of “usual” LMXBs, similar to the ones constituting the majority of systems with main sequence donors observed in the Galaxy. These sources are driven by the magnetic braking and luminosities of $\sim 10^{36.5-38.0}$ erg/sec and lifetimes of $\sim 0.1-0.5$ Gyr should be expected [e.g. @Heuvel]. Note, that these estimates depend critically on the magnetic braking prescription, the weak magneting breaking predicting up to several times smaller luminosities and longer life times [@Ivanova3]. From figure \[fig:mdot\] it can be seen that all black hole systems are expected to be transient, in agreement with BH binaries statistics in the Milky Way. [*Tidal captures by main sequence stars of very low mass, $M<0.3M_\odot$.*]{} For these fully convective very low mass stars the magnetic braking is believed to be inefficient [@Spruit], therefore the accretion is driven by the gravitational radiation. From the requirement that the donor star fills its Roche-lobe we have that the orbital periods of these systems are in the $\sim$hours range, and that gravitational radiation can provide luminosities of $\sim 10^{36.0-36.5}$ and $\sim 10^{36.5-37.0}$ erg/s for NS and BH systems respectively [see also e.g. @Podsiadlowski; @Yungelson]. &gt;From figure \[fig:mdot\] it can be seen that the systems with $M\ga 0.15M_\odot$ will be transient, these constraints being more severe for the NS binaries. Integration of the mass transfer rate gives that the life times during the persistent phase are $\sim 300$ Myr, and that the life times during the transient phase are $\sim 1$ and $\sim 4$ Gyrs for BH and NS systems respectively. It is interesting to consider the final stage of evolution of these systems, after the donor star is reduced to $\la 0.1M_\odot$, below the nuclear burning limit. As these are descendants of very low mass stars, whose nuclear time scale is much longer than the cosmological time, they consist mainly of hydrogen and they will become brown dwarfs. Given the mass-radius relation for brown dwarfs, the mass transfer rate drops quickly when the mass reaches 0.05 $M_{\odot}$ (Fig.\[fig:mdot\]), and these systems become transients, similar to some of the accreting msec pulsar systems, observed in our Galaxy. We note that in the binary systems with very low mass ratios, q$\lesssim0.02$, the circularization radius exceeds the tidal truncation radius [e.g. @Paczynski]. It is therefore not entirely clear whether the stable mass transfer is possible, see e.g. discussion in @Yungelson (section 3.3). Such low mass ratios can be reached for the most low mass black hole systems. M31 and the Milky Way globular clusters {#sect:realistic} ======================================= Below we compute rates of dynamical formation of LMXBs and their expected numbers in M31 and in Galactic GCs. For this, we need to specify velocity dispersion, initial and present day mass functions, age, metallicity and stellar isochrones. These parameters are different in GCs and galactic centres. The difference in stellar velocities is an important one, as discussed in section \[sect:comparison\], but several other properties of stellar populations play equally significant roles in shaping the population of dynamically formed binaries. The factor of prime importance is highly efficient mass segregation in GCs. Its two most significant consequences are: 1. The present day mass function. Due to efficient mass segregation, the inner regions of the GCs, where most of the encounters happen, are depleted of low mass stars, to the degree that the mass function is essentially flat [e.g @King3; @Marchi; @Albrow]. This is not the case for a galactic bulge, where the mass distribution of main sequence stars is sufficiently well represented by the Kroupa IMF [@Zoccali]. As a result, the tidal captures by very low mass stars, dominating the binary formation processes in M31 (Fig.\[rates1\]), are significantly less important in GCs. 2. Abundance of BHs. GCs are believed to be depleted of black holes [@Portegies2002], due to mass segregation and BH-BH encounters (although the observation of an ultra-luminous X-ray source in a GC in NGC 4472 by @Maccarone2, indicates that some BHs may be present in GCs). Therefore tidal captures of BHs do not play any roles in globular clusters as opposite to the case of M31. Note that in the latter case the role of black holes is further enhanced by the velocity dependence of the tidal capture cross-section, as discussed in section \[sect:bh\] and shown in figure \[fig:BH\]. Among other factors, leading to further quantitative differences, the following should be mentioned: (i) Due to supernova kicks [@Lyne], large fraction of neutron stars escape the parent cluster, with the NS retention factor being in the $\sim 0.1-0.2$ range [@Drukier; @Pfahl]. On the other hand, the mass segregation of the remaining NSs may increase their density near the globular cluster centres, thus compensating for the low retention fraction. (ii) Binary fractions are different in globular clusters and galactic centres, due to different rates of binary-single processes, caused by difference in velocities and stellar densities. This is important for exchange rates and is taken into account in our simulations automatically. (iii) Finally, different ages and, especially metallicities result in different mass-to-light ratios, the main sequence turn-off mass and duration of the red giant phase, as discussed in section \[sect:gc\]. For these reasons the comparison between globular clusters and M31 is more complex than comparison of the velocity dependent rates, shown in figure \[rates1\]. It is the subject of this section. M31 --- For the stellar models we used an ischrone with a metallicity $\sim$ 1.5 times solar [@Sarajedini] and an age of 12 Gyr [@Rich][^5]. This gives a main sequence turn-off mass of 0.9532 $M_{\odot}$ and a mass at the tip of the AGB of 1.0081 $M_{\odot}$ (initial masses).[^6] Stars more massive than this have all turned into stellar remnants. -------- --------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ----- ------------------- ------------- Object Type MS($<0.3 M_{\odot}$) MS($>0.3 M_{\odot}$) RGB HB AGB Exchange (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) NS Tidal capture [**15.1**]{} (15.7) [**0.8**]{} (0.9) 0.01 - - 3.5 NS Collisions 36.6 46.6 [**6.5-13.3**]{} 5.2 [**0.01-0.67**]{} [**0.3**]{} BH Tidal capture [**65.3**]{} (65.3) [**14.2**]{} (14.2) 0.09 - - 8.8 BH Collisions 37.7 38.0 [**3.1-5.8**]{} 2.0 [**0.00-0.06**]{} [**1.0**]{} -------- --------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ------------------ ----- ------------------- ------------- The velocity dispersion (3D) was assumed to be constant, $\sigma_v$=260 km s$^{-1}$ [@McElroy; @Widrow]. The density structure of M31 was constructed using the model of @Riffeser, based on the Gunn-r band photometry presented by @Kent. In this model the total *R*-band luminosity of the bulge out to a distance of 12 arcmin from the centre of M31 is 1.18 $\cdot 10^{10} L_{\odot,R}$. We normalized the density by requiring the integrated R-band luminosity over the mass function (giving a mass-to-light ratio of $(M/L)_R$=3.27) to match the R-band luminosity of the model, giving the bulge a total mass of 3.9$\cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ of stars in the 0.1-1.0081 $M_{\odot}$ range. The projection of this model agrees with the mass distribution inferred from the *K*-band light, which was used to model the LMXB distribution in @Voss2. The observed *K*-band luminosity of the region is 4.4$\cdot 10^{10} L_{\odot,K}$, and integrating over the isochrone, we find a mass-to-light ratio of $(M/L)_K$=0.76, giving a total mass of 3.4$\cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$, compatible with the *R*-band estimate. As a consistency check, we estimate the mass, using the mass-to-light ratios of @Bell. With the bulge colour (*B*-*V*)=0.95 [@Walterbos], we find a bulge mass of 3.75 and 3.73 $\cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ from the *R*-band and the *K*-band, respectively. In figure \[fig:surplus\] the $\rho_*^2$ profile, integrated over the line of sight, is compared to the observed distribution of surplus sources, which was calculated by subtracting the best-fit model of LMXBs and CXBs from the observed radial distribution of X-ray sources (section \[sect:data\], figure \[fig:fit\]). It is obvious that the distributions agree well everywhere outside $\sim$ 4 arcsec. In the innermost 4 arcsec of M31 the mass model of @Riffeser features a sharp increase in density, absent in the distribution of X-ray sources. This increase is due to a stellar disc of high density surrounding the central super-massive black hole [@Bender]. In this paper we do not try to model the environment in this region and exclude the disc component. The stellar model used for computation of the encounter rates is described by the following distribution: $$\rho_{bulge} =\rho_0 10^{-0.4(7.1a_{bulge}^{1/4}+0.61)}$$ where $$a_{bulge}=\frac{0.254z_0^2+\sqrt{0.254^2z_0^4+4(x_0^2+y_0^2+1.11)z_0^2}} {2}$$ with $a_{bulge}$, $x_0$, $y_0$ and $z_0$ expressed in arcmin. The inclination of the bulge coordinate system is assumed to be $77^\circ$, and $\rho_0=4.34\cdot10^{4} M_{\odot}$ pc$^{-3}$ (using our mass to light ratio $(M/L)_R=3.27$). This gives a bulge mass (within 12 arcmin from the centre) of $3.87\cdot 10^{10} M_{\odot}$ and $$\int\rho_*^2 dV= 4.6\cdot 10^{11} M_{\odot}^2 ~{\rm pc}^{-3} \nonumber$$ It is now straightforward to calculate the rates of tidal captures and collisions. Following the equations of section \[sect:intro\] the rates are given by $$R_{M31}=\int_{bulge}\left(\frac{\rho_{\ast}}{<M>}\right)^2 dV\cdot f_{ns}\int_{M_{low}}^{M_{high}} f(M) \gamma dM$$ where $M_{low}-M_{high}$ is the initial mass range for the type of stars for which the rates are calculated. The rates for different types of encounters are summarized in Table \[tab:M31rates\]. For clarity the channels expected to lead to the formation of LMXBs are written in bold font. ### Numbers of X-ray sources {#numbers-of-x-ray-sources} We turn now to the numbers of of dynamically formed X-ray sources. As it is obvious from Table \[tab:M31rates\] (column 4), the number of “normal” presistent LMXBs with a neutron star accreting from a main sequence companion $M_*>0.3M_\odot$, which constitute the majority of the primordial LMXBs, is negligibly small (BH capture products with $M_*>0.3M_\odot$ donors are expected to be transients and are discussed below). The two main contributions to the population of dynamically formed sources come from the tidal captures of black holes and neutron stars by very low mass MS stars, and from collisions of compact objects with RGB stars (columns 3 and 5). In computing the numbers of sources from equation \[eq:nx\] we take into account that the the evolutionary timescales of all types of dynamically formed X-ray sources are much shorter than the life time of the bulge. Therefore the systems formed via tidal capture by $M_*>0.3M_\odot$ stars will pass through the phase of the very low mass companion in the end of their life time, adding to the numbers of persistent and transient sources of this type. Similarly, a capture product of, for example, a $0.3M_\odot$ star will go through the transient phase in the beginning of its X-ray active phase and will become a persistent source after the donor star is depleted below $\sim 0.10-0.15 M_\odot$. We thus predict $\sim 24$ and $\sim 5$ persistent X-ray sources with black holes and neutron stars respectively, accreting from the very low mass stars. To this number should be added the number of ultra-compact X-ray binaries produced via collisions of compact objects with red giants, which is $\sim 3$. The total number of predicted persistent sources is compatible with, albeit somewhat larger than the observed number of surplus sources, $\sim 21$. Given the number and magnitude of uncertainties involved in the calculations and the simplifications made, we consider this as a good agreement. Based on the range of the donor masses corresponding to unstable mass transfer (figure \[fig:mdot\]), we predict $\sim 30$ BH and $\sim 22$ NS transient sources with very low mass donors $M_*<0.3 M_{\odot}$, as well as $\sim 3$ BH transient sources with MS donors $>0.3 M_{\odot}$. Furthermore, exchange reactions might contribute with a number of LMXBs with RGB donor stars, that are also transient, but duration of their active phase is restricted by the life time of the red giant donor. The number of transients observed at any given moment in time depends on their duty cycle. Taking Galactic black hole transients with the main sequence donor as an example, one could expect a duty cycle of $\sim 1/50$, giving one bright transient in $\sim 15$ years. As for the transients with very low mass donors, one can use the accreting msec pulsars as an example of NS systems. SAXJ1808.4-3658 has outbursts lasting for $\sim 2-3$ weeks every $\sim 2$ years, and the duty cycle is therefore $\sim$0.03. Assuming crudely that it is the same for BH and NS systems, we would expect 1.5 transient sources at any given time. The outbursts of accreting msec pulsars in our Galaxy are characterized by low peak luminosities, $\log(L_X)\la 36-36.5$. Therefore many, if not most, of outbursts from these sources will be missed in a Chandra survey of the type reported in @Voss2 which detects mostly brighter transients, with the peak luminosity of $\log(L_X)\ga 36.5$. This explains why @Voss2 have not found any excees in the number of transient sources close to the galactic center – the fraction of transients detected inside 1 arcmin from the center (5 out of 28 in 29 Chandra observations with the time span of $\sim 5$ years) agrees with the fraction of stellar mass contained in this region. On the other hand Chandra observations of our Galactic Center, having much better sensitivity, have indeed revealed overabundance of faint transients [@Muno]. Metallicity Type MS($<0.3M_{\odot}$) MS($>0.3M_{\odot}$) RGB HB AGB Exchange ------------- --------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------- ----- ----------------- -------------- 0.2 solar Tidal capture [**8.5**]{} (10.4) [**29.3**]{} (32.5) 7.0 - - 203.4 Collisions 5.6 56.1 [**24.3-27.7**]{} 4.6 [**0.4-1.1**]{} [**15.3**]{} 0.02 solar Tidal capture [**5.5**]{} (6.6) [**17.3**]{} (18.9) 2.9 - - 117.3 Collisions 3.6 31.6 [**10.1-11.7**]{} 2.0 [**0.3-0.6**]{} [**8.8**]{} Population LMXBs observed Type MS($<0.3M_{\odot}$) MS($>0.3M_{\odot}$) RGB HB AGB Exchange ------------ ---------------- --------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------ ----- ----------------- ------------- Red GCs 8 Tidal capture [**2.7**]{} (3.1) [**7.9**]{} (8.7) 1.6 - - 53.3 Collisions 1.8 18.4 [**7.9-9.2**]{} 1.5 [**0.1-0.4**]{} [**4.0**]{} Blue GCs 5 Tidal capture [**3.8**]{} (4.6) [**12.6**]{} (13.8) 2.2 - - 86.1 Collisions 2.4 21.3 [**6.8-7.8** ]{} 1.3 [**0.2-0.4**]{} [**6.5**]{} Globular Clusters {#sect:gc} ----------------- Due to high efficiency of the mass segregation in globular clusters the (retained) neutron stars will be much more centrally concentrated than low mass stars. Assuming that stellar density and velocity dispersion are approximately constant over the region occupied by the neutron stars, one can approximately write: $$\label{eq:GCrates} \int_Vn_{ns}n_{\ast}\Gamma \,dV\simeq n_{\ast}\Gamma_c\int_Vn_{ns}\,dV=kN_{ns}\,n_{\ast}\Gamma_c$$ where $N_{ns}$ is the total number of neutron stars in the globular cluster under consideration, $n_*$ is the central density of stars, $\Gamma_c$ is the central value of $\Gamma$ (equation \[eq:gamma\_large\]) and $k\la 1$ is a constant accounting for inaccuracy of this approximation. Assuming that the distribution of normal stars follows the analytic King model [@King], and that the NSs are in thermal equilibrium with the stars at turn-off (0.80-0.85 $M_{\odot}$) [as in @Lugger; @Grindlay2], we estimated that $k\sim0.2-0.3$. Total thermal equilibrium is generally not reached, the value of $k$ is therefore slightly lower. In the following we will use a value of $k=0.2$ for all globular clusters. We use the catalogue of @Harris for the globular clusters parameters required to estimate the formation rates of LMXBs in the Galactic GCs. Of the 150 GCs included in the catalogue, the parameters are missing for 10, and we ignore these. The stellar populations in the GCs were modelled using the isochrones of @Girardi, with an age of 11 Gyr [@Salaris]. The $N_{ns}$ for each GC was computed as follows. Assuming the initial mass function of @Kroupa, we used the integrated light of the isochrones to compute the present day mass-to-light ratio and from the total *V*-band luminosity of the GCs computed the IMF normalization. Assuming further that all stars with the initial mass in the range of $8-30\, M_\odot$ have become neutron stars and retention factor of 10 per cent [@Drukier; @Pfahl] we finally compute the present day number of the neutron stars in each globular cluster, $N_{ns}$. On the other hand, we assumed that the present day mass function in the GC centers is flat. With this mass function we again use the integrated *V*-band light of the isochrones to calculate $n_{\ast}$ from the *V*-band luminosity density $\rho_V$ given in @Harris. For the 56 GCs in @Pryor we use their central velocity dispersions $v_0$ needed to compute the encounter rates. The remainong GCs were dealt with as follows. &gt;From the virial theorem we expect that $v_0\sim Kr_c\sqrt{\rho_{0}}$, where $r_c$ is the core radius of the GCs, and $\rho_{0}$ is the central density; we further assumed that $\rho_V\propto\rho_{0}$. We performed the least square fit to the known central velocity dispersions in 56 GCs and found $K=0.18$ km s$^{-1}$ and $0.17$ km s$^{-1}$ for the metal-rich and metal-poor GCs respectively (assuming that $r_c$ is in pc and $\rho_V$ in $M_{\odot,V}$ pc$^{-3}$). These values have been used to find $v_0$ for the remaining 84 GCs. ### Metallicity effects In order to study the metallicity dependence of the encounter rates, we compute the cumulated rates for two metallicities, 20 per cent, and 2 per cent of the solar value (files [isocz004.dat]{} and [isocz0004.dat]{} from @Girardi) which are representative of the red and blue GC populations, respectively. The results are presented in table \[tab:GCall\] and show a $\sim$1.5-2.5 increase in the encounter rates for the higher metallicity case. The metallicity dependence in our calculations is mainly due to two factors. (1) As noted by @Bellazzini the radii of metal-rich stars are larger, and therefore the rates of tidal captures and collisions are higher. Furthermore the duration of the RG phase is longer for metal-rich stars. As demonstrated by @Maccarone3 this effect can maximally lead to an enhancement of the cross-sections and rates by $\lesssim$ 60 per cent, and most likely $\sim$ 30 per cent. Our results are consistent with this, showing a $\sim$ 20 per cent increase in tidal captures by MS stars ($>0.3 M_{\odot}$) and $\sim$ 50 per cent increase in collisions with RGB/AGB stars. For exchange reactions the effect is negligible. (2) Theoretical isochrones predict that the *V*-band mass-to-light ratio of the metal-rich population is higher than that of the metal-poor population. As the stellar densities are given in @Harris in the form of *V*-band luminosity density, the encounter rate is proportional to $\rho_*^2\propto (M/L)^2$. This could result in an additional $\sim 60$ per cent increase in the rates. It is however unclear, whether this is the case for real globular clusters – observations indicate that the the central mass-to-light ratio might be independent on the metallicity [@McLaughlin]. This could be due to the fact that the red GCs typically are more dynamically evolved (but not older) than the blue ones and therefore have a flatter mass function in their cores [@McClure; @Vesperini; @Piotto]. Moreover, these structural differences may be the true reason for the observed metallicity dependence of the abundance of dynamically created sources in globular clusters as also noted by @Bregman. Thus our calculations do indicate a moderate metallicity dependence of the encounter rates. It is however insufficient to explain observations. Indeed, there are $\sim$3 times as many LMXBs in red GCs as in blue GCs of the same size in the Galaxy [@Grindlay; @Bellazzini], where 8 out of 13 LMXBs are observed in the red GC system containing 46 out of the total number of 140 GCs with known metallicities (assuming a division at \[Fe/H\]=-1). Similar trend is observed in in other galaxies [@Kundu; @Sarazin; @Kim]. ### Predicted rates and numbers of X-ray sources To predict the total rates of LMXBs formation in the Galactic GCs, we divide the GCs into two subpopulations depending on metallicity, red (46 GCs) and blue (94 GCs). The cumulative rates for these two subpopulations are then calculated as above, assuming all red GCs to have 0.2 solar metallicity and all blue ones to have 0.02 solar metallicity. The results are given in table \[tab:GCdiv\]. As it can be expected from figure \[rates1\], all three processes give comparable contributions. For metal-rich clusters, these rates predict $\sim 1.2$ X-ray binaries with the companion mass $>0.3 M_\odot$ due to tidal captures, with an additional $0.5-1.0$ such binaries from exchange reactions, $\sim 1.5$ UCXBs and $\sim 3$ fainter LMXBs with very low mass companion. Corresponding to $\sim 6$ sources overall, this is in a good agreement with the total number of LMXBs observed in metal-rich clusters (8). On the other hand, we do overpredict the numbers of X-rays sources in the metal-poor GCs by a factor of $\sim 1.5$ – although our calculations do show the expected metallicity dependence, it is compensated by the larger number of metal-poor clusters. Note that the number of bright sources with $M_d>0.3M_\odot$ main sequence companion dependes critically on the rate of magnetic braking. The above numbers have been computed with the standard prescription of @Rappaport. The weaker variants of magnetic braking [e.g. @Ivanova_Taam] may give upto a factor $\sim 5-10$ longer lifetimes and, consequently, larger numbers of LMXBs with $M_d>0.3 M_\odot$ donors. This can change the overall numbers for globular clusters, but is insignificant factor in the M31 bulge calculations, due to negligible contribution of these systems there. It is interesting to compare the numbers of ultra-compact systems. Considering metal rich clusters only, 2 of the 8 LMXBs have measured orbital periods $\lesssim$ 1 h and are therefore most likely UCXBs [@Benacquista]. Of the 6 others 4 have undetermined periods and could therefore be either UCXBs or traditional LMXBs. The final 2 have orbital periods $>5$ h. Thus, there may be from 2 to 6 short period systems. We predict $\sim 1.5$ UCXBs formed in the collisions with red giants. In addition, the LMXBs with the very low mass donor stars, $M_d\la 0.15M_\odot$, for which the predicted number is $\sim 3$, will also have short orbital periods and faint optical counterparts and may contribute to the observed statistics of UCXBs, giving a prediction of $\sim 4.5$ short period systems in total. ----------- -------- ------- -------------- ------- 47 Tuc $\omega$ Cen Tidal RG-NS Tidal RG-NS Our study 4 2 11 3 @DaviesB 3 1 14 2 ----------- -------- ------- -------------- ------- : Comparison of the LMXB production rates for two Galactic GCs with the results of @DaviesB. When computing our numbers we adjusted the parameters of the stellar environment according to the assumption of @DaviesB, as described in the text. The rates are given in units of Gyr$^{-1}$. []{data-label="tab:Dav"} Comparison with previous studies -------------------------------- As we have already emphasized above, there is only a handful of studies dedicated the quantitative predictions of the formation rates and numbers of LMXBs in real globular clusters. The results of our globular cluster calculations agree with the estimates of @Verbunt2003 of the relative production rates of LMXBs in different Galactic GCs. Later on this method has been used to succesfully explain the observed distribution of X-ray sources over Galactic [@Pooley] as well as for extra-Galactic GCs [@Sivakoff]. One of the most detailed investigations so far has been done by @DaviesB who considered LMXB formation in realistic models of $\omega$ Cen and 47 Tuc globular clusters. When compared blindly, their results appear to differ from our calculations for the same two clusters. However, this is due to different assumptions on the stellar environments used in their study. The main differences are, that in @DaviesB: (i) the NS depletion effect due to supernova kicks was not taken into account (i.e. 100% NS retention factor has been assumed), (ii) it was assumed that stars more massive than 6$M_{\odot}$ produce NSs as compared with 8$M_{\odot}$ boundary used in this paper and (iii) the initial mass function for $\omega$ Cen was much flatter than Kroupa IMF used in this paper. In order to compare with their results, we modified our calculations to be consistent with these assumptions and we found good agreement between the two studies, as demonstrated by the table \[tab:Dav\]. We note that there also is a number of more subtle differences, not taken into account here, which may explain the remaning differences. Finally, consistent with our results, they find that the production rate due to exchange reactions is similar to the rate from the other two channels. Our calculations are also consistent, within a factor of 2, with those of @IvanovaU, who studied the rate of collisions between RGs and NSs in a small sample of Galactic GCs. The only investigation of the formation of LMXBs in galactic bulges is the study by @LeeN of tidal captures near the Galactic centre. Extrapolating from calculations of captures by stars of 0.5 $M_{\odot}$ only, they found that while tidal captures can happen in numbers there, the majority of these would actually be collisions. This is consistent with our results for encounters with stars of this mass. Conclusions {#sect:conclusions} =========== ![The observed radial distribution of the X-ray sources in the bulge of M31, compared with the expected contributions of different sub-populations of low-mass X-ray binaries: primordial (red, the broadest of the three histograms), binaries in globular clusters (green, with zero source density in the center) and binaries formed through dynamical interactions in the inner bulge of M31 (blue, the most peaked distribution). The total numbers of sources are summarized in table \[tab:numbers\].[]{data-label="fig:all"}](fig9.eps){width="\hsize"} Type Number --------------------------------------- -------- Background sources 29 Primordial LMXBs 64 LMXBs in globular clusters 21 LMXBs dynamically formed in the bulge 21 : Numbers of X-ray sources of different origin in the bulge of M31, $r<12$ arcmin, $L_X>10^{36}$ erg/s[]{data-label="tab:numbers"} We have studied the spatial distribution of the luminous X-ray point sources ($L_x>10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$) in the bulge of M31. We show that there is a significant increase in the specific frequency of sources, per unit stellar mass, in the inner $\approx 1$ arcmin. This behaviour is similar, although smaller in the magnitude, to that observed in globular clusters. The radial distribution of the surplus sources follows the $\rho_*^2$ profile. All these suggest that the surplus sources are dynamically created in stellar encounters in the high stellar density environment of the inner bulge of M31. This is further confirmed by the peculiarity of their luminosity distribution, which resembles that of the globular cluster sources in M31 and our Galaxy [@Voss2]. It has long been known that dynamical interactions are responsible for the relatively large number of X-ray sources observed in globular clusters, but this is the first evidence of the dynamical formation of LMXBs in the vicinity of a galactic center. The stellar velocities in bulges are higher than in globular clusters by a factor of $\sim 5-10$. We therefore performed a detailed study of the velocity dependence of the three main dynamical processes leading to the formation of LMXBs: tidal captures of a compact objects by main sequence stars, collisions between evolved stars and compact objects and the exchange of a compact object into an already existing binary. Another major factor affecting the overal encounter rates and the numbers of dynamically formed LMXBs is the high efficiency of the mass segregation in globular clusters, which modifies significantly the spatial distributions of objects of different mass and affects the present day mass function in different parts of a globular cluster. In addition, due to the relative shallowness of the potential well, the populations of compact objects are significantly depleted in globular clusters. We found that while exchange reactions are potentially the dominant formation channel in globular clusters (although stellar collisions might decrease the importance of this channel significantly), this process is relatively unimportant in M31. Similarly, tidal captures of NSs by main sequence stars of mass $>0.3 M_{\odot}$ are important in globular clusters, but not in M31. Instead the main formation channel is tidal captures of compact objects by low mass ($<0.3 M_{\odot}$) stars, with some contribution from collisions between red giants and compact objects. While the geometrical collision rate is high enough to explain the total number of sources from the latter channel, the majority of the collisions are unlikely to lead to the formation of a binary system, as the binding energy of the envelopes of most RGB/AGB stars is too low to capture a compact object in a high velocity environment. We conclude that the majority of the sources in M31 are short-period binaries, and in contrast to globular clusters many of them have BH accretors. We note that the BH binaries with a very low mass companion may become persistent X-ray sources after the donor star is depleted below, $M_d\la 0.15M_\odot$, due to small size of the accretion disc and the positive dependence of the gravitational breaking rate on the mass of the primary. We also predict for M31 a large number of faint transients, similar to the accreting msec pulsars in our Galaxy. Overall, we have been able to explain the spatial distribution and absolute numbers of surplus sources detected in the inner bulge of M31 as a well as the statistics of LMXBs in the metal rich globular clusters. However, we overpredict by a factor of $\sim 1.5$ the population of LMXBs in the metal poor clusters. Finally, the sub-populations of low-mass X-ray binaries in the bulge of M31 are summarized in Fig.\[fig:all\] and Table \[tab:numbers\]. The authors would like to thank Natasha Ivanova for numerous discussions and useful comments on the initial version of the manuscript. We also thank our referee, Simon Portegies-Zwart, for helpful and constructive comments. [99]{} Albrow M. D., De Marchi G., Sahu K. C., ApJ, 579, 660 Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Barman T. S., Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., 2003, A&A, 402, 701 Baraffe I., Chabrier G., Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., 1998, A&A, 337, 403 Barmby P., Huchra J. P., 2001, AJ, 122, 2458 Belczynski K., Kalogera V., Rasio F. A., Taam R. E., Zezas A., Bulik T., Maccarone T. J., Ivanova N., 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0511811) Bell E. F., de Jong R. S., 2001, ApJ, 550, 212 Bellazzini M., Pasquali A., Federici L., Ferraro F. R., Fusi Pecci F., 1995, ApJ, 439, 687 Benacquista M. J., 2006, LRR, 9, 2 Bender R., et al., 2005, ApJ, 631, 280 Bildsten L., Deloye C. J., 2004, ApJ, 607, L119 Binney J., Merrifield M., 1998, Galactic Astronomy, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ Bregman J. N., Irwin P. S., Seitzer P., Flores M., 2006, ApJ, 640, 282 Clark G. W., 1975, ApJ, 199, L143 Davies M. B., 1993, MNRAS, 276, 887 Davies M. B., Benz W., 1995, MNRAS, 276, 876 Davies M. B., Benz W., Hills J. G., 1992, ApJ, 401, 246 de Kool M., 1990, ApJ, 358, 189 de Marchi G., Paresce F., 1997, ApJ, 476, L19 Deloye C. J., Bildsten L. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1217 Devereux N. A., Price R., Wells L. A., Duric N., 1994, AJ, 108, 1667 Dewey R.J., Cordes J.M., 1987, ApJ, 321, 780 Dewi J. D. M., Tauris T. M., 2000, A&A, 360, 1043 Dorman B., 1992, ApJS, 80, 701 Drukier G. A., MNRAS, 280, 498 Dubus G., Hameury J., Charles P., 1999, MNRAS, 303, 139 Duquennoy A., Mayor M., 1991, A&A, 248, 485 Eggleton P. P., 1983, ApJ, 268, 368 Fabian A. C., Pringle J. E., Rees M. J., 1975, MNRAS, 172, 15 Fregeau J. M., Cheung P., Portegies Zwart S. F., Rasio F. A., 2004, MNRAS, 358, 572 Freitag M., Amaro-Seoane P., Kalogera V., 2006, ApJ, 649, 91 Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., 1999, 526, 152 Galleti S., Federici L., Bellazzini M., Fusi Pecci F., Macrina S., 2004, A&A 416, 917 Gilfanov M., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 146 Girardi L., Bertelli G., Bressan A., Chiosi C., Groenewegen M. A. T., Marigo P., Salasnich B., Weiss A., 2002, A&A, 391, 195 Grimm H-J., Gilfanov M. R., Sunyaev R. A., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 793 Grindlay J., ASP conf. Ser. 48, The Globular Clusters-Galaxy connection, ed. G. H. Smith & J. P. Brodie (San Francisco:ASP), 156 Grindlay, J. E., Camilo, F., Heinke, C. O., Edmonds, P. D., Cohn, H., Lugger, P. 2002, ApJ, 581, 470 Han C., 1996, ApJ, 472, 108 Harris W. E., 1996, AJ, 112, 1487 Heggie D. C., 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729 Heggie D. C., Hut, P., 1993, ApJS, 85, 347 Hills J. G., 1976, MNRAS, 175, 1 Hurley J. R., Aarseth S. J., Shara M. M., 2007, astro-ph/0704.0290 Hurley J. R., Tout C. A., Pols O. R., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897 Hut P., Bahcall J. N., 1983, ApJ, 268, 319 Ivanova, N., Taam, R., 2003, ApJ, 599, 516 Ivanova N., Kalogera V., 2006, ApJ, 636, 985 Ivanova N., Belczynski K., Fregeau J. M., Rasio F. A., 2005a, MNRAS, 358, 572 Ivanova N., Rasio F. A., Lombardi J. C., Dooley K. L., Proulx Z. F., 2005b, ApJ, 621, L109 Ivanova N., Heinke C. O., Rasio F. A., Taam R. E., Belczynski K., Fregeau J., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1043 Jarret T. H., Chester T., Cutri R., Schneider S., Huchra, J. P. 2003, AJ, 125, 525 Kent S.M., 1989, AJ, 97, 1614 Kim E., Kim D.-W., Fabbiano G., Lee M. G., Park H. S., Geisler D., Dirsch B., 2006, ApJ, 647, 276 King A. R., Frank J., Kolb U., Ritter H., 1997, ApJ, 484, 844 King I.R., 1966, AJ, 71, 276 King I. R., Sosin C., Cool A. M., 1995, ApJ, 452, L33 Kochanek C. S., 1992, ApJ, 385, 604 Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231 Kumar P., Goodman J., 1996, ApJ, 466, 946 Kundu A., Maccarone T. J., Zepf S. E., 2002, ApJ, 574, L5 Landau L. D., Lifshitz E. M., 1962, The Classical Theory of Fields, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts Lee H. M., Nelson L. A., 1988, ApJ, 334, 688 Lee H. M., Ostriker J. P., 1986, AJ, 310, 176 Liu Q. C., van Paradijs J., van den Heuvel E. P. J., 2001, A&A, 368, 1021 Lombardi J. C., Proulx Z. F., Dooley K. L., Theriault E. M., Ivanova N., Rasio F. A., 2006, ApJ, 640, 441 Lorimer D.R., 2005, LRR, 8, 7 Lugger P.M., Cohn H.N., Grindlay J.E., 1995, ApJ, 439, 191 Lyne A. G., Lorimer D. R., 1994, Nature, 369, 127 Maccarone T. J., Kundu A., Zepf S. E., 2003, AJ, 586, 814 Maccarone T. J., Kundu A., Zepf S. E., 2004, AJ, 606, 430 Maccarone T. J., Kundu A., Zepf S. E., Rhode K. L., 2007, Nature, 445, 183 Macri L. M., et al., 2001, ApJ, 549, 721 Mardling R. M., 1995, ApJ, 450, 732 McClure R. D., et al., 1986, ApJ, 307, L49 McElroy D. B., 1983, AJ, 270, 485 McLaughlin D.E., ApJ, 539, 618 McMillan S. L. W., Taam R. E., McDermott P. N., 1990, ApJ, 354, 190 Mikkola S., 1984, MNRAS, 207, 115 Moretti A., Campana S., Lazzati D., Tagliaferri G., 2003, ApJ, 588, 696 Muno M.P., Pfahl E., Baganoff F.K., Brandt W.N., Ghez A., Lu J., Morris M.R., 2005, ApJ, 622, L113 Paczynski B., 1977, ApJ, 216, 822 Peters P. C., 1964, Phys. Rev., 136, B1224 Pfahl E., Rappaport S., Podsiadlowski P., 2002, ApJ, 573, 283 Piotto G., Zoccali M., 1999, A&A, 345, 485 Piro A. L., Bildsten L., 2002, ApJ, 571, 103 Podsiadlowki P., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 1104 Podsiadlowki P., Rappaport S., Pfahl E. D., 2002, ApJ, 565, 1107 Pooley D., et al., 2003, ApJ, 591, L131 Pols O. R., Marinus M., 1994, A&A, 288, 475 Portegies Zwart S. F., Verbunt F., 1996, A&A, 309, 179 Portegies Zwart S. F., Yungelson L. R., 1997, A&A, 332, 173 Portegies Zwart S.F., McMillan S.L.W., 2002, ApJ, 576, 899 Portegies Zwart S.F., Hut P., McMillan S.L.W., Verbunt F., 1997, A&A, 328, 143 Portegies Zwart S.F., McMillan S.L.W., Makino J., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 95 Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., 1977, ApJ, 213, 183 Pryor C., Meylan G., 1993, in ASP Conf. Ser. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, ed. S. G. Djorgovski & G. Meylan (San Francisco:ASP), 357 Rappaport S., Verbunt F., Joss P. C., 1983, ApJ, 275, 713 Rasio F. A., Shapiro S. L., 1991, ApJ, 377, 559 Ray A., Kembhavi A. K., Antia H. M., 1987, Astr. App., 184, 164 Rich R. M., 2004, in Origin and Evolution of the Elements, Ed. A McWilliam & M. Rauch (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 258 Riffeser A., Fliri J., Seitz S., Bender R., 2005, ApJS, 163, 225 Salaris M., Weiss A., 2002, A&A, 388, 492 Sarajedini A, Jablonka P., 2005, 130, 1627 Sarazin C. L., Kundu A., Irwin J. A., Sivakoff G. R., Blanton E. L., Randall S. W., 2003, AJ, 595, 743 Sigurdsson S., Phinney E. S., 1993, ApJ, 415, 631 Sivakoff, G. R., et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, 1246 Spitzer L., 1969, ApJ, 158, L139 Spruit H. C., Ritter H., 1983, A&A, 124, 267 Stanek K. Z., Garnavich P. M., 1998, APJ, 503, L131 Stehle R., Ritter H., Kolb U., 1996, MNRAS, 279, 581 Taam R.E., Ricker, P.M, 2006, Preprint (astro-ph/0611043) van den Heuvel, E. P. J., 1992, in Saas-Fee advanced course 22, Interacting Binaries, ed. H. Nussbaumer & A. Orr (Springer-Verlag), 263 Verbunt F., 1987, ApJ, 312, L23 Verbunt F., 2003, in ASP Conf. Ser. 296, New Horizons in Globular Cluster Astronomy, ed. G. Piotto, G. Meylan, S. G. Djorgovski & M. Riello (San Francisco: ASP) Verbunt F., Hut P., 1987, in The Origin and Evolution of Neutron Stars; Proceedings of the IAU Symposium No. 125, ed. D. J. Helfand & J.-H. Huang. Dordrecht, p187 Vesperini E., Heggie D. C., 1997, MNRAS, 289, 898 Voss R., Gilfanov M., 2006, A&A, 447, 71 Voss R., Gilfanov M., 2007, Preprint (astro-ph/0610649) Voss R., Tauris T. M., 2003, MNRAS, 342, 1169 Walterbos R. A. M., Kennicutt R. C., 1987, A&AS, 69, 311 Webbink R. F., 1984, ApJ, 277, 355 Widrow L. M., Perrett K. M., Suyu S. H., 2003, ApJ, 588, 311 Yungelson L. R., Lasota J.-P., Nelemans G., et al. 2006, A&A, 454, 559 Zahn J.-P., 1989, A&A, 220, 112 Zahn J.-P., 1989, A&A, 223, 112 Zoccali M., Cassisi S., Frogel J. A., Gould A., Ortolani S., Renzini A., Rich M. R., Stephens A. W., 2000, AJ, 530, 418 \[lastpage\] [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (RV); [email protected] (MG) [^2]: We begin with consideration of encounters involving a neutron star. These results are extended to formation of black hole binaries in the section \[sect:bh\]. [^3]: Note that this is different from the mass limit for a fully convective star, $\sim 0.3M_{\odot}$ [e.g. @Spruit], used later as the mass at which magnetic braking ceases being effective. As properties of deep interiors of the star are not important for the tidal capture process, a higher value is used in the latter case [e.g. @Ray] [^4]: To use the mass function of @Kroupa to estimate $f_{bh}/f_{ns}$ is appropriate for the bulge of M31, where mass segregation is negligible, except for the inner few parsec [@Freitag]. In GCs this is not the case as three factors affect the mass function, namely the mass segregation causing more massive objects to sink to the core, supernova kicks depleting the GCs of NSs and the ejection of BHs due to encounters with other BHs [@Portegies2002]. This is discussed in detail in section \[sect:realistic\] [^5]: Isochrone file isoc\_z030.dat from @Girardi. [^6]: We note that the precision of these masses is given for identification on the published stellar tracks. This should not be confused with the precision to which these values are actually know, which is much lower.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Ch. Helling' - 'R. Klein' - 'P. Woitke' - 'U. Nowak' - 'E. Sedlmayr' date: '15.10.03 ; 08.04.04 ' nocite: - '[@ros78; @bmhlg97; @sesa2000; @am2001; @ahats2001; @tsu2002a; @csmlb2002]' - '[@wh2003a]' - '[@wh2003b]' - '[@lah2002]' - '[@cako2001]' - '[@holks2001b]' - '[@can97a; @can2000]' - '[@mcsh2003; @copo1996]' - '[@rnh2003]' - '[@rehn2002]' - '[@ml1999; @mk2004]' - '[@slh2000]' - '[@www98]' - '[@ep88a; @ep88b]' - '[@can97b]' - '[@gks84; @gs88]' - '[@mnl2003]' - '[@gks84]' - '[@jwfs97; @cpsss01; @pcjbs02; @cjps98; @jcss00; @joh2003]' - '[@twmj98]' - '[@gks84]' - '[@gs86; @gs88]' - '[@dsg93]' - '[@jws98; @jwbs2003; @gs98a]' - '[@gs99]' - '[@wh2003a]' - '[@djt99]' - '[@djt99]' - '[@jwsr93]' - '[@??10]' - '[@op98]' - '[@frisch95]' - '[@op98]' - '[@smk97]' - '[@sbgk98]' - '[@sk2003]' - '[@holks2001b]' - '[@dw87]' - '[@deu83]' - '[@neo98; @enod99; @stra2002]' - '[@sed97]' - '[@bkll2003]' - '[@bm99; @bm2001a; @bm2001b; @mzl2001; @gm2002; @clark2002]' - '[@clark2002]' - '[@ntmim2000; @kdmrglb2001]' - '[@mbsag2002; @gmhal2002]' - '\nocite{}' - '[@lah2002]' - '[@hel2003; @li2004]' - '[@tsu2002b; @ahats2001]' - '[@tsu2002b]' - '[@wh2003a]' - '[@gs99]' subtitle: 'IV. Dust formation and driven turbulence on mesoscopic scales' title: Dust in Brown Dwarfs --- Introduction {#sec:Intro} ============ Substellar objects like brown dwarfs and (extrasolar) planets are largely - but not entirely - convective with considerable overshoot in the upper atmosphere. They also provide excellent conditions for the gas phase transition to solids or liquids (henceforth called [ *dust*]{}). The understanding of such object’s atmospheres requires therefore the modelling of convection and, because the inertia of the fluid is larger than its friction (Re$\gg 10^4$), turbulent dust formation must be considered. Hence, substellar atmospheres involve various scale regimes with each being dominated by possibly different physical (streams, waves, precipitation) and chemical processes (combustion, dust formation, coagulation). The large-scale structure of compact, substellar atmospheres is characterised by local and global convective motions (thunderstorms and monsoon like winds) and – simultaneously – by the gravitational settling of the dust. This scale regime has widely been investigated by 1D static, frequency dependent atmosphere calculations applying mixing length theory. The presence of dust in form of several homogeneous constituents has been modelled by applying local stability and time scale arguments (Rossow 1978, Borrows1997, SaegerSasselow 2000, AckermannMarley 2001, Allard2001, Tsuji 2002, Cooper2003). Recently, WoitkeHelling (2003a; Paper II) have proposed a consistent treatment of nucleation, growth, evaporation and gravitational settling of heterogeneous dust particles, which has been applied for the first time to stellar atmosphere models in (WoitkeHelling 2004; Paper III). Modelling macroscopic scales, Ludwig(2002) have presented the first 3D simulations of M-dwarf convective atmospheres, applying the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) technique based on the experience of Nordlund & Stein with the solar convection. While the largest scales, which contain most of the energy and energise a small-scale turbulent fluid field, are computationally resolved, smaller scales are modelled by a hyperdiffusion which prevents the energy to accumulate in the smallest scales, thereby smoothing out all small-scale structures. Numerically, it stabilises the flow by filtering out sound and fast mode waves (see CauntKorpi 2001). Coming from the opposite site of the turbulent energy cascade, Helling(2001; Paper I) have investigated the dust formation process in the small, microscopic scale regime ($l_{\rm ref}\ll H_{\rho}$) by direct simulations of acoustic wave interactions. These investigations of the dense, initially dust-hostile layers in brown dwarf atmospheres have revealed a [*feedback loop*]{} which characterises the dust formation process: Based on this knowledge, we extent our studies to larger and larger spatial scales aiming finally at the simulation of dust formation in the macroscopic scale regime, i.e., the complete atmosphere. The next step is therefore to study the mesoscopic scale regime ($l_{\rm ref} < H_{\rho}$) where we model driven turbulence by stochastically superimposed waves in the inertial Kolmogoroff range and study the response of the dust complex. Necessary criteria are derived for a small-scale closure model to be applied in large scale simulations of dust forming systems. The aim of such a scale-wise investigation is to understand the major physical mechanisms which are responsible for the structure formation in the atmospheres of substellar objects and to provide the necessary informations for building an appropriate sub-grid model needed to solve the closure problem inherent to any macroscopic turbulence simulation (not only) of dust forming media (see also Canuto 1997a, 2000). The challenge is that only the largest scales of the turbulence cascade are comparable with real astrophysical observations but structure formation is usually seeded on the smallest scales especially if it is correlated with chemical processes. From the theoretical point of view, turbulence in thin atmospheric layers may be of quasi-2D-nature (ChoPolvani 1996, Menou2003). The 2D turbulence is characterised by an inverse energy cascade (transfer from small to large scales), contrary to 3D turbulence, which makes a scale-wise investigation even more urgent. Various model approaches have been carried out to simulate and to study turbulence in different astrophysical scale regimes. For example, thermonuclear flames in type Ia supernovae have been studied on small scales by Röpke, Niemeyer & Hillebrandt (2003), investigating the Landau-Darrieus instability in 2D simulations which is responsible for the formation of a cellular structure of the burning front. Reinecke, Hillebrandt & Niemeyer (2002) have performed large-scale calculations in order to model supernovae explosions on scales of the stellar radius. Mac Low (1999; see also Mac LowKlessen 2004), for instance, have set up isothermal initial velocity perturbations with an initial power spectrum of developed turbulence in the Fourier space and initially constant density. They model decaying turbulence on the small scales of the inertial subrange. Smith, Mac Low & Heitsch (2000) use a similar approach but study the effect of driven turbulence in the same scale regime of star-forming clouds. A stationary but stochastic velocity field was applied by Wallin, Watson & Wylf (1998) in order to perform radiative transfer calculations of Maser spectra of a sub-parsec disk of a massive black whole. A fundamental theoretical investigation of the methods of driven turbulence is provided in (Eswaran & Pope 1987, 1988). A different approach of turbulence and convective modelling is followed by Canuto (1997b) who treats turbulent convection by a Reynold separation ansatz where decomposed quantities (background field + fluctuations) are introduced into the model equations. In this paper, we present a model for driven turbulence which allows us to study the onset of dust formation under strongly fluctuating hydro- and thermodynamic conditions in the mesoscopic scale regime. We thereby intend to model a constantly occurring energy input from the convectively active zone. Section \[sec:ModelProblem\] states the model problem and the characteristic numbers of our astrophysical problem. The turbulence model is outlined in Sect. \[ssec:turbmodel\]. In Sect. \[sec:Results\], the results are presented for 1D simulations and an illustrative 2D example. Section \[sec:disc\] contains the discussion, and Section \[sec:concl\] the conclusions. The model {#sec:ModelProblem} ========= The model equations for a compact substellar atmosphere are summarised. The model is threefold: i) hydro- and thermodynamics ([*Complex A*]{}), ii) chemistry and dust formation ([*Complex B*]{}; both Sect. \[ssec:ModelHD+Dust\]), and iii) turbulence (Sect. \[ssec:turbmodel\]). Our model philosophy is to study the dust forming system in different scale regimes in order to identify major mechanisms which might be responsible for cloud formation and possible variability in substellar atmospheres. The approach is based on dimensionless equations such that their solution is characterised by a set of characteristic numbers. The model for a compressible, dust-forming gas {#ssec:ModelHD+Dust} ---------------------------------------------- The complete set of model equations was outlined in detail in Paper I. Only a short summary is therefore give here. are described following the classical approach for an inviscid, compressible fluid; (Eqs.(1)–(5)) in Paper I[^1]. The dust formation is a two step process – nucleation and growth (Gail1984; Gail & Sedlmayr 1988) – and depends through the amount of condensible species on the local density and chemical composition of the gas which are determined by Complex A. The nucleation rate $J_*$, which is strongly temperature-dependent, is calculated from Eq. (17) in Paper I applying the modified classical nucleation theory[^2] (Gail1984). The dust growth is described by the momentum method developed by (GailSedlmayr 1986, 1988; Dominik et al. 1993) in combination with the differential equations describing the element conservation (Eqs.(6)–(8) in Paper I). Our model of dust formation considers a prototype-like phase transition (gas $\to$ solid) which is triggered by the nucleation of homogeneous ${\rm (TiO_2)}_N$-clusters (see Jeong1998, GailSedlmayr 1998, Jeong2003). The formation of the dust particles is completed by the growth of a heterogeneous mantle which is assumed to be arbitrarily stable. The most abundant elements after H, C, O, and N in a solar composition gas are Mg and Si followed by Fe, S, Al, $\ldots$, Ti, $\ldots$ Zr. Therefore, the main component of the dust mantle can be expected to be some kind of silicate with a Mg/Si/O mixture plus some impurities. Since the focus of our work concerns the initiation of the dust formation in hostile turbulent environments rather than a detailed description of the growth process, evaporation and drift are neglected. Therewith, the maximum effects regarding the amount of dust formed in brown dwarf atmospheres is studied. The most abundant Si bearing species in the gas phase under conditions of chemical equilibrium is the SiO molecule. [Therefore, the collision rate with SiO can be expected to limit the growth of various silicate materials (like SiO$_2$, Mg$_{2x}$Fe$_{2(1-x)}$SiO$_4$ and Mg$_{x}$Fe$_{1-x}$SiO$_3$) rather than the collision rate with the nominal molecules (monomers) which are usually much less stable and hence barely present in the gas phase (GailSedlmayr 1999). Consequently, SiO is identified as the key species for the description of the growth of the dust mantles in our model (compare Paper II). In order to prevent an overproduction of seed particles, we furthermore include TiO$_2$ also as additional growth species, which leads to a quick consumption of Ti from the gas phase as soon as relevant amounts of dust are present.]{} ### Characteristic numbers and scale analysis {#sssec:charnumb} The use of dimensionless equations (Eqs. (1)–(8) in Paper I) provides the possibility to characterise the systems behaviour by non-dimensional numbers. The related estimations of typical time and length scales are summarised in Table \[tab:kennz\] (Appendix \[append:analysischarnumb\]) for which the reference values only need to be known by orders of magnitude. It would, however, be very difficult to adopt an unique representation of the reference values from recent brown dwarfs model atmosphere calculation because of the differences among the different groups (compare Fig. \[fig:0D\]). The agreement is nevertheless good enough that we consider them as typical, classical hydrostatic brown dwarf model atmosphere which lead our choice of reference values in Table \[tab:kennz\]. #### – Assuming the typical turbulence velocity to be of the order of one tenth of the velocity of sound leads to a [*Mach number*]{} $M\approx \cal{O}$$(0.1)$. This choice has been guided by the results of Ludwig(2002) who derived a maximum vertical velocity of $\cal{O}$$(10^4\mbox{cm\,s$^{-1}$})\approx c_s/10$ cm$s^{-1}$ which is about the same order of magnitude like the convective velocities derived from the mixing length theory (MLT)[^3]. This value of a large-scale velocity does presently determine the energy dissipation rate (Eq. \[equ:energydiss\]) of the turbulence model applied (Sect. \[ssec:turbmodel\]) in this paper. – The [*Froude number*]{} is $ Fr =\cal{O}$$(10^{-2}\ldots 10^{-1})$ for a mesoscopic reference lengths $l_{\rm ref}<H_{\rho}$. Therefore, the pressure gradient and the gravity are now of almost comparable importance. However, gravity will gain considerable influence on the hydrodynamics only for scales regimes $l_{\rm ref}\geqslant H_{\rho}$ ($l_{\rm ref}=H_{\rho} \Rightarrow Fr = M$). The analysis of the characteristic combined drift number performed in Paper III (see Tables 2, 4 therein) has shown that the drift term in the dust moment equations is merely influenced by the gravity and the bulk density of the grains. We therefore assume also in the mesoscopic scale regime position coupling between dust and gas which seems reasonable due to the almost equal importance of the source terms in the equation of motion. – The estimate of the [*Reynolds number*]{}, $ Re= 10^7\ldots 10^{9}$, for a brown dwarf atmosphere situation in the mesoscopic scale regime indicates that the viscosity of the gas is too small to damp hydrodynamical perturbations on the largest scale to be considered, $l_{\rm meso}$, and a turbulent hydrodynamic field can be expected. $Re$ has increased by about one order of magnitude compared to the microscopic scale regime (compare Table 1 in Paper I). Therefore, the viscosity of the gas decreases for mesoscopic scale effects in comparison to the microscopic regime. This is correct since for $l_{\rm ref}=\eta \Rightarrow Re=1$ ($\eta$ - Kolmogoroff dissipation scale) and viscosity dissipates all the turbulent kinetic energy of the fluid. – In radiatively influenced environments the [*characteristic number for the radiative heating / cooling*]{}, $ Rd=4 \kappa_{\rm ref}\sigma T^4_{\rm ref} \cdot \frac{t_{\rm ref}}{ P_{\rm ref}}$. The systems scaling influences $Rd$ by the reference time $t_{\rm ref}$ which can increases with increasing spatial scales. #### The scaling of the dust moment equations provides two [*Damköhler numbers*]{} for dust nucleation, $Da^{\rm nuc}_{\rm d}$, and dust growth, $Da^{gr}_{\rm d}$, and characteristic numbers for the grain size distribution, the Sedlma[y]{}r number $Se_j$ (j - order of dust moments, ${\rm j}\in \mathbb{N}$). Element conservation is characterised by $ El$, the element consumption number. $Se_j$ and $ El$ are not influenced by the scaling of the system (compare Table \[tab:kennz\]) but the two dust Damköhler numbers, $Da^{\rm nuc}_{\rm d}$ and $Da^{gr}_{\rm d}$, increase with increasing time scale. The analysis of the characteristic numbers shows that the governing equations of our model problem are still those of an inviscid, compressible fluid which are coupled to stiff dust moment equations and an almost singular radiative energy relaxation if dust is present. The dust equations become even more stiff than in the microscopic regime which caused severe numerical difficulties in solving the energy equation which is coupled to the dust complex by the absorption coefficient $\kappa$ (see Sect.\[sssec:stiffcouple\]). The [*dominant interactions*]{} occur in the energy equation and in the dust moment equations (Eqs. (4), (6), (7) in Paper I) also in the mesoscopic scale regime. The model for compressible, driven turbulence {#ssec:turbmodel} --------------------------------------------- A turbulent fluid field is determined by the stochastic character of the hydrodynamic and thermodynamic quantities due to possible interaction of different scales which are represented by inverse wavenumbers in our model. We have constructed a pseudo-spectral method where randomly interacting waves are generated inside a wavenumber interval $[k_{\rm min}, k_{\rm max}]$ on an equidistant grid of $N$ wavenumbers $k_{\rm i}$ in the Fourier space. The wavenumber interval is part of the inertial subrange of the turbulent energy cascade (Eq. \[equ:KolSpec\]). A disturbance $\delta \alpha(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ is added to a homogeneous background field $\alpha_0(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ such that for a suitable variable $$\alpha(\boldsymbol{x},t)=\alpha_0(\boldsymbol{x},t) + \delta \alpha(\boldsymbol{x},t), \label{equ:distrubance}$$ with $\boldsymbol{x}$ the spatial vector and $t$ the time coordinate. The present model for driven, compressible turbulence comprises a stochastic, dust-free velocity, pressure and entropy field, $\alpha(\boldsymbol{x},t)\, \epsilon \, \{ \boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x},t), p(\boldsymbol{x},t), S(\boldsymbol{x},t) \}$. #### Stochastic distribution of velocity amplitudes $\delta \boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x},t)$: An arbitrary scale – represented by a wavenumber interval $k\ldots k+dk$ ($k = \|\boldsymbol{k}\|$) – inside the inertial range of developed turbulence contains the energy per mass $e(k)\,dk$ in 3D, where $$e(k)\,dk = C_{\rm K}\varepsilon^{2/3}k^{-5/3}. \label{equ:KolSpec}$$ $\varepsilon$ is the energy dissipation rate \[cm$^2$/s$^3$\] and $C_{\rm K}\approx 1.5$ is the (dimensionless) Kolmogoroff constant (see Dubois, Janberteau, Teman 1999, p.51). Kolmogoroff derived this first order description of the energy spectrum for the inertial range assuming self-similarity of the corresponding scales. The energy spectrum (Eq. \[equ:KolSpec\]) has been well verified by experiments and simulations (see Dubois, Janberteau, Teman 1999). In the framework of Kolmogoroffs theory, $\varepsilon$ is constant for all scales $k$ and time $t$ ([*homogeneous, isotropic turbulence*]{}). The energy dissipation rate can be estimated if already one typical scale and its corresponding reference velocity is known because $\varepsilon$ is assumed to be constant for all scales (see also Sect. \[sssec:charnumb\] [*Complex A*]{}). From dimensional arguments, $$\label{equ:energydiss} \varepsilon = C_1 \frac{u^3}{l} = C_1 \frac{u(k_{\rm min})^3}{l(k_{\rm min})},$$ for instance for the largest scales of interest inside the inertial range, for the smallest wavenumber $k_{\rm min}$. According to Jimenez(1993), $C_1=0.7$. A wavenumber interval \[$k_{\rm i}, k_{\rm i+1}$\] contains, according to Eq. (\[equ:KolSpec\]), the turbulent kinetic energy density per mass $E^{\rm i}_{\rm turb}$, $$E^{\rm i}_{\rm turb} =\int_{k_{\rm i+1}}^{k_{\rm i}} e(k)\,dk = \frac{3}{2}C_{\rm K}\varepsilon^{2/3}[k_{\rm i}^{-2/3} - k_{\rm i+1}^{-2/3}]. \label{equ:Eturb}$$ The square of the velocity amplitude, $A_{\rm u}(\bar{k_{\rm i}})$, is correlated with the turbulent kinetic energy in Fourier space by $$A_{\rm u} (\bar{k_{\rm i}}) = \sqrt{ 2 z_3 E^{\rm i}_{\rm turb}}, \label{equ:deltauFour}$$ with $$\bar{k_{\rm i}} = \frac{k_{\rm i} +k_{\rm i+1}} {2} \label{equ:deltak}$$ the mean value of $k$ in the wavenumber interval considered. $k_{\rm i}$ are $N$ equidistantly distributed wavenumbers in the Fourier space, (i$=1, \ldots N$) with $N$ the number of modes. The $k_{\rm i}$ are chosen between $k_{\rm min}$ and $k_{\rm max}$ when the calculation is started and are kept constant further on. Here, the so-called [*ultraviolet truncation*]{} $A_{\rm u}(k_{\rm i})=0$ for $k_{\rm i} > k_{\rm max}$ is applied in order to avoid the infinite energy problem of the classical field theories in Eq. (\[equ:Eturb\]) (stated in Bohr 1998, p.23). The minimum wavenumber is determined by the largest scale $l_{\rm ref}$, the size of test volume. Only wavenumbers inside a sphere of radius $k_{\rm max}$ excluding the origin are forced (see also Overholt & Pope 1998, p.13). Assuming the ergodic hypothesis (see Frisch 1995), the turbulent kinetic energy $E_{\rm turb}^{\rm i}$ (Eq. \[equ:Eturb\]) was assumed to be the most likely value (compare Mac Low1999) with a stochastic fluctuation generated by a zero-centred Gaussian distributed random number $z_3>0$ according to the Box-Müller formula $$z_3 = \sqrt{-2\,\log z_1} \sin(\pi z_2), \label{equ:BoxMueller}$$ $z_1$ and $z_2$ are equally distributed random numbers $\,\epsilon\, [0, 1)$. A cosine Fourier transformation provides the real values of the velocity amplitude $\delta \boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ in ordinary space, $$\delta\boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x},t) = \Sigma_{\rm i}\, A_{\rm u}(\bar{k_{\rm i}}) \cos(\bar{\boldsymbol{k_{\rm i}}}\boldsymbol{x} - \omega_{\rm i}t + \varphi_{\rm i}) \hat{\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}}, \label{equ:deltauRaum}$$ with $\bar{\boldsymbol{k_{\rm i}}}=\bar{k_{\rm i}}\hat{\bar{\boldsymbol{k}}}$ and $\boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x},t)=u(\boldsymbol{x},t)\hat{\boldsymbol{u}}$. Also the directions of $\boldsymbol{k_{\rm i}}$, the direction of $\delta\boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{ x},t)$, are chosen randomly according to $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:randomk1} \hat{\bar{k}}_{\rm i, x} = \sin\alpha\,\cos\beta & \qquad & \cos\alpha=1-2\,z_4\\ \label{equ:randomk2} \hat{\bar{k}}_{\rm i, y} = \sin\alpha\,\sin\beta & \qquad & \sin\alpha = \sqrt{1.0-(\cos\alpha)^2}\\ \label{equ:randomk3} \hat{\bar{k}}_{\rm i, z} = \cos\alpha & \qquad & \beta = 2\pi\,z_5,\end{aligned}$$ with $z_4$ and $z_5$ equally distributed random numbers. The 1D and 2D case of Eq. (\[equ:deltauRaum\]) is obtained by projection. A longitudinal wave results in 1D. $\varphi_{\rm i}=2\pi\,z_6$ is the equally distributed random phase shift which is chosen separately for each wavenumber. $\omega_{\rm i}$ is the angular velocity for which a [*dispersion relation*]{} is derived from dimensional arguments. It follows from Eq. (\[equ:energydiss\]) that for each scale $l_{\rm i} = 2\pi/\bar{k}_{\rm i}$ the corresponding eddy turnover time $t_{\rm i}$ results to be $$u_{\rm i} \sim (\varepsilon\, l_{\rm i})^{1/3} \,\Rightarrow\, t_{\rm i} \sim \left( \frac{\varepsilon}{l_{\rm i}^2}\right)^{-1/3}. \label{equ:uiti}$$ Since per definition $\omega_{\rm i}=2\pi/t_{\rm i}$ the [*dispersion relation in the inertial subrange*]{} is $$\omega_{\rm i} = (2\pi\,\bar{k}_{\rm i}^2\varepsilon)^{1/3}. \label{equ:disrel}$$ #### Stochastic distribution of pressure amplitudes $\delta p(\boldsymbol{x},t)$: The pressure amplitude is determined depending on the wavenumber of the velocity amplitude $A_{\rm u}(\bar{k_{\rm i}})$ such that the compressible (sound waves) and the incompressible pressure limits are matched for the smallest $k_{\rm min}$ and the largest $k_{\rm max}$ wavenumber, respectively, $$A_{\rm p}(k_{\rm i}) = -\frac{[k_{\rm max} - k_{\rm i}]\, \rho A_{\rm u}(\bar{k_{\rm i}})^2 + [k_{\rm i} - k_{\rm min}]\, \rho c_{\rm s} A_{\rm u}(\bar{k_{\rm i}})}{[k_{\rm max} - k_{\rm min}]}. \label{equ:deltapFou}$$ The maximum wavenumber $k_{\rm max}=2\pi/(3\,\Delta x)$ is determined by some factor (here 3; see Overholt & Pope 1998 for discussion) of the spatial grid resolution $\Delta x$ (see Table \[tab:kennzalle\]). A spectral decomposition (compare Eq. \[equ:deltauRaum\]) provides the real values of the pressure amplitude $\delta p(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ in ordinary space, $$\delta p (\boldsymbol{x},t) = - \Sigma_{\rm i}\, A_{\rm p}(\bar{k_{\rm i}}) \cos(\bar{\boldsymbol{k_{\rm i}}}\boldsymbol{x} - \omega_{\rm i}t + \varphi_{\rm i}). \label{equ:deltapRaum}$$ #### Stochastic distribution of the entropy $S(\boldsymbol{x},t)$: The entropy $S(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ is a purely thermodynamic quantity and a distribution can in principle be chosen independently from the distribution of the hydrodynamic quantities. In the adiabatic case, $S(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ is conserved along particle trajectories. So far, $S(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ has been kept constant. For a given $S(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ and $p(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ (see Eq. \[equ:distrubance\]) the gas temperature $T(\boldsymbol{x},t)$ is given by $$\log T(\boldsymbol{x},t) = \frac{S(\boldsymbol{x},t) + R\log p(\boldsymbol{x},t) - R\log R}{c_{\rm V} + R}, \label{equ:Temp}$$ with $R$ the ideal gas constant, $c_V$ specific heat capacity for constant gas volume. In this work, we have simulated the turbulence by [ *prescribing boundary conditions*]{} (Sect. \[sec:Numerics\]) applying Eqs. (\[equ:deltauRaum\]), (\[equ:deltapRaum\]), and (\[equ:Temp\]). Stochastically created and superposed waves continuously enter the model volume and are advectivelly transported inward by solving the model equations (Sect. \[ssec:ModelHD+Dust\]). A hydrodynamically and thermodynamically fluctuating field is generated which influences the local dust formation because it sensitively depends on the local temperature and density. . \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\] -- -- -- -- Numerics {#sec:Numerics} -------- The fully time-dependent solution of the model equations has been obtained by applying a multi-dimensional hydro code (Smiljanovski et al. 1997) which has been extended in order to treat the complex of dust formation and elemental conservation (Eqs. (1)–(8), Paper I). The hydro code has already been the subject of several tests and studies in computational science (see also Schneider et al. 1998, Schmidt & Klein 2002). #### Boundary conditions and turbulence driving: The Cartesian grid is divided in the cells of the test volume (inside) and the ghost cells which surround the test volume (outside). The state of each ghost cell is prescribed by our adiabatic model of driven turbulence (Sect. \[ssec:turbmodel\]) for each time. Hence, the actual fluctuation amplitudes of the fluid field ($\delta\boldsymbol{u}(\boldsymbol{x},t)$, $\delta p(\boldsymbol{x},t)$, $\delta S(\boldsymbol{x},t)\,\Rightarrow\,$ $\delta T(\boldsymbol{x},t)$, $\delta (\rho \boldsymbol{x},t)$) is the result of a spectral composition of a number of Fourier modes which are determined by the Kolmogoroff spectrum. The absolute level of this energy distribution function is given by the velocity ascribed to the largest, the energy containing scale of the simulation (see [*Complex A*]{} in Sect. \[sssec:charnumb\]). The hydro code solves the model equation in each cell (test volume + ghost cells) and the prescribed fluctuations in the ghost cells are transported into the test volume by the nature of the HD equations. The numerical boundary occurs between the ghost cells and the initially homogeneous test volume and are determined by the solution of the Riemann problem. Material can flow into the test volume and can leave the test volume. The solution of the model problem is considered inside the test volume. #### Initial conditions: The (dimensionless) initial conditions have been chosen as homogeneous, static, adiabatic, and dust free, $\rho_0=1$, $p_0=1$, $u_0=0$, $L_0=0\,(\Rightarrow\, L_j=0)$ in order to represent a (semi-)static, dust-hostile part of the substellar atmosphere. This allows us to study the influence of our variable boundaries on the evolution of the dust complex without a possible intersection with the initial conditions. ### Stiff coupling of dust and\ radiative heating / cooling {#sssec:stiffcouple} Dust formation occurs on much shorter time scales than the hydrodynamic processes (see Sect. 2.2 in Paper I). Approaching regimes of larger and larger scales makes this problem more and more crucial (Sect. \[sssec:charnumb\]). Therefore, the dust moment and element conservation equations ([*Complex B*]{}) are solved applying an ODE solver in the framework of the operator splitting method assuming $T, \rho=$const during ODE solution. In Paper I we have used the CVODE solver (Cohen & Hindmarsh 2000; LLNL) which turned out to be insufficient for the mesoscopic scale regime which we attack in the present paper. CVODE failed to solve our model equations after the dust had reached its steady state (compare Fig. 3 in Paper I). Therefore, it was not possible to simulate the equilibrium situation of the dust complex in the mesoscopic scale regime by using CVODE which in other situation has been very efficient. #### The LIMEX solver: {#sec:LIMEX} The solution of the equilibrium situation of the dust complex is essential for our investigation since it describes the static case of [*Complex B*]{} when no further dust formation takes place (where the source terms in Eqs. (6)–(8) in Paper I vanish). The reason may be that all available gaseous material has been consumed and the supersaturation rate $S=1$ or the thermodynamic conditions do not allow the formation of dust. The first case involves an asymptotic approach of the gaseous number density (or element abundance; see Eqs. 8 in Paper I) of $S=1$ which often is difficult to be solved by an ODE solver due to the choice of too large time steps. However, the asymptotic behaviour is influenced by the temperature evolution of the gas/dust mixture which in our model is influenced by radiative heating/cooling (see r.h.s. of Eq. (3) in Paper I). Since the radiative heating/cooling ($Q_{\rm rad} = Rd\,\kappa(T^4_{\rm RE} - T^4)$ heating/cooling rate) depends on the absorption coefficient $\kappa$ of the gas/dust mixture which strongly changes if dust forms. Consequently, the radiative heating/cooling rate is strongly coupled to the dust complex which in turn depends sensitively on the local temperature which is influenced by the radiative heating/cooling. It was therefore necessary to include also the radiative heating/cooling source term in the separate ODE treatment for which we adopted the LIMEX DAE solver. LIMEX (Deuflhard& Nowak 1987) is a solver for linearly implicit systems of differential algebraic equations. It is an extrapolation method based on a linearly implicit Euler discretisation and is equipped with a sophisticated order and step-size control (Deuflhard 1983). In contrast to the widely used multi-step methods, OVODE, only linear systems of equations and no non-linear systems have to be solved internally. Various methods for linear system solution are incorporated, full and band mode, general sparse direct mode and iterative solution with preconditioning. The method has shown to be very efficient and robust in several fields of challenging applications in numerical (Nowak1998, Ehrig1999) and astrophysical science (Straka 2002). Results {#sec:Results} ======= The simulations presented in the following are characterised by the reference parameter set or the set of dimensionless numbers given in Table \[tab:kennzalle\] (Appendix \[append:analysischarnumb\]), and are carried out with an spatial resolution of $N_{\rm x}=500$ if not stated differently. After a detailed investigations of our 1D models, the mean behaviour of the dust forming system is studied (Sect. \[subsec:means\]) which might, nevertheless, be an easier link to observations. The mean values do, furthermore, provide a first insight regarding significant features of our dust forming system which a sub-grid model for a follow up large-scale simulation should reproduce. Turbulent fluctuations are discussed in terms of apparent standard deviations. Section \[subsec:dustwindow\] will demonstrate the existence of a stochastic and a deterministic dust formation regime in turbulent environments, beside a regime where dust formation is impossible, the problem of the dust formation window is discussed for substellar atmospheres. Section \[subsec:2D\] will illustrate how stochastically superimposed waves trigger the dust formation process in 2D. Large-scale (inside the mesoscopic regime) hydrodynamic motions seem to gather the dust in larger and larger structures which is a result of multi-dimensionality. The 1D simulations provide, however, the tool to gain detailed insight into the interactions of chemistry and physics for which multi-dimensional simulations are far to complex. -- -- -- -- Short term evolution {#subsec:shortterm} -------------------- An inviscid, astrophysical test fluid in 1D with $T_{\rm ref}=2100$K and $M=0.1$ ($\nearrow$ entree A Table \[tab:kennzalle\]) is excited in the wavenumber interval $[k_{\rm min}, k_{\rm max}]$ by 500 modes, $N_k=500$, and its short term evolution is demonstrated (Figs. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\], \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\]; l.h.s.). The smallest eddy has than a size of $\lambda^{\rm 1D}_{\rm min}= 1$m. The simulations assume a 1D test volume in horizontal direction and gravity does therefore not influence our 1D results. #### Spatial evolution: Stochastically created waves move into the 1D test volume from both sides ($t=0.48$s, Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\]) with a maximum velocity amplitude of $\cal{O}$$(10^3\mbox{cm \,s$^{-1}$})$ representing the turbulent velocity fluctuations. At some instant of time, the temperature disturbance due to inward moving superimposed waves is large enough that the nucleation threshold temperature is crossed locally ($T<T_S$, Paper I below Eq. (21); $t=0.68$s Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\], grey/cyan solid line). As the temperature disturbance penetrates into the test volume, a [*nucleation front*]{} forms which moves into the dust free gas of the test volume and leaves behind dust seeds which can grow to considerable sizes (compare the change of $\log n_d$ from $t=0.68$s (grey/cyan solid) and $t=1.12$s (black dash-dot ) between $x=0$ and $x=0.16$ Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\]). The superimposed waves which enter the test volume through its boundaries will also interact with each other after some time. An [ *event-like nucleation*]{} results ($t=1.12$s, $x=0.14$ Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\]). More dust is formed and meanwhile, the particles are large enough to re-initiate nucleation by efficient radiative cooling due to the strongly increased opacity ($t=1.5$s Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\], grey/cyan dash-dot). The result is a very inhomogeneously fluctuating distribution in size, number and degree of condensation of dust in the test volume when the dust formation dominated the dynamics of the system. The fluctuations are stronger in the beginning of the simulations and homogenise with time (Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] l.h.s.). The long term behaviour will be discussed in Sect. \[subsec:xM\]. #### Time evolution: For better understanding of the time evolution of the hydrodynamic and dust quantities in a stochastically excited medium, the time evolution in the test volume’s centre ([*cell centre*]{}) is depicted in Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] (l.h.s) for the first 6s of the reference simulation with $N_k=500$. The dust complex reaches a steady state after about $t\approx 1.8$s in the centre of the test volume in the present simulation, for which only one singular nucleation event has been responsible (3rd panel, Figs. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] l.h.s.). Consequently, $f_{\rm Ti} = f_{\rm Si}=1$. In contrast, the hydro- and thermodynamic quantities (gas density, $\rho$, gas pressure, $p$, and velocity, $u$) continue to fluctuate considerably around their initially homogeneous values. The small variations of the mean particle size $\langle a\rangle$ and the number of dust particles $n_{\rm d}$ are partly caused by the hydrodynamic motion in and out of the cell centre of the dust forming material and partly by the turbulent fluctuations themselves. The thermodynamic behaviour of the dust changes from adiabatic to isotherm as result of the strong radiative cooling by the dust. Therefore, the temperature drops and reaches the radiative equilibrium level ($T=T_{\rm RE}$). Exactly the same qualitative behaviour was observed from Fig. 3 in Paper I. [*We conclude a different distribution of dust inside an initially dust free gas element: While in the centre of a gas element the dust formation process is completed ($f=1$) after it was initiated by waves which are emitted by its surrounding, disturbances from the boundary prevent the boundary layers of the gas elements to reach $f=1$. Consequently, a convectively ascending initially dust free cloud can be excited to form dust by waves running through it. Therefore, a cloud can be fully condensed much earlier than by any classical, static model predicted.*]{} Long term evolution {#subsec:xM} ------------------- The long term behaviour of our dust forming system sets in after the dust formation process is complete ($f=1$) and radiative equilibrium ($T=T_{\rm RE}$) is reached. Due to the strong cooling capability of the dust, only small deviations occur from the radiative equilibrium if compression waves occur which may be seen as colliding small-scale turbulence elements. The general change of the temperature $T\rightarrow T_{\rm RE}$ caused an increase of the density in the test volume (density level $\rho > 1$ Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] r.h.s.) in order to maintain pressure equilibrium (pressure level at $p\approx 1$, Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] r.h.s.). The long term behaviour of $\rho$, $p$, and $u$ are characterised by strong fluctuations constantly generated by our turbulence driving. In Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] (l.h.s), which depicts a higher time resolution of Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] (r.h.s.), single waves (turbulence elements) are still distinguishable of which only spikes out of a jungle of noise are left to observe in the long term behaviour in Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] (r.h.s.). Comparable small fluctuations of the mean particles size, $\langle a\rangle$, and the number of dust particles, $n_d$, occur over a long time. We recover here the 20% fluctuation which was already observable in Fig. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_zeit\] (l.h.s). Since the dust formation process is complete, these fluctuations must be of hydrodynamic origin, caused by the movement of the small-scale turbulence elements. The mean behaviour in space and time {#subsec:means} ------------------------------------ The mean behaviour of a turbulent, dust forming gas is studied. The space mean is the average over the test volume at each time step $$\label{eq:spacemean} \langle \alpha \rangle_x(t) = \frac{1}{N_x}\sum_{i=0}^{N_x} \alpha_i(x_i, t)$$ and the time mean is the mean of each mesh cells over time, $$\label{eq:timemean} \langle \alpha \rangle_t(x) = \frac{1}{N_t}\sum_{i=0}^{N_t} \alpha_i(x, t_i).$$ Both represent the most plausible values of the quantity $\alpha(x, t)$ i) at a certain instant of time (Eq. \[eq:spacemean\]), and ii) at a certain site in the test volume (Eq. \[eq:timemean\]). The space means are calculated by leaving out the cells close to the boundary in order to exclude the fluctuations in the dust quantities due to inflowing dust-free material. Figure \[fig:Means\] (l.h.s.) depicts the space means $\langle\, \cdot \,\rangle_{\rm x}$ as function of time $t$ \[s\], and Fig. \[fig:Means\] (r.h.s.) depicts the time means $\langle\, \cdot \,\rangle_{\rm t}$ as function of $x$ space \[$l_{\rm ref}$\]. Figures \[fig:Means\] shows that the space and the time mean values differ considerably for the hydrodynamic quantities: Strong fluctuations of the space means (l.h.s.) occur as function of time while the time means (r.h.s.) exhibit comparatively smooth variation. These fluctuations increase with increasing number of excitation modes which shows that the fluctuations are of hydrodynamic origin (see also Sect. \[subsec:depNk\]). #### Space means: The study of the long-term behaviour of the space means (l.h.s., Figs. \[fig:Means\]) discloses a considerable variation of the hydrodynamic mean quantities. In contrast, the dust quantities are almost constant in time after the dust formation process is completed. This result is a consequence of the assumed symmetry (1D), where every wave has to cross the whole test volume which is not the case in a multi-dimensional fluid field (compare Sect. \[subsec:2D\]). The formation of dust causes the temperature to change considerably towards the radiation equilibrium level causing thus the density level to change (increase if $T$ decreases) in order to recover the pressure equilibrium. Therefore, initially small perturbations in a dust forming system have a large effect on its overall hydrodynamic structure. The strong variation of the dust quantities during the beginning of the simulation is smeared out with increasing averaging time. Therefore, observing a spatially unresolved dust forming system over a long time will not unhide the inhomogeneous behaviour though it will have a profound influence of the large-scale structure of any dust forming system, e.g., by the transition adiabatic $\rightarrow$ isothermal behaviour, by backwarming in an substellar atmosphere, or by the enrichment and the depletion by gravitational settling. #### Time means: The variation of the hydrodynamic mean values is less strong in space (r.h.s., Figs. \[fig:Means\]) than in time (l.h.s., Figs. \[fig:Means\]) and resembles more common expectations for such average quantities than the hydrodynamic space means do. The density shift $\rho(t=0)\,\rightarrow\,\rho(t(T=T_{\rm RE}))$ due to $T\,\rightarrow\,T_{\rm RE}$ is easier observable than for the space mean. The time mean of the nucleation rate, however, discloses the appearance of nucleation fronts and nucleation events: Waves which enter the test volume and already carry a temperature disturbance with $T<T_S$ result in a nucleation front ($x\lesssim 0.025\,l_{\rm ref}$ r.h.s., Figs. \[fig:Means\]). Waves, turbulence elements, which interact inside the test volume and only there create $T<T_S$ for a short time result in nucleation events as the peak like $\langle J_*\rangle_t$ shows. Else, the dust quantities are constant in almost the whole test volume which is in agreement with their time averages. Deviations from these almost constant values occur only near the volume’s boundaries since here fresh, uncondensed material enters. [*Viewing our test volume again as mass element in a convective environment which is constantly disturbed by wave propagation, we conclude that nucleation will take place everywhere in the mass element but likely with very much different efficiency. Since fresh, uncondensed material enters the mass element through open boundaries, nucleation can go on here only if the temperature is low enough. This does not cause the boundary region to contain the largest amount of dust since the dust can also leave the mass element if the fluid flow moves outward.*]{} -- -- -- -- ### Dependence on the number of modes {#subsec:depNk} Figure \[fig:Nk100\_2100K\_spacemean\] depicts the same calculation like Figs. \[fig:Nk500\_2100K\_Ort\] – \[fig:Means\] but carried out with different a number of modes, $N_k=100$. Comparing with the l.h.s. of Fig. \[fig:Means\] ($N_k=500$) shows that the variations in the hydrodynamic quantities are smaller but the dust quantities reach very alike mean values independent of $N_k$. Note, more energy is contained in the small wavenumbers (= large spatial scales) since the Kolmogoroff spectrum is applied to calculate the velocity disturbances in the Fourier space. Consequently, if a number of chosen modes, $N^1_{\rm k}$, is small, the smallest wavenumber will contain less energy than the smallest wavenumber for some larger number of modes $N^2_{\rm k}$, and, from $N^1_{\rm k}< N^2_{\rm k}$ follows $E(k_1({\rm N^1_k}))< E(k_1({\rm N^2_k}))$. This results in the appearance of larger velocity and pressure peaks with increasing $N_{\rm k}$ according to Eqs. (\[equ:deltauFour\]) and (\[equ:deltapFou\]). The study of the long term behaviour of the $T_{\rm ref}=2100\,$K simulation reveals the occurrence of a long term pattern in $\rho$, $p$, and $u$ (beat frequency oscillations) with a frequency $\nu_{\rm beat}\approx 100$s $\approx 1.7$min. Comparing $\rho$, $p$, and $u$ in Figures \[fig:Nk100\_2100K\_spacemean\] exhibits 6 maxima at $t\approx 50$s, 150s, 250s, 350s, 450s, 550s. This beat frequency $\nu_{\rm beat}$ seems independent on the number of modes $N_k$ but does, however, not establish for an excitation with a very small number of modes ($N_k=5$, not depicted here) and is smeared for a very large number of modes due to larger fluctuations around the mean values ($N_k=500$, Fig. \[fig:Means\]). ### Apparent standard deviation {#sssec:standartdev} Deviations from the most plausible values, the mean values, can be studied in terms of the apparent standard deviation. The apparent standard deviation allows to estimate the mean deviations of characteristic dust quantities due to the turbulent fluid field, $$\sigma_{N_x-1}^{\alpha}(t):= \sqrt{ \frac{\sum_0^{N_x} (\alpha_i(t))^2 - (\sum_0^{N_x}\alpha_i(t))^2/N_x}{N_x-1}}. \label{equ:standartabweich}$$ Equation (\[equ:standartabweich\]) is therefore the mean, quadratic weighted deviation of the realisations $i$ ($i=0\ldots N_x$) of the turbulent, dust forming gas flow in space at an instant of time $t$. Figure \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\] depicts the space means (solid) $\langle\alpha\rangle_x(t)$, and the respective apparent standard deviations leading to $\langle\alpha\rangle_x(t)+\sigma_{\rm N_t-1}^{\alpha}(t)$ (dotted) and $\langle\alpha\rangle_x(t)-\sigma_{\rm N_t-1}^{\alpha}(t)$ (dashed). Note that there is no straight forward functional dependence among all the lower (dashed) and all the upper (dotted) curves, respectively. Figure \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\] shows that the standard deviation is largest in the period of most active dust formation, between 0.05s and 3s for the Mach number case depicted (compare paragr. [“Dependence on Mach number”]{}), independent on the initial reference temperature. For example, the minimum and the maximum deviations in density deviate by almost a factor 3 for the model with $T_{\rm ref}=2100$K ($\nearrow$ entree A in Table \[tab:kennzalle\]). The apparent standard deviation of the velocity field shows that $\delta u(x,t) = \pm 0.2 v_{\rm ref}$ and less which is subsonic (compare Figs. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\], \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation2\], \[fig:1Dstoch\]) and in agreement with Ludwig et al. (2002). The apparent standard deviations indicate that there are no very large deviations in the 1D dust quantities if the dust complex has reached it steady state, in contrast to the hydrodynamic quantities. Turbulent fluctuations will cause the dust formation to set in somewhat earlier and to occur somewhat more vivid (larger $J_*$). On the contrary, Figs. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\] and \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation2\] illustrates that no dust forms if the fluctuations result in $T>T_S$ (no dashed line for $J_*$). #### Dependence on temperature: The standard deviations of the hydrodynamic quantities are not considerably larger neither in a deeper nor in a shallower turbulence excited atmospheric layer (r.h.s. Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\]). In contrast, the variations in the dust quantities decrease with decreasing $T_{\rm ref}$ and increase with increasing $T_{\rm ref}$ (the latter is not shown here). The nucleation rate decreases by orders of magnitude with increasing temperature and the standard deviation is considerably larger. Consequently, the mean number of dust particle is smaller and therefore the mean particle size larger. In contrast, nucleation occurs earlier and more vivid with decreasing temperature. The dust formation process is complete already during the very first time of the simulation as depicted on the r.h.s. in Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\], therefore $J_*$ and $\chi_{\rm het}$ are not resolved on the time interval plotted. Consequently, the number of dust particles is order of magnitudes higher and the mean particles size has decreased since the material has to be distributed over a larger grain surface area than if less particles form. All of it is in accordance with common expectations (see Sect. \[subsec:dustwindow\]). #### Dependence on Mach number: Figure \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation2\] shows a simulation comparable to the r.h.s. of Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\] but now with $M=0.02$ instead of $M=0.1$ ($\nearrow$ entrees A, B in Table \[tab:kennzalle\]). Consequently, the characteristic time scale is much longer, namely $t_{\rm ref}\approx 15\,$s instead of $t_{\rm ref}\approx 3\,$s and a much longer time interval needs to be depicted in Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation2\] compared to Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\] in order to observe the inset of the dust formation. We observe that the variation of the hydrodynamic quantities does not change remarkable compared to higher Mach number cases. It only appears on a much longer time scale. However, the superimposed waves need about 3 times longer to initiate the first dust formation. The nucleation is somewhat less efficient resulting in a slightly lower number of dust particles which are, hence, slightly larger. Also the growth process is less efficient compared to the M=0.1–case Although the dust complex acts on its own, chemical time scales, it needs much longer time to reach a steady state situation if the initial Mach number is small (see also Fig. \[fig:1DTauKappa\] in Sect. \[subsec:variability\]). The dust formation window {#subsec:dustwindow} ------------------------- Stochastic fluctuation can drive a reactive gas flow into the dust formation window, the thermodynamic regime where the gas - solid (or liquid) phase transition is possible and most efficient (see Sedlmayr 1997). Depending on the thermodynamic (TD) situation, three regimes (compare Fig. \[fig:regimes\]) appear to be present in a turbulent atmosphere: The [*deterministic*]{} (or [*subcritic*]{}) contains those TD states where dust formation occurs without the need of an (hydrodynamic) ignition, i.e. the local temperature is already smaller than the nucleation threshold temperature. The [*stochastic*]{} regime contains those TD states for which the dust is possible if some realistic ignition mechanism can cause $T<T_{\rm s}$. This regime contains the critical range where a transition from $T>T_{\rm s}$ to $T<T_{\rm s}$ is possible. The size of the stochastic regime depends on the turbulent energy. The third regime can be called [*impossible*]{} since no dust formation would be possible here. #### Temperature dependence: We have investigated the transition deterministic – stochastic regime by studying the temperature dependence in our stochastic 1D simulations. The time mean values (Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch\]) of the dimensionless hydrodynamic variables are very much alike ($\langle\rho\rangle_t$, $\langle p\rangle_t$, $\langle T\rangle_t$, $\langle u\rangle_t$, for reference values see Table \[tab:differentTemp\]) but the dust quantities deviate considerably between these two extreme regimes[^4]. Figure \[fig:1Dstoch\] depicts four cases of which $T_{\rm ref}=1900, 1500$K (dotted, dashed) fall into the deterministic regime in which the dust formation process is complete after a very short time on the whole test volume ($f_{\rm Ti}=f_{\rm Si}=1$) without any external excitation necessary. The $T_{\rm ref}=2500, 2100$K (dash-dot, solid) fall into the stochastic regime where turbulence initiates the dust formation process by causing the very first nucleation event to occur (compare also Sect. \[sec:Intro\]). In $T_{\rm ref}=2100$K-case the dust formation process is still completed after a very short time ($t\approx 0.07$s) in the whole test volume while for $T_{\rm ref}=2500$K the first efficient nucleation event occurs only after about $65$s$\approx 1$min. The dust formation is not complete ($f_{\rm Ti}, f_{\rm Si}<1$) in this comparably hot case and even much more refined in time and space: The time mean of the mean particle size,$\langle\langle a\rangle \rangle_t$, varies by $\approx 1$ order of magnitude (4th panel, l.h.s, Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch\]). Therefore, $T_{\rm ref}=2500\,$K falls in the very end of the stochastic regime being close to impossible. ------------------------------------------------------------ -- and vorticity $(\nabla\times \boldsymbol{v})$ \[s$^{-1}$\] \[0.7cm\] \[3.2cm\] \[0.7cm\] \[3.2cm\] \[0.7cm\] \[3.2cm\] ------------------------------------------------------------ -- [**Left**]{}: number of dust particle $\log\,$n$_{\rm d}\,$ \[cm$^{-3}$\] and vorticity $(\nabla\times \boldsymbol{v}$) \[s$^{-1}$\] only for $t=0.8$s; [**Right**]{}: mean particle radius $\log\,\langle a\rangle$ \[cm\]. \[fig:2D\] --------------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------- ---------------------------- $T_{\rm ref}$ $p_{\rm ref}$ $u_{\rm ref}$ $t_{\rm ref}$ $T_{\rm RE}$ $[$K$]$ \[dyncm$^{-2}$\] \[cms$^{-1}$\] \[s\] $[$K$]$ 2500 $2.84\,10^{7}$ $3.54\,10^{4}$ 2.821 1750 $(=0.7\,T_{\rm ref})$ 2100 $2.38\,10^{7}$ $3.25\,10^{4}$ 3.078 1890 $(=0.9\,T_{\rm ref})$ 1900 $2.16\,10^{7}$ $3.09\,10^{4}$ 3.236 1710 $(=0.9\,T_{\rm ref})$ 1500 $1.70\,10^{7}$ $2.74\,10^{4}$ 3.642 1350 $(=0.9\,T_{\rm ref})$ --------------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------- ---------------------------- : $\rho_{\rm ref}=3.16\,10^{-4}$ gcm$^{-3}$, $l_{\rm ref}=0.5\,10^{-5}$cm[]{data-label="tab:differentTemp"} The temperature sequence depicted in Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch\] displays the transition from the deterministic into the stochastic regime: the dust formation is most efficient at the smallest temperature considered (1500K) resulting in the most dust particles (3rd panel, r.h.s., Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch\]) and therefore in the smallest grain size. With increasing temperature, less particles are formed which can accumulate considerably more material and grow therefore to largest sizes. The hottest case considered seem not to fit into this picture because $\langle\langle a\rangle \rangle_{t, 2500K} > \langle\langle a\rangle \rangle_{t, 1500K}$ but $\langle\langle a\rangle \rangle_{t, 2500K} \approx \langle\langle a\rangle \rangle_{t, 1900K}$. Comparing the radiative equilibrium temperature of our test calculations (Table \[tab:differentTemp\]) indicates that $T_{\rm RE, 2500K}\approx T_{\rm RE, 1900K}$. Apart from the fact that considerably more time is needed to form and grow the first, initiating seed particles the higher the temperature is, the dust will drive the system locally towards this low radiative equilibrium temperature providing thereby TD conditions comparable to the $T=1900$K-case. The resultant dust quantities need therefore be comparable if $T=T_{\rm RE}$, if the gas has reached the same isothermal state. -- -- -- -- 2D results {#subsec:2D} ---------- So far, only 1D results have been presented in this paper, which provide a good possibility to study the most important ongoing physical and chemical processes and their interactions. In 1D, however, each wave crosses the whole test volume and will therewith influence the local thermodynamic conditions everywhere inside the volume. In 2D, the influence of waves leads to much more complicated patterns since a non-zero rotation of the fluid field can develop. The expected consequence is a much more heterogeneous distribution of dust than in any 1D situation as it is illustrated in the following. A 2D model calculation with $T_{\rm ref}=2100$K, $M=1$, $N_{\rm k}$=500 ($\,\,\nearrow\,\,$ entree A$^{\prime}$ in Table \[tab:kennzalle\])[^5] was performed on a spatial grid of $N_{\rm x}\times N_{\rm y} = 128\times 128$ cells corresponding to a box of 500m $\times$ 500m. The smallest eddies have a size of $\lambda^{\rm 2D}_{\rm min}=5\,$m, the largest are of the size of the test volume. The gravity acts in negative $y$-direction, $\boldsymbol{g} = \{0, -g, 0\}$. The initially homogeneous and dust free fluid is constantly disturbed by superimposed waves entering from the left, the right, and the bottom side. Thereby, a gas element is modelled which is continuously disturbed by waves originating from the surrounding convectively instable atmospheric fluid. The top side is kept open simulating the open upper boundary of a test volume in the substellar atmosphere. Figure \[fig:2D\] shows three instants of time during the phase of vivid dust formation and demonstrates the appearance of large and small dusty scale structures evolving with time. Both, the number of dust particles $n_{\rm d}$ (l.h.s.) and the mean particle size $\langle a\rangle$ (r.h.s.), are plotted on a logarithmic scale with $n_{\rm d} = 1\,\ldots\,10^9$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\langle a\rangle = 10^{-5.5} \,\ldots\,10^{-3.5}$. The very inhomogeneous appearance of the dust complex is a result of nucleation fronts and nucleation events comparable to our 1D results. The nucleation is now triggered by the interaction of eddies coming from different directions. Large amounts of dust are formed and appear to be present in lane-like structures (large $\log\,$n$_{\rm d}$; dark areas). The lanes are shaped by the constantly inward travelling waves. Our simulations show that some of the small-scale structure merge thereby supporting the formation of lanes and later on even larger structures. The formation of such large structures is not caused by the establishment of a pressure gradient to counterbalance the gravity. Since the whole test volume is only of the size of $H_{\rm P}/20$ the resulting pressure gradient is negligibly small. Hence, the large-scale structures result from the interaction of dust formation and turbulence. Furthermore, dust is also present in curl-like structure which indicates the formation of vortices. As the time proceeds in our 2D simulation, vortices develop orthogonal to the velocity field which show a higher vorticity ($\nabla \times \boldsymbol{v}(\boldsymbol{x}, t)$) than the majority of the background fluid field. For illustration, the maximum and the minimum vorticity between $\approx -20$s$^{-1}$ and $\approx 20$s$^{-1}$ has been superimposed as a contour plot (grey/black) on top of the false colour plot of the number of dust particles for $t=0.8$s in Fig. \[fig:2D\] (l.h.s., top). This shows that the vortices with high vorticity preferentially occur in dust free regions or regions with only little amounts of dust present. The motion of the vortices can transport the dust particles into region with still condensible material available, and seem thereby to cause larger and larger dusty areas to form. The 2D hydrodynamic behaviour is comparable to our 1D results in the sense that the stochastically created waves enter the test volume, interact, run through the test volume, and eventually leave it at the top side after they have initiated the dust formation process. Large changes in the dust quantities during short time intervals occur locally during the time period of the first nucleation and the re-initiation of nucleation by radiative cooling. A spatially inhomogeneous dust distribution results which is only slightly shifted back and forth by the inward moving superimposed waves. In contrast, considerable variations in $\rho$, $p$, and in the velocity components $(u, v)$ occur in time and space. Furthermore, a new qualitative behaviour compared to the 1D simulation appears. Hydrodynamic advection gathers the dust in larger and larger structures while the formation of the dust has been initiated in the small-scale regime of the simulation. The reference time of our present 2D simulation is comparably high (see Table \[tab:kennzalle\]). We have, however, done 1D test calculations (Figs. \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation1\], \[fig:1Dstoch2100mitStandartdeviation2\], \[fig:1DTauKappa\]) which indicate that in the low Mach number case the global dust formation time scale (the time when the dust formation reaches its steady state) will merely increase (for discussion see Sect. \[subsec:upscale\]). Discussion {#sec:disc} ========== Variability {#subsec:variability} ----------- Observational evidence has been provided (Bailer-Jones & Mund 1999, 2001a,b; Martín et al. 2001; Gelino et al. 2002; Clarke et al. 2002) that Brown L-Dwarfs are non-periodically photometric variable at a low level of $1-2\%$ (Clarke 2002) and sometimes even larger. Nakajima et al (2000) and Kirkpatrick et al. (2001) reported on spectroscopic variability. Appealing explanations are the appearance of magnetic spots or the formation of dust clouds. Mohanty et al. (2002) and Gelino et al. (2002) have argued that ultra cool dwarfs are unlikely to support magnetic spots. There is, however, evidence for magnetic activity in L dwarfs by a rapid declining, strong H$\alpha$ emission. In contrast, three objects are observed with a persistent, strong H$\alpha$ emission (Liebert 2003). A straight forward, consistent explanation is not at hand yet and will probably be theoretically very demanding. We, therefore, follow in this paper the hypothesis of the formation of dust clouds in a convectively influenced turbulent environment as explanation of non-periodic variability Ludwig et al. (2002) argue based on their hydrodynamic 3D simulation that M-dwarfs (and even more Brown Dwarfs) show only very little temporal and horizontal fluctuations in their atmospheres. Dust strongly interacts with the thermo- and hydrodynamics due to radiative transfer effects, gas phase depletion and on macroscopic scales due to drift. It seems therefore likely to expect a support of initially small inhomogeneouties by these processes. Woitke (2001) has carried out 2D radiative transfer calculations for a inhomogeneous density distribution which support this idea. Since the radiation is blocked by condensing dust clouds of sufficient optical depth, the radiation is forced to escape mainly through the remaining wholes, thereby enhancing and preventing the dust formation, respectively. One may speculate that the consideration of dust formation in 3D simulation may even cause these models to deviate considerably from the simple MLT models in the case of brown dwarfs due to the time dependence of the dust formation process and the corresponding feedback on the space and time evolution. #### Optical depth: Figure \[fig:1DTauKappa\] (left panels) depicts the space mean total opacity (solid lines) and the mean opacity of the dust (dashed lines) and the gas (dotted lines) for the 1D test calculation investigated in Fig. \[fig:1Dstoch\]. Upper curves indicate $\langle\kappa\rangle_x(t)+\sigma_{\rm N_t-1}^{\kappa}(t)$, the lower depict $\langle\kappa\rangle_x(t)-\sigma_{\rm N_t-1}^{\kappa}(t)$. The Rosseland mean [*dust*]{} opacities for astronomical silicates ($\kappa_{\rm dust}= 0.75\,\rho L_3 1.74\,T^{1.12}$, Paper I; l.h.s.) and a typical Rosseland [*gas*]{} mean of $\kappa_{\rm gas}=0.1$g/cm$^3$ have been adopted. The Rosseland gas mean opacity was chosen typical for a hot, inner layer of a brown dwarf atmosphere. Figure \[fig:1DTauKappa\] shows that the dust and the gas opacities differ by about 1.5 orders of magnitude. The dust opacities varies by about 0.5 magnitudes, the gas opacity by only about 0.2 order of magnitudes. this is independent of the characteristic time scale of the system, the large-scale Mach number of the initial configuration (compare l.h.s. and r.h.s. in Fig. \[fig:1DTauKappa\]). Figure \[fig:1DTauKappa\] further depicts in the right panels the time evolution of the space mean of the optical depth which a mass element of the size of our test volume (500m) would have. The optical depth increases by a factor of 10 when the dust forms in accordance with the opacity increase. There is, however, a delay between the inset of dust formation and the time when the maximum optical depth is reached because the dust formation sets in earlier than a cloud becomes optically thick. This delay is sensitive to the characteristic time scale of the system as a comparison of the l.h.s. and r.h.s. in Fig. \[fig:1DTauKappa\] demonstrate. The gas/dust mixture will only be optically thick in the case of non-transparent dust particles (astronomical silicates) which may depend on the wavelength considered. Glassy grains may efficiently absorb in the far IR ($\lambda\ga 10\mu$m) and one might, depending on the observed wavelength, detect typical dust features and possibly even the rapid formation events which, however, may need to evolve on macroscopic scales in order to be observable. Turbulent fluctuation seem not to produce considerable variations in view of the space mean of the optical depth in the long term (here $t>4$s) if astronomical silicates are assumed as typical dust opacity carriers. Towards the observable regime {#subsec:upscale} ----------------------------- The time-dependent simulations performed so far might suggest an up-scaling of the achieved results in order to estimate e.g. possible cloud sizes and variability time scales on an observational level. This idea is not as straight forward as it might seem because of the differences between chemical and hydrodynamical time scales. Dust formation is a local process and its (local) time scale is the same independent of the hydrodynamical regime but the hydrodynamic time scale changes depending on the characteristic length of the regime considered. A simple and correct up-scaling according to the principle of similarity would require the characteristic numbers to remain the same which is not the case (see also Helling 2003, Lingnau 2004), for instance due to the changing characteristic hydrodynamic time scales. One might further imagine to upscale the results by a periodic continuation, i.e. each small-scale simulation being one pixel of the large-scale picture. In any case, the feedback of the large scale (e.g. convective) motions on the small scales is neglected and visa versa. Important effects like chemical mixing and kinetic energy input into the turbulent fluid field are than missing. Consequently, the non-linear coupling between dust formation and hydrodynamics makes it impossible to simply scale up detailed small-scale results into an regime accessible by observations. The complete large-scale simulation needs to be awaited. The aim of the investigations of the small-scale regimes performed so far was indeed to provide information and understanding for building a large-scale model of a brown dwarf atmosphere. From these results, we suggest the following necessary criteria for a sub-grid model (also called closure term or closure approximation) of a turbulent, dust forming system: - A sub-grid model must describe the transition deterministic $\rightarrow$ stochastic dust formation, depending on the turbulent energy as measured by the large-scale variations of the local velocity field. - The dust formation process (nucleation + growth) is restricted to a short time interval (of the order of a few seconds), which is usually much smaller than the large-scale hydrodynamic time scale. This involves that: - The nucleation occurs locally and event-like in very narrow time slots. - The growth process continues as long as condensible material is available and thermal stability of the dust is assured. - The condensation process finally freezes in and the inhomogeneous dust properties are preserved. - The dust formation process should be accompanied by a fast transition from an approximately adiabatic to an approximately isothermal behaviour of the dust/gas mixture. This transition can be expected to affect the convective stability in substellar atmospheres. Comparison with classical model atmospheres {#subsec:classatm} ------------------------------------------- Figure \[fig:0D\] revisits the idea of the dust formation window but now with view on classical brown dwarf atmosphere calculations. The following calculations are performed for various $(T, \rho)$ pairs in order to demonstrate in which atmospheric regions dust formation will simply take place (deterministic regime) and in which regions dust formation needs to be initiated (stochastic regime; compare Sect. \[subsec:dustwindow\]). For eye guidance, the $(T, \rho)$ pairs are indicated by small black triangles along with presently used substellar model atmospheres in the literature (Allard2001 – black lines, Tsuji 2002 – grey/cyan lines). One may notice that the warm models of the same stellar parameter can differ by about 500K for a given density in the inner atmospheric region which is convectively unstable in both cases. Small hooks (red) indicate the upper Schwarzschild boundary (SB) for convection if available, $v_{\rm MLT}=0$ for $T<T_{\rm SB}$. The test is simple: Two calculations are carried our for each $(T, \rho)$ pair where in the first test a small number of seed particles is prescribed ($\rho L_0=1$cm$^{-3}$; open black circles), and in the second test no seed particles are prescribed (blue asterisks). The results should be almost identical inside the deterministic regime but no dust should form in the stochastic regime. One observes that there is no difference in grain size in the cool outer atmospheric region whether seed particles are initially present or not. The initially present little number of seed particles is overran by a very efficient nucleation which is characteristic for the deterministic regime. Note that the dust grains will immediately start to move inwards on macroscopic scales of atmospheric extension due to the large gravity of brown dwarfs. However, depending on the TD conditions, the nucleation efficiency varies in the atmosphere. The more efficient nucleation takes place, the more seed particles are formed resulting in smaller mean sizes because the gaseous material has to be distributed over more particles than in case of less efficient nucleation. Small mean particle sizes inside the deterministic regime are therefore a sign for efficient dust nucleation. For $T>1800$K, the stochastic regime is entered. Here, dust is only present if by some mean a certain number of seeds is present (blue asterisks) or a ignition mechanism (turbulence, radiative cooling by gas) provides the appropriate TD conditions (red squares). Note that no open circles appears at this site of Fig. \[fig:0D\] since the TD conditions are now inappropriate for a gas - solid phase transition except an ignition mechanism is present. Conclusions {#sec:concl} =========== We have studied the onset of the dust formation process in a turbulent fluid field, typical for the dense and initially dust-hostile regions in substellar atmospheres. The main scenario is a convectively ascending fluid element in a brown dwarf atmosphere, which is excited by turbulent motions and just reaches sufficiently low temperatures for condensation, but other applications are also conceivable. The dust formation in a turbulent gas is found to be strongly influenced by the existence of a nucleation threshold temperature $T_S$. The local temperature $T$ must at least temporarily decrease below this threshold in order to provide the necessary supersaturation for nucleation. Depending on the relation between the local mean temperature $\overline{T}$ and $T_S$, three different regimes can be distinguished (see l.h.s. of Fig. \[fig:regimes\]): (i) the [*deterministic*]{} regime ($\overline{T}<T_S$) where dust forms anyway, (ii) the [*stochastic*]{} regime ($\overline{T}>T_S$) where $T<T_S$ can only be achieved locally and temporarily by turbulent temperature fluctuations, and (iii) a regime where dust formation is [*impossible*]{}. The size of the stochastic regime depends on the available turbulent energy. This picture of [*turbulent dust formation*]{} is quite different from the usually applied [*thermodynamical picture*]{} (r.h.s. of Fig. \[fig:regimes\]) where dust is simply assumed to be present whenever $T<T_{\rm sub}$, where $T_{\rm sub}$ is the sublimation temperature of a considered dust material. The investigations have been performed in the mesoscopic scale regime, where the test volume is excited by a spectrum of waves within a limited $k$-interval at given energy distribution, which are generated at the boundaries (pseudo-spectral method for driven turbulence). Two basic processes are found to be capable to initiate the dust formation even in a host-hostile environment: - expansion waves with $\overline{T}-\Delta T<T_S$ ([*nucleation fronts*]{}). - interactions of two or more expansion waves which cannot produce sufficiently low temperatures for themselves, but the superposition of such waves can $\overline{T}-\Delta T_1 - \Delta T_2 -\ldots<T_S$ ([*nucleation events*]{}). After initiation, the dust condensation process is completed by a phase of active particle growth until the condensible elements are consumed, thereby preserving the dust particle number density for long times. However, radiative cooling (as follow-up effect) is found to have an important influence on the subsequent dust formation, if the dust opacity reaches a certain critical value. This cooling leads to a decrease of $\overline{T}(t)$ which may re-initiate the nucleation. This results in a runaway process (unstable feedback loop) until radiative and phase equilibrium is achieved. Depending on the difference between the initial mean temperature $\overline{T}(t\!=\!0)$ and the radiative equilibrium temperature $T_{\rm RE}$, a considerable local temperature decrease and density increase occurs. Since the turbulent initiation of the dust formation process is time-dependent and spatially inhomogeneous, considerable spatial variations of all physical quantities (hydro-, thermodynamics, dust) occur during the short time interval of active dust formation (typically a few seconds after initiation), which actually [*creates new turbulence*]{}. Thus, small turbulent perturbations have large effects in dust forming systems. A convectively ascending, initially dust free gas element, which is slightly warmer than its surroundings, can be excited to form dust by waves running through it, even at otherwise dust-hostile temperatures. The newly created dust particles may cause the substellar atmosphere to become almost instantaneously optically thick. Our 2D simulations show that the dust appears in lane-like and curled structures. Small-scale dust structures merge and form larger structures. Vortices appear to be present preferentially in regions without or with only little dust. Non of these structures would occur without turbulent excitation. The referee is thanked for the useful advises to the manuscript. Dipl.-Ing. H. Schmidt and Dr. N. Botta are thanked for discussion on the boundary problem and Dipl.-Ing. M. Münch for discussions on the Klein-HD-Code. This work has been supported by the *DFG* (grants SE 420/19-1&2, Kl 611/7-1, Kl 611/9-1). Analysis of characteristic numbers & characteristic values of test calculations {#append:analysischarnumb} =============================================================================== [|c|ll|rcll|]{} & & &\ & & inside & & outside &\ Reynolds number & & & & &\ & & $1.2\,10^{10}$ & $\ldots$ & $1.2\,10^{7}$ &\ Mach number & & & 0.1 & &\ Froude number & & 0.11 & & 0.05 &\ Radiation number & & $0.207$& $\ldots$ & $8.6\, 10^{-3}$ & $^{(\Diamond)}$\ & & & $ 2.07 $ & $\ldots$ & $0.86$ & $^{(\Diamond\Diamond)}$\ Damköhler number of nucleation & & 0 & $\ldots$ & $3.24\,10^5$ &\ Damköhler number of growth & & $9.78\,10^4$ & $\ldots$ & $97.8$ &\ & & & & &\ Sedlmayr number $(j \in \mathbb{N})$ & & & &\ & & & & &\ & & & & &\ Element Consumption number & & &$7.27\,10^{-4}$ & &\ & & &\ & & & inside & & outside &\ temperature & $T_{\rm ref}$ & \[K\] & 2200 & $\ldots$ & 1000 &\ density & $\rho_{\rm ref}$ & \[g/cm$^{3}$\] & $10^{-3}$ & $\ldots$ & $10^{-6}$ &\ thermal pressure & $P_{\rm ref} = \frac{kT_{\rm ref}\rho_{\rm ref}} {2.3m_{\rm H}}$ & \[dyn/cm$^2$\] & $7.78\,10^7$ & $\ldots$ & $3.54\,10^4$ &\ velocity of sound & $c_{\rm S}=\sqrt{\gamma\frac{P_{\rm ref}} {\rho_{\rm ref}}}$ & \[cm/s\] & $3.3\,10^5$ & $\ldots$ & $2.23\,10^5$ &\ velocity & $v_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm/s\] & & $\approx c_{\rm S}/10$ & &\ length & $l_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm\] & & $10^5$ & &\ hydrodyn. time & $t_{\rm ref} = \frac{l_{\rm ref}}{v_{\rm ref}}$ & \[s\] & $3.03$ & $\ldots$ &4.49&\ gravitational acceleration & $g_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm/s$^2$\] & & $10^5$ & &\ total absorption coefficient & $\kappa_{\rm ref}$ & \[1/cm\] & $10^{-3}$ & $\ldots$ & $3\cdot 10^{-7}$ & $^{(\Diamond)}$\ & & & $0.1$ & $\ldots$ & $3\cdot 10^{-5}$ & $^{(\Diamond\Diamond)}$\ nucleation rate & $J_{*, \rm ref}/n_{\rm <H>, ref}$ & \[1/s\] & $0$ & $\ldots$ & $2.5\cdot 10^{-6}$ &\ 0$^{\rm th}$ dust moment ($=n_{\rm d}/\rho$) & $L_{0, \rm ref}$ & \[1/g\] & & $\ldots$ & $1.35\,10^{14}$ & $^{(\Box)}$\ heterog. growth velocity & $\chi_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm/s\] & $\lesssim 0$ & $\ldots$ & $3.51\,10^{-5}$ &\ mean particle radius & $\langle a \rangle_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm\] & & $10^{-6}$ & &\ element abundance & $\epsilon_{\rm ref}$ & \[–\] & & $10^{-6}$ & &\ total hydrogen density & $n_{\rm <H>, ref} = \frac{\rho_{\rm ref}} {1.4\,m_{\rm H}}$ & \[1/cm$^3$\] & $4.22\, 10^{20}$ & $\ldots$ & $4.22\,10^{17}$ &\ SiO density & $n_{\rm <SiO>, ref}$ & \[1/cm$^3$\] & $1.50\,10^{16}$ & $\ldots$ & $1.50\,10^{13}$&\ TiO$_2$ density & $n_{\rm <TiO_2>, ref}$ & \[1/cm$^3$\] & $4.12\,10^{13} $ & $\ldots$ & $4.10\,10^{10}$&\ \ $^{(*)}$ [For a H$_2$/He rich gas (Eq. (10) in WoitkeHelling 2003a).]{}$^{(\Diamond)}$ [gas only]{} $^{(\Diamond\Diamond)}$ [dust and gas ]{} $^{(\Box)}$ [Gail & Sedlmayr (1999)]{} [|cl|l|l|l|l|]{} & & [**A**]{} & [**B**]{} & [**C**]{} & [**A$^{\prime}$**]{}\ \ $T_{\rm ref}$ & \[K\] & 2100 & 2100 & 1900 & 2100\ $\rho_{\rm ref}$ & \[gcm$^{-3}$\] & $3.16\,10^{-4}$& $3.16\,10^{-4}$& $8.13\,10^{-4}$ & $3.16\,10^{-4}$\ $l_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm\] & $10^5$ & $10^5$ & $10^5$ & $10^5$\ $v_{\rm ref}$ & \[cms$^{-1}$\] & $3.25\,10^4$ & $6.50\,10^3$ & $3.09\,10^4$ & $3.25\,10^5$\ $g_{\rm ref}$ & \[cms$^{-2}$\] & $10^5$ & $10^5$ & $10^5$ & $10^5$\ $T_{\rm RE}$ & \[K\] & $1980$ $(=0.9T_{\rm ref})$ &$1980$ $(=0.9T_{\rm ref})$ & $1710$ $(=0.9T_{\rm ref})$ & $1980$ $(=0.9T_{\rm ref})$\ $\kappa_{\rm ref}$ & \[1/cm\] & $2\,10^{-5}$ & $2\,10^{-5}$ & $2\,10^{-5}$ & $2\,10^{-5}$\ \ $J_{\rm *, ref}$ & \[s$^{-1}$cm$^{-3}$\] & $10^{12}$ & $10^{12}$ & $10^{12}$ & $10^{12}$\ $a_{\rm ref}$ & \[cm\] & $10^{-6}$ & $10^{-6}$ & $10^{-6}$ & $10^{-6}$\ $\chi_{\rm ref}$ & \[cms$^{-1}$\] & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-2}$\ $L_{\rm 0, ref}$ & \[g$^{-1}$\] & $10^{10}$ & $10^{10}$ & $10^{10}$ & $10^{10}$\ \ p$_{\rm ref}$ & \[dyncm$^{-2}$\] & $2.38\,10^7$ & $2.38\,10^7$ & $5.54\,10^7$ & $2.38\,10^7$\ t$_{\rm ref}$ & \[s\] & 3.08 & 15.4 & 3.24 & 0.3\ $L_{\rm j, ref}$ & \[cm$^{\rm j}$g$^{-1}$\]& $(\frac{4\pi\,a_{\rm ref}^3}{3})^{j/3}L_{\rm 0, ref}$ & $(\frac{4\pi\,a_{\rm ref}^3}{3})^{j/3}L_{\rm 0, ref}$ & $(\frac{4\pi\,a_{\rm ref}^3}{3})^{j/3}L_{\rm 0, ref}$ & $(\frac{4\pi\,a_{\rm ref}^3}{3})^{j/3}L_{\rm 0, ref}$\ \ $M$ & & 1/10 & 1/50 & 1/10 & 1\ $Fr$ & & 0.105 & $4.22\,10^{-3}$ & 0.095 & 10.5\ $Rd$ & & $1.139\,10^{-2}$ & $5.70\,10^{-2}$ & $3.45\,10^{-3}$ & $1.14\,10^{-3}$\ \ $Da^{\rm nuc}_{\rm d}$&& $9.73\,10^5$ & $4.87\,10^6$ & $3.98\,10^5$ & $9.73\,10^4$\ $Da^{\rm gr}_{\rm d}$&& $1.91\,10^4$ & $9.55\,10^4$ & $2.01\,10^4$ & $1.91\,10^3$\ $Se_0$ && 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0\ $Se_1$ && 0.195 & 0.195 &0.195 & 0.195\ $Se_2$ && $3.8\,10^{-2}$ &$3.8\,10^{-2}$ &$3.8\,10^{-2}$ & $3.8\,10^{-2}$\ $Se_3$ && $7.41\,10^{-3}$ & $7.41\,10^{-3}$ & $7.41\,10^{-3}$ & $7.41\,10^{-3}$\ $El$ && $1.41\,10^{-7}$ & $7.07\,10^7$ & $3.82\,10^{-7}$ & $1.41\,10^{-7}$\ \ $\varepsilon$ (Eq. \[equ:energydiss\]) & \[cm$^2$ s$^{-3}$\]& $2.40\,10^8$ & $1.92\,10^6$ & $2.06\,10^8$ & $2.41\,10^{11}$\ $S_{\rm ref}$ (Eq. \[equ:Temp\]) & \[erg/K\] & $1.42\,10^9$ & $1.37\,10^9$ & $1.28\,10^9$ & $1.4\,10^9$\ $k_{\rm min}=2\pi/l_{\rm max}$ & \[1/cm\] & $6.30\,10^{-5}$ & $6.30\,10^{-5}$ & $6.30\,10^{-5}$ & $6.30\,10^{-5}$\ $k_{\rm max}=2\pi/(3\,dx)$ & \[1/cm\] & $2.10\,10^{-2}$ & $2.10\,10^{-2}$ & $2.10\,10^{-2}$ & $5.30\,10^{-3}$\ $l_{\rm max}$ & \[cm\] & $l_{\rm ref}$ & $l_{\rm ref}$ & $l_{\rm ref}$ & $l_{\rm ref}$\ $dx$ for $N_x=500$ (1D) & \[cm\] & $1.00\,10^2$ & $1.00\,10^2$ & $1.00\,10^2$ & $-$\ $dx$ for $N_x=128$ (2D) & \[cm\] & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $3.94\,10^2$\ Ackermann S., Marley M., 2001, ApJ [ 556]{}, 872 Allard F., Hauschildt P., Alexander D., Tamanai A., Schweitzer A., 2001, ApJ [ 556]{}, 357 Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Mundt R., 1999, A&A [ 348]{}, 800 Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Mundt R., 2001, A&A [ 374]{}, 1071 Bailer-Jones C. A. L., Mundt R., 2001, A&A [ 367]{}, 218 Botta, N., Klein, R., Langenberg, S., Lützenkirchen, S., 2003, JCP [submitted]{} Burrows A., Marley M., Hubbard W. B., Lunine J. I., Guillot T., Saumon D., Freedman R., Sudarsky D., Sharp C., 1997, ApJ [ 491]{}, 856 Canuto V. M., 1997a, ApJ [ 482]{}, 827 Canuto V. M., 1997b, ApJ [ 478]{}, 322 Canuto V. M., 2000, ApJ [ 541]{}, L79 Caunt S., Korpi M., 2001, A&A [ 369]{}, 706 Chang C., John M., Patzer A. B. C., Sedlmayr E., 1998, In Buttet J., Ch[â]{}telain A., Monot R., Broyer M., Harbich W., Perez A., Reuse F., Schneider W. D., [*Book of Abstracts*]{}, 4.2. Chang C., Patzer A. B. C., Sedlmayr E., , Steinke T., S[ü]{}lzle D., 2001, Chem. Phys. [ 271]{}, 283 Cho J.-K., Polvani L., 1996, Phys.Fluids [ 8]{}, 1531 Clarke F., 2003, , PhD thesis, Darwin College, Cambridge, GB Cooper C. S., Sudarsky D., Milsom J. A., Lunine J. I., Burrows A., 2003, ApJ [ 586]{}, 1320 Deuflhard P., 1983, Numer. Math. [ 41]{}, 399 Deuflhard P., Nowak U., 1987, In Deuflhard P., Engquist B., [*Large Scale Scientific Computing. Progress in Scientific Computing 7*]{}, 37. Birkhäuser Dominik C., Sedlmayr E., Gail H.-P., 1993, A&A [ 277]{}, 578 Dubois T., Janberteau F., Teman R., 1999, , Cambridge University Press Ehrig E., Nowak U., Oeverdieck L., Deuflhard P., 1999, In Bungartz H.-J., Durst F., Zenger C., [*High Performance Scientific and Engineering Computing. Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering*]{}, 233. Springer Eswaran V., Pope S., 1988, Computers & Fluids [ 16]{}(3), 257 Eswaran V., Pope S., 1988, Phys. Fluids [ 31]{}(3), 506 Frisch U., 1995, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1986, A&A [ 166]{}, 225 Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1988, A&A [ 206]{}, 153 Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1998, In Sarre P., [*Chemistry and physics of molecules and grains in space. Faraday Discussion no. 109*]{}, 303, London, GB Gail H.-P., Sedlmayr E., 1999, A&A [ 347]{}, 594 Gail H.-P., Keller R., Sedlmayr E., 1984, A&A [ 133]{}, 320 Gelino C. R., Marley M. S., 2000, In Griffith C. A., Marley M. S., [*[From Giant Planets to Cool Stars]{}*]{}, 322 Gelino C., Marley M., Holtzman J., Ackerman S., A, Lodders K., 2002, ApJ [ 577]{}, 433 Helling Ch., Oevermann M., L[ü]{}ttke M., Klein R., Sedlmayr E., 2001, A&A [ 376]{}, 194 Helling Ch., 2003, Habilitationsschrift, Technische Universität Berlin Jeong K. S., Winters J. M., Fleischer A. J., Sedlmayr E., 1998, In Guzik J. A., Bradley P. A., [*A Half-Century of Stellar Pulsation Interpretations: A Tribute to Arthur N. Cox*]{}, 335. ASP Conf. Ser. Jeong K. S., Winters J. M., Sedlmayr E., 1999, In Le Bertre T., L[è]{}bre A., Waelkens C., [*IAU Symp. 191: Asymptotic Giant Branch stars*]{}, 233. ASP Jeong K. S., Chang C., Sedlmayr E., S[ü]{}lzle D., 2000, J. Phys. B [ 33]{}, 3417 Jeong K., Winters J., Le Bertre T., Sedlmayr E., 2003, A&A [ 407]{}, 191 Jimenez J., Wray A., Saffman P., Rogallo R., 1993, JFM [ 255]{}, 65 John M., 2003, , PhD thesis, Technische Universt[ä]{}t Berlin, Berlin, Germany Kirkpatrick J., Dahn C., Monet I., D.G.and Reid, Gizis J., Liebert J., Burgasser A., 2001, AJ [ 6]{}, 3235 Liebert, J., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Cruz, K.L., Reid, I.N., Burgasser, A., Tinney, C.G., Gizis, J.E.,2003, AJ [ 125]{}, 343 Lingau, K., 2004, Diploma Thesis, Technische Universität Berlin Ludwig H.-G., Allard F., Hauschildt P. H., 2002, A&A [ 395]{}, 99 Martín E., [Zapatero Osorio]{} M., Lehto H., 2001, ApJ [ 557]{}, 822 Menou K., Cho J.-K., Seager S., Hansen B., 2003, ApJ [ 587]{}, L113 Michael B., Nuth III J., Lilleleht L., 2003, ApJ [ 590]{}, 579 Mac Low M.-M., 1999, ApJ [ 524]{}, 169 Mac Low M.-M., Klessen, R.H. 2004, RvMP [ 76]{}, 125 Mohanty S., Basri G., Shu F., Allard F., Chabrier G., 2002, ApJ [ 571]{}, 469 Nakajima T., Tsuji T., Maihara T., Iwamuro F., Motohara K., Taguchi T., Hata R., Tamura M., Yamashita T., 2000, PASJ [ 52]{}, 87 Nowak U., Ehrig E., Oeverdieck L., 1998, In Sloot M., P. and Bubak, Hertzberger B., [*High-Performance Computing and Networking. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 1401*]{}, 419. Springer Overholt, M.R., Pope, S.B., 1998, Computers & Fluids [27/1]{}, 11 Patzer A. B. C., Chang C., John M., Bolick U., S[ü]{}lzle D., 2002, Chem. Phys. Lett. [ 363]{}, 145 Reinecke M., Hillebrandt W., Niemeyer J., 2002, A&A [ 386]{}, 936 R[ö]{}pke F., Niemeyer J., Hillebrandt W., 2003, ApJ [ 588]{}, 952 Rossow W. V., 1978, Icarus [ 36]{}, 1 Schmidt H., Klein R., 2003, Combustion Theory and Modelling, submitted Schneider T., Botta N., Geratz K., Klein R., 1999, JCP [ 155]{}, 248 Seager S., Sasselow D., 2000, ApJ [ 537]{}, 916 Sedlmayr E., 1997, Ap&SS [ 251]{}(1-2), 103 Smiljanovski V., Moser V., Klein R., 1997, Combustion Theory & Modelling [ 1]{}, 183 Smith M. D., Mac Low M.-M., Heitsch F., 2000, ApJ [ 362]{}, 333 Straka C., 2002, PhD thesis, [Ruprecht-Karls-Universit[ä]{}t Heidelberg]{} Tielens A., Waters L., Molster F., Justanount K., 1998, In Waters L., Waelkens C., van der Hulst K., Zaal P., [*[ISO’s view on stellar Evolution]{}*]{}, 415, Kluwer Academie Press, Belgium Tsuji T., 2002, ApJ [ 575]{}, 264 Tsuji T., 2002, In Jones H., Steele I., [*Ultracool Dwarfs: New Spectral Types L and T*]{}, 9, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg Wallin B. K., Watson W. D., Wyld H. W., 1998, ApJ [ 495]{}, 774 Woitke P., Helling Ch., 2003, A&A [ 399]{}, 297 Woitke P., Helling Ch., 2004, A&A [ 414]{}, 335 [^1]: Note that Eq. (2) in Paper I should be corrected as\ $(\rho {\boldsymbol v})_t + \nabla\cdot (\rho {\boldsymbol v}\circ {\boldsymbol v}) = -\frac{1}{\rm {\gamma {\rm M^2}}} \nabla P - \frac{\rm 1}{\rm Fr^2}\rho {\boldsymbol g}$. [^2]: Classical nucleation theory has often been criticised (Michael2003) but no other consistent and in hydrodynamic simulations applicable theory for phase transitions was proposed so far. The most accurate way is the solution of the complete chemical rate net work for which, however, the necessary data are simply not available. The conceptional weakness of the classical nucleation theory is mainly the use of the bulk surface tension $\sigma$ to express the binding defects on the surface of small clusters. However, Gail(1984) have proposed the [*modified*]{} classical nucleation theory where the bulk surface tension is [*not*]{} used. Instead, thermodynamic data for individual clusters are adopted which are provided by extensive quantum mechanical calculations (see Jeong1998, 2000; Chang1998, 2001; Patzer2002; John 2003). In contrast, because the calculation of high-quality thermodynamic data is a challenging problem, most people base their dust formation considerations simply on stability arguments (see Tielens1998) which is, however, a necessary but not a sufficient condition for phase transitions. [^3]: Model atmosphere calculations for Brown Dwarfs using MLT provide a typical (static) convective velocity $v_{\rm conv}^{\rm MLT}=\cal{O}$$(10^2\,\ldots\,10^3 \mbox{cm/s})\approx c_{\rm s}/1000\,\ldots\,c_{\rm s}/100$cm/s which strongly contradicts the value used to model an additional spectral line broadening component, the so-called micro-turbulence velocity $v_{\rm micro}\approx 1$km/s. While $v_{\rm conv}^{\rm MLT}$ is needed to calculate an adequate temperature structure of the inner atmosphere, $v_{\rm micro}$ is needed for a best fit of the observed spectra. This dilemma can, however, not be solved without either a consistent convective theory or a direct numerical simulation (DNS) of the turbulence and the convective energy transfer which influences the local and the global temperature and velocity fields and thereby the observed spectral lines and their broadening. [^4]: The difference of $\langle p\rangle_t$ in the case of $T=2500$K is correct since here $T_{\rm RE}/T_{\rm ref}$ had to be considerably smaller in order to allow the system to enter the dust formation window (compare Table \[tab:differentTemp\]). [^5]: Low Mach number simulations of driven turbulence in 2D are not yet possible with the present code. Botta(2003) have shown that unbalanced truncation errors can lead to considerable instabilities in the complete, time-dependent equation of motion in a quasi-static situation and suggest a balanced discretisation scheme. We will tackle this problem in a forthcoming paper and use our present 2D results for M=1 only to illustrate the stronger influence of the hydrodynamic processes on the evolving dust structures to be expected in multi-dimensional simulations compared to 1D.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'User experience of video streaming could be greatly improved by selecting a high-yet-sustainable initial video bitrate, and it is therefore critical to accurately predict throughput before a video session starts. Inspired by previous studies that show similarity among throughput of similar sessions (e.g., those sharing same bottleneck link), we argue for a [*cross-session*]{} prediction approach, where throughput measured on sessions of different servers and clients is used to predict the throughput of a new session. In this paper, we study the challenges of cross-session throughput prediction, develop an accurate throughput predictor called [[DDA]{}]{}, and evaluate the performance of the predictor with real-world datasets. We show that [[DDA]{}]{}predicts throughput more accurately than simple predictors and conventional machine learning algorithms; e.g., [[DDA]{}]{}’s 80%ile prediction error of [[DDA]{}]{}is $\geq$ 50% lower than other algorithms. We also show that this improved accuracy enables video players to select a higher sustainable initial bitrate; e.g., compared to initial bitrate without prediction, [[DDA]{}]{}leads to $4\times$ higher average bitrate.' author: - | Junchen Jiang, Vyas Sekar\ CMU, USA - | Yi Sun\ ICT, China bibliography: - 'adaptation.bib' - 'sigcomm2011.bib' - 'sigcomm2012.bib' - 'sigcomm2013.bib' - 'conext13.bib' - 'sigcomm2014.bib' - 'nsdi13.bib' - 'hotnet14.bib' - 'nsdi14.bib' - 'sigcomm2015.bib' - 'imc2015.bib' title: '[[DDA]{}]{}: Cross-Session Throughput Prediction with Applications to Video Bitrate Selection' --- Conclusion ========== Many Internet applications can benefit from estimating end-to-end throughput. This paper focuses on its application to initial video bitrate selection. We present [[DDA]{}]{}, which leverages the throughput measured by different clients and servers to achieve accurate throughput prediction before a new session starts. Evaluation based on two real-world datasets shows (i) [[DDA]{}]{}predicts throughput more accurately than simple predictors and conventional machine learning algorithms, and (ii) with more accurate throughput prediction, a player can choose a higher-yet-sustainable bitrate (e.g., compared to initial bitrate without prediction, [[DDA]{}]{}leads to $4\times$ higher average bitrate with less sessions using bitrate exceeding the throughput).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the spin injection efficiency into single and bilayer graphene on the ferrimagnetic insulator Yttrium-Iron-Garnet (YIG) through an exfoliated tunnel barrier of bilayer hexagonal boron nitride (hBN). The contacts of two samples yield a resistance-area product between 5 and 30 k${\Omega}\mu$m$^2$. Depending on an applied DC bias current, the magnitude of the non-local spin signal can be increased or suppressed below the noise level. The spin injection efficiency reaches values from -60% to +25%. The results are confirmed with both spin valve and spin precession measurements. The proximity induced exchange field is found in sample A to be (85 $\pm$ 30) mT and in sample B close to the detection limit. Our results show that the exceptional spin injection properties of bilayer hBN tunnel barriers reported by Gurram et al. are not limited to fully encapsulated graphene systems but are also valid in graphene/YIG devices. This further emphasizes the versatility of bilayer hBN as an efficient and reliable tunnel barrier for graphene spintronics.' author: - 'J.C. Leutenantsmeyer' - 'T. Liu' - 'M. Gurram' - 'A.A. Kaverzin' - 'B.J. van Wees' bibliography: - 'references.bib' date: - - title: Bias dependent spin injection into graphene on YIG through bilayer hBN tunnel barriers --- Introduction ============ The combination of graphene with other two dimensional layered materials is an elegant way to create atomically thin devices with adjustable properties [@Geim2013; @Han2014; @Roche2015]. The crystalline insulator hexagonal boron nitride is an appealing material for the field of graphene spintronics [@Gurram2018]. Its atomic flatness and sufficiently strong van der Waals interaction with graphene allows the fabrication of heterostructures of 2D materials with minimized contamination, implying good spin transport properties. A long spin diffusion length of 30 $\mu$m has been experimentally achieved in graphene where a bulk flake of hBN was used as protective layer to avoid contamination during the fabrication process [@Drogeler2016]. Therefore, the use of hBN as a pinhole free tunnel barrier is straightforward since these fully encapsulated graphene devices suggest minimized contamination and highly efficient spin transport. Several experimental studies have investigated the spin injection through tunnel barriers of exfoliated hBN [@Yamaguchi2016; @Gurram2016] and large scale hBN grown via chemical vapor deposition [@Fu2014; @Kamalakar2015; @Kamalakar2016; @Gurram2018a]. However, the experimentally demonstrated spin transport lengths are still far below the values suggested by the low intrinsic spin orbit coupling of graphene [@Huertas-Hernando2006]. Having graphene in proximity to magnetic materials is a novel approach to tune the intrinsic properties of graphene. Magnetic graphene is characterized by the induced exchange field [@Leutenantsmeyer2017; @Singh2017; @Wei2016; @Wang2015; @Asshoff2017]. First principle calculations of idealized systems predict an exchange splitting of the graphene spin states to exceed several tens of meV [@Yang2013; @Hallal2017]. However, the experimentally demonstrated exchange fields are still several orders of magnitude below [@Leutenantsmeyer2017; @Singh2017; @Evelt2016]. The realization of graphene devices with a large exchange field requires the tackling of several challenges. The cleanliness of the interface between graphene and YIG is crucial to obtain a strong exchange effect as indicated by the discrepancy between experimentally achieved values and theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the interface and tunnel barrier between the graphene flake and contacts are crucial for the injection of a large spin accumulation and the observation of large spin signals. In our previous works we employed tunnel barriers of oxidized titanium or aluminum to overcome the conductivity mismatch problem [@Schmidt2000; @Rashba2000]. For these types of tunnel barrier the magnitude of the spin signal is limited by pinholes and resulted in a relatively small spin signal of mostly less than 1 ${\Omega}$, which often did not exceed the electrical noise of the measured signals in the sample. In addition, the contamination arising from the PMMA-based fabrication procedure affects the graphene cleanliness negatively. For this study we replace the AlO$_\mathrm{x}$ or TiO$_\mathrm{x}$ tunnel barrier with a bilayer-hBN (bl-hBN) flake, which significantly improves the sample quality and spin signal. Furthermore, we confirm the tunable spin injection reported by Gurram et al. [@Gurram2017] for the graphene/YIG system. Sample preparation and contact characterization =============================================== Thin hBN flakes are exfoliated from hBN crystals (HQ Graphene) onto 90 nm SiO$_2$ wafers. The thickness of the flakes is estimated through their optical contrast, which is calibrated by atomic force microscopy. In our microscope (Zeiss Axio Imager.A2m with an EC Epiplan-Neofluar 100x/0.9 objective) bl-hBN corresponds to 2.5% contrast in the green channel. Suitable bl-hBN flakes are picked up by using a dry polycarbonate based transfer method [@Zomer2014] and combined with single- (sample A) or bilayer graphene (sample B) exfoliated from HOPG crystals (ZYB grade, HQ Graphene). The stack is placed on a cleaned 12 $\mu$m YIG grown by liquid phase epitaxy (LPE) on a 600 $\mu$m gadolinium-gallium-garnet substrate (Matesy GmbH). Before the transfer, the YIG substrate for sample A is treated with oxygen plasma to remove organic contaminants and annealed in a 500${^\circ\mathrm{C}}$ furnace in an oxygen atmosphere prior to the transfer of the graphene/bl-hBN stack. The substrate of sample B underwent an additional argon plasma treatment before the annealing step. The polycarbonate is dissolved in chloroform and the bl-hBN/graphene/YIG stack is cleaned in acetone, isopropanol and sequent annealing for one hour at 350${^\circ\mathrm{C}}$ in an argon-hydrogen atmosphere. Contacts are defined using a standard PMMA-based electron beam lithography process. The electrodes are evaporated at pressures below 10$^{-7}$ mbar and consist of 45 nm cobalt and a 5 nm aluminum capping layer. After the liftoff in warm acetone, the sample (Figs. \[Fig1\]a and \[Fig1\]b) is loaded into a cryostat and kept in vacuum during the characterization. All measurements are carried out at 75 K. ![a) Optical micrograph of the sample A. The outer electrodes (R) are not covered by bl-hBN and used as reference electrodes in both local and non-local measurements. b) Optical micrograph of sample B. c) Schematic measurement of the three-terminal contact resistance. d) All working contacts have a calculated resistance-area product between 5 and 30 k${\Omega}\mu$m$^2$. The full set of IV characteristics is shown in the supplementary information. \[Fig1\]](Fig1.png){width="1\linewidth"} After loading into the cryostat of the measurement setup, the samples are cooled down to liquid nitrogen temperature and the contacts are characterized in a three-terminal geometry (Fig. \[Fig1\]c) using the outermost contacts as reference electrodes. The resistance-area product is calculated from the current-voltage characteristics and shown for sample A in Fig. \[Fig1\]d. The contacts on sample A and B which employ a bl-hBN tunnel barrier yield a typical resistance-area product between 5 and 30 k${\Omega}\mu$m$^2$, a range comparable to the one reported in [@Gurram2017]. An hBN covered graphene Hall bar sample fabricated in parallel with sample B for comparison yields a carrier density of n = $5\times 10^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a mobility of $\mu = 5400\,\mathrm{cm}^2$/Vs. We found $\mu = 720\,\mathrm{cm}^2$/Vs (estimated via the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations) in our previous work [@Leutenantsmeyer2017] and conclude that the protective hBN layer significantly improves the graphene charge transport properties on YIG. Bias-dependent spin injection through bilayer hBN tunnel barriers into single and bilayer graphene on YIG ========================================================================================================= We now discuss the spin transport in graphene on YIG with a bl-hBN tunnel barrier in a non-local geometry (Fig. \[Fig2\]a). A current of I$_\mathrm{AC}$ = 1 $\mu$A is sourced and modulated with 3.7 Hz between contacts 2 and R2. The ferromagnetic electrode injects a spin current into the graphene underneath contact 2. These spins are diffusing along the graphene channel and are probed by a lock-in as a voltage difference $\mathrm{V}_\mathrm{NL}$ between the detector contact 1 and the reference electrode R1. Using this technique, we can decouple charge and spin transport. The signal can be defined as non-local resistance and calculated via ${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}= \mathrm{V}_\mathrm{NL}/\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{AC}$. To characterize the basic spin transport properties of the samples an in-plane magnetic field parallel to the electrodes (B$_\mathrm{app}$) is applied to switch the magnetization of the injector and detector (Fig. \[Fig2\]a). Depending on the relative magnetization alignment of the injector and detector electrodes, the non-local resistance changes between the parallel and the antiparallel resistance states when the contact magnetization switches. This measurement represents a characteristic spin valve behavior (Figs. \[Fig2\]b and \[Fig2\]c) and gives an estimation of the spin relaxation length in the graphene flake (Fig. \[Fig2\]d). ![a) Schematic setup for a non-local spin valve measurement. b) Non-local spin valve measurements of sample A (bl-hBN/graphene). The size of the switch between parallel and antiparallel states of contacts 1 and 2 can be tuned with the applied DC bias and is shown for four different values. c) Sample B (bl-hBN/bl-graphene) shows a comparable dependence on the applied DC bias. Note that the spin signal changes the sign around -92 mV. d) The distance dependent spin valve measurements of sample A allow the estimation of the spin relaxation length from the slope of the linear fit. The same analysis for sample B is discussed in the supplementary material. \[Fig2\]](Fig_2.png){width="1\linewidth"} To study the effect of the bias on the spin injection, we apply a DC current additionally to the AC current sourced between injector and reference electrode (Fig. \[Fig2\]a). The dielectric strength of hBN is approximately 1.2 V/nm [@Hattori2014]. Therefore, we limit the DC bias current for sample A to 20 $\mu$A, which corresponds to 0.4 – 0.6 V, depending on the IV characteristics of the injector contact. To compare different contacts, we calculate the equivalent voltage ${\mathrm{V_{hBN}}}$ across the hBN tunnel barrier from the applied DC bias current and discuss all results plotted as function of ${\mathrm{V_{hBN}}}$. Figure \[Fig2\]b contains the spin valve measurements of sample A for four different DC bias currents over distance d = 1.6 $\mu$m. While no spin signal above noise level is visible at -92 mV, a DC bias current of +333 mV results in a clear switching between parallel and antiparallel states with a spin signal of approximately 0.4 ${\Omega}$. Beyond -92 mV, we find an inverted sign of the non-local resistance switching and a spin signal of -0.4 ${\Omega}$ at -155 mV and -0.7 ${\Omega}$ at -257 mV. Four spin valve measurements of sample B are shown in Fig. \[Fig2\]c. where we find compared to sample A a larger spin signal of up to -2.5 ${\Omega}$ at -356 mV DC bias. The change of the sign of the spin signal occurs in sample B also between -100 mV and 0 mV, a similar range as in the measurements on sample A. The distance dependence of the spin signal is shown for sample A in Fig. \[Fig2\]d, from which we extract the spin relaxation length $\lambda \sim$ (740 $\pm$ 570) nm. In our previous work we found a comparable value of $\lambda = (490 \pm 40)$ nm for a not hBN protected sample. We conclude that even though the charge transport properties have improved significantly, the spin transport parameters remain similar. The same analysis was applied to sample B, where we found $\lambda \sim$ (2.3 $\pm$ 1) $\mu$m (supplementary material). The bl-hBN tunnel barriers in Fig. \[Fig2\]d show a less clear trend in the distance dependence, resulting in a larger error in $\lambda$. We can attribute this to two origins: an inhomogeneity of the bl-hBN tunnel barriers and an inhomogeneity in the graphene flake. Microscopic cracks in the hBN tunnel barrier could arise during the fabrication and could lead a to a different spin polarization of each contact. This interpretation is also supported by the considerable spread of the resistance-area product of between 5 to 30 k${\Omega}\mu$m$^2$. As a consequence, the values for the spin relaxation length extracted from the distance dependent measurements can only be seen as approximation. However, the consistency with the spin precession measurements as discussed in the following sections confirms the validity of the estimation. ![Non-local spin transport in a) sample A and b) sample B for different DC bias voltages. For comparison the dependence is shown as a function of the bias voltage applied across the hBN barrier. The blue and red curves correspond to the configuration where detector and biased injector contacts are swapped. The spin polarization on the right side of both panels is extracted from the independently measured $\Delta {\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$. \[Fig3\]](Fig3.png){width="1\linewidth"} To extract the DC bias dependence of the spin injection polarization in the cobalt/bl-hBN/graphene/YIG system, we align the magnetization of injector and detector parallel or antiparallel and sweep the DC bias current. $\Delta {\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$ = ${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$(P) - ${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$(AP) is calculated and yields the pure spin signal of samples A and B shown in Figs. \[Fig3\]a and \[Fig3\]b. For comparison, both curves are plotted as a function of ${\mathrm{V_{hBN}}}$. While both positive and negative DC biases lead to an enhanced spin injection, a sign change at approximately -80 mV is observed. To extract the bias dependence of the spin injection polarization, we use the unbiased non-local spin signals to calculate the average spin polarization ($\sqrt{{\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{I}}{\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{D}}}$) of injector ${\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{I}}$ and detector ${\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{D}}$. This assumption is justified by the similar shape of the non-local resistances in Figs. \[Fig3\]a and \[Fig3\]b, when injector and detector contacts are swapped. This suggests a similar behavior of both contacts. We can extract a spin polarization via: $$\begin{aligned} {\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{I}}\cdot {\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{D}}= \frac{\Delta {\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}\cdot \mathrm{w}}{{\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{sq}}\cdot \lambda} e^{-\mathrm{d}/\lambda} $$ where $\Delta {\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$ the spin signal, w the width of the flake, ${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{sq}}$ the square resistance, $\lambda$ the spin relaxation length and d the injector to detector distance measured from the centers. Under the assumption that ${\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{I}}= {\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{D}}$ we obtain an unbiased spin polarization of 14.65% for sample A and 10.86% for sample B. Because we apply the DC bias only to the injector contact, the spin polarization of the detector remains constant and can be used to extract the dependence of the differential spin injection polarization on the DC bias. We note that the feature of sample A around zero DC bias seems to be a characteristic feature of these particular contacts and does not appear on all contacts on sample A (see supplementary information). Bias dependent spin precession measurements and estimation of the proximity induced exchange field in bl-hBN/graphene/YIG ========================================================================================================================= To estimate the strength of the induced exchange field, we apply and rotate a small magnetic field (${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{app}}$ = 15 mT) in the sample plane (Fig. \[Fig4\]a). The low in-plane coercive field of the YIG films allows us to rotate the YIG magnetization and simultaneously the proximity induced exchange field while leaving the magnetization of the cobalt injector and detector remain unaffected. The resulting modulation of the non-local resistance is a direct consequence of ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{app}}+ {\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ and can be only explained by the presence of such [@Leutenantsmeyer2017; @Singh2017]. The analysis of this effect gives us an estimate for the strength of the exchange field and allows us the fitting of the Hanle curves to extract further spin transport parameters. The higher order oscillations that remain in the symmetrized data in Fig. \[Fig4\]b could indicate the presence of local stray fields of the cobalt contacts influencing the local YIG magnetization or an anisotropy arising from the shape of the YIG substrate which might not be fully aligned with the applied magnetic field of 15 mT. Therefore, we apply a smoothing on the data. The resulting curve is shown in red. We estimate the modulation to be (11 $\pm$ 5)% over d = 1.6 $\mu$m, which, given the uncertainty arising from the smoothing process, should be seen as a rather rough approximation. Despite the uncertainty of the exact value of the modulation, the angular dependence indicates the presence of an exchange field in the sample. ![Modulation of spin transport with the exchange field in sample A. a) Schematics of the experiment. ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{app}}$ is rotating the YIG magnetization and the exchange field ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ in the sample plane while leaving the electrodes and injected spins unaffected. b) The angle dependence of the non-local resistance is measured at T = 10 K and -20 $\mu$A DC bias in parallel and antiparallel alignment. The subtracted spin signal is symmetrized. As a guide to the eye the smoothed data is shown in red, from which we estimate a relative modulation of 11%. c) Fitting of the experimental relative modulation of 11% with our model using $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ and ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ as fitting parameters. $\lambda$ = 700 nm and ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{app}}$ = 15 mT are fixed parameters. d) Relative modulation of the spin signal calculated from the model using best fit parameters $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ = 14 ps and $\lambda$ = 700 nm, obtained as shown in Fig. \[Fig5\]. ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ is varied as indicated, and ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{app}}$ = 15 mT. \[Fig4\]](Fig4.png){width="1\linewidth"} Using the model reported in Leutenantsmeyer et al. [@Leutenantsmeyer2017] we can simulate the modulation of a spin current by exchange field induced precession. To estimate the magnitude of the exchange field leading to 11% modulation, we use $\lambda$ = 700 nm (Fig. \[Fig2\]d) and assume ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$ to be between 5 and 30 ps, a common range for our single layer graphene devices on YIG. To match the experimental modulation, an exchange field between 0 and 250 mT is required (Fig. \[Fig4\]c). To determine the exact value of ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$, we use the parameter pairs of ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$ and ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ to fit, as discussed later, the spin precession measurements in Fig. \[Fig5\]a. By comparing both, we find that the both measurement sets can only be fit consistently with ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$ = 14 ps and ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ = 85 mT. Fig. \[Fig4\]d contains the modulation caused by the combination of the applied magnetic field of 15 mT and different values for the exchange field. The expected relative modulation caused by an applied magnetic field of 15 mT with $\lambda$ = 700 nm and $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ = 14 ps does not exceed 0.5%, whereas the observed modulation is clearly larger. To fit the experimentally found modulation of 11%, we have to assume ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ = 85 mT. This is a strong indication for the presence of an exchange field in this device. We can conclude that within the uncertainty range of the relative modulation of (11 $\pm$ 5)%, the exchange field in sample A is (85 $\pm$ 35) mT. ![Spin precession measurements in sample A: a) The Hanle spin precession curves from sample A are fit using our exchange model with ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ = 85 mT (solid lines) for different DC bias currents. Contact 1 is used as injector, contact 2 as detector (Fig. \[Fig2\]a). We extract b) the calculated spin polarization the injector (${\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{I}}$), c) the spin diffusion coefficient ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ and d) the spin diffusion time ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$. The DC bias dependence ${\mathrm{P}_\mathrm{I}}$ shows a similar dependence as (red line in panel b, Fig. \[Fig3\]d). \[Fig5\]](Fig5.png){width="1\linewidth"} The Hanle measurements are carried out in parallel and antiparallel alignment of the injector (contact 1) and detector (contact 2), see Fig. \[Fig2\]a for the contact labeling. We extract the spin signal by calculating $[{\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}(\mathrm{P})-{\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}(\mathrm{AP})]/2$, shown in Fig. \[Fig5\]a. From the Hanle fit using an exchange field of 85 mT, we extract the polarization of the injector P (Fig. \[Fig5\]b), the spin diffusion coefficient ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ (Fig. \[Fig5\]c) and the spin diffusion time $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ (Fig. \[Fig5\]d). While ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ = (350 $\pm$ 65) cm$^2$/s and $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ = (16 $\pm$ 5) ps remain approximately constant over the applied DC bias range we find a dependence of the injector spin polarization that resembles the DC bias dependence of the injector (Fig. \[Fig3\]a), which implies a consistency in the analysis. Using the spin diffusion coefficient ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ and time $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ extracted from the Hanle measurements, we can calculate the spin relaxation length $\lambda = \sqrt{{\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}\tau_\mathrm{s}} = (730 \pm 230)$ nm. When compared to the estimation from the distance dependent spin valve measurements (Fig. \[Fig2\]a) both approaches yield similar values which indicates again the consistency of the analysis. Note that the rather smooth Hanle curves shown in Fig. \[Fig5\]a could be also fit with a conventional spin precession model that does not include any exchange field. These fittings yield ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$ $\sim$ 25 ps, ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ $\sim$ 800 cm$^2$/s and $\lambda$ $\sim$ 1.4 $\mu$m. Apart from ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}$ being unrealistically large, the extracted $\lambda$ is two times larger than the result from the independently measured distance dependent spin valves (Fig. \[Fig2\]d) which suggests that the fit of our results with the conventional model is unreliable. Furthermore, if we want to fit the modulation in Fig. \[Fig4\]b with $\lambda$ = 1.4 $\mu$m and ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$ = 25 ps, an exchange field of $\sim$ 60 mT would be required to match the data, even though the Hanle fitting did not include any ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$. In return, the parameter sets that match 11% modulation do not fit the spin precession measurements unless the values are close to $\lambda$ = 700 nm, ${\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}$ = 14 ps and ${\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{exch}}$ = 85 mT. In conclusion, this analysis underlines the relevance to carry out both, angular modulation of ${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$ and Hanle precession experiments, to characterize the exchange field strength. Bias dependent spin precession measurements in bl-hBN/bl-graphene/YIG ===================================================================== In comparison to sample A, sample B is fabricated with a bilayer graphene flake. The extraction of the spin relaxation length via distance dependent spin valve measurements is done in a similar way as for sample A and is shown in the supplementary information in Fig. \[FigS4\]. We extract $\lambda = (2.3 \pm 1)\,\mu$m. The modulation of the non-local resistance by rotating the exchange field in the sample plane is shown in Fig. \[Fig6\]a. The parallel (red) and antiparallel (black) data is measured at 10 K and -366 mV DC bias. The solid line is the smoothed data and used to estimate the relative modulation of the spin signal after subtraction of the parallel and antiparallel data which results in a modulation of 8%. ![a) The non-local resistance can be modulated by 8% by rotating an in-plane magnetic field of 15 mT. The solid lines are smoothed and a guide to the eye. The red line is measured in parallel alignment, the black line in antiparallel configuration. b) Modeling of the 8% modulation with the spin transport parameters of $\lambda$ = 2.3 $\mu$m and $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ = 100 ps. The black curve represents the modulation by the applied magnetic field of 15 mT in the absence of an exchange field, the red curve adds an exchange field of 4 mT. c) The spin relaxation time $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ extracted from the Hanle data in panel d. d) The Hanle spin precession curves of sample B with the fitting curves (lines) for different DC bias currents. The spin relaxation length of $\lambda$ = 2.3 $\mu$m is used as parameters for the fitting. \[Fig6\]](Fig6.png){width="1\linewidth"} To estimate the exchange field causing this precession, we use $\lambda$ = 2.3 $\mu$m extracted for sample B from the distance dependent measurements and assume $\tau_\mathrm{s}$ = 100 ps, which is later confirmed by the Hanle spin precession measurements. In this particular case, the modulation of the applied magnetic field of 15 mT (black line, Fig. \[Fig6\]d) already induces a modulation close to the experimentally found one. To match the data, a very small exchange field of only 4 mT would be required, leading us to the conclusion that in this device most likely no exchange interaction is present. Using the Hanle spin precession data, we also extract $\lambda$ = 2.3 $\mu$m with a negligible exchange field. We find consistently over all biases a spin diffusion time of (100 $\pm$ 8) ps and a spin diffusion coefficient of ${\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{s}}}= \lambda^2/\tau_\mathrm{s}$ = (530 $\pm$ 40) cm$^2$/s, which resembles the values used for the modulation fit and indicates consistency throughout our analysis of the spin transport. The possible absence of the exchange field in sample B stresses the importance of the graphene/YIG interface of these devices. This observation could be also explained with a different proximity effect on each of the two bilayer graphene layers. Nevertheless, sample B shows a similar dependence on the applied DC bias as sample A and shows that the tunable spin injection is also present in the bl-hBN/bl-graphene/YIG system. Conclusion ========== We have studied the spin injection through bl-hBN tunnel barriers into single- and bilayer graphene on YIG, showing a more reliable and efficient spin injection compared to TiO$_\mathrm{x}$ tunnel barriers. The bl-hBN tunnel barriers yield a resistance-area product between 5 and 30 k${\Omega}\mu$m$^2$ and the spin injection polarization is found to be tunable through a DC bias current applied to the injector. We observe a sign inversion at approximately -80 mV DC bias applied across the bl-hBN flake. We estimate the proximity induced exchange field through in-plane and out-of-plane spin precession measurements to be around 85 mT in sample A and likely to be absent in sample B. The low magnitude of the exchange field compared to theoretical predictions emphasizes the importance of the graphene/YIG interface on the proximity induced exchange field and confirms our previously reported low exchange strength for graphene/YIG devices. Nevertheless, our results confirm the unique properties of bl-hBN for the reliable spin injection into single and bilayer graphene on YIG and stress the importance of this type of tunnel barrier for future application in graphene spintronics. Acknowledgements ================ We acknowledge the fruitful discussions with J. Ingla-Aynés, and funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 696656 and 785219 (‘Graphene Flagship’ core 1 and 2), the Marie Curie initial training network ‘Spinograph’ (grant agreement No 607904) and the Spinoza Prize awarded to B.J. van Wees by the ‘Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research’ (NWO). **Supplementary Information** Full set of the hBN tunnel barrier characterization =================================================== ![Full set of the contact characterization of sample A. The inset shows the microscope image with the characterized contacts. All contacts with a bilayer hBN tunnel barrier have a relatively homogeneous resistance-area product. Given the significantly higher resistance of contact 10, we suppose that this contact has a trilayer hBN tunnel barrier. \[FigS1\]](Fig_RA_SampleA_SI.png){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Extended measurements of the contacts on sample B. The inset shows the microscope image with the characterized contacts. Contact 5 shows a linear metallic behavior, due to the shape of the hBN flake the cobalt is likely in direct contact with the graphene flake. \[FigS2\]](Fig_RA_SampleB_SI.png){width="0.7\linewidth"} ![Extended measurements of DC bias sweeps on sample A. See inset of Fig. \[FigS1\] for the contact numbering. The data is obtained by aligning the injector I and the detector D parallel and antiparallel and subtracting both curves. Since the detection polarization remains constant over the applied bias range, the increase of the non-local resistance corresponds to the increase of the spin injection polarization, which is relatively homogeneous over the contacts. The first two curves are discussed in the main text. \[FigS3\]](FigS3.png){width="0.7\linewidth"} Estimation of the spin relaxation length in sample B ==================================================== ![Distance dependent measurements of the spin valves on sample B. The large difference in the magnitude of the spin signal indicates an inhomogeneous spin polarization of the contacts and could be caused by cracks in the bl-hBN flake. See the inset of Fig. \[FigS2\] for the contact numbering. \[FigS4\]](FigS4.png){width="0.7\linewidth"} Origin of the background of the Hanle curves in sample B ======================================================== The data shown in the main text in Fig. \[Fig6\] contains only the pure spin signal between injecting and detecting electrode. The spin signal is obtained by aligning the injector and detector parallel and antiparallel and subtracting both curves. The remaining signal is in theory the purely spin dependent signal. Spurious effects that are present in the measured signal are hereby extracted. These effects can be obtained by calculating the background signal by adding the parallel and antiparallel Hanle curves. In Fig. \[FigS5\]a we show the measured Hanle curves, the extracted spin signal in Fig. \[FigS5\]b and the extracted background signal in Fig. \[FigS5\]c. Both spin and background signal show a dependence on the applied DC bias. The presence of a spin related signal in the background signal is not expected, however, the dependence on the DC bias suggests the opposite case. ![a) The raw data of the Hanle measurements on sample B has a significant background signal that is excluded from b) the spin signal. The dependence of the background signal on the applied DC bias shown in panel c). The background signal is extracted by adding the antiparallel to the parallel Hanle curve. d) To separate the spin and charge dependent contributions to the background signal, we subtract the data measured with the minimized spin signal (0 $\mu$A DC bias) from the individual Hanle background curves and extract the shown background signal. e) The amplitude of the Hanle background signal shows a dependence on the DC bias that roughly resembles the inverted dependence of the injector and detector electrode, which could indicate that the background signal has still a spin related contribution coming from one of the reference contacts. \[FigS5\]](FigS5.png){width="0.7\linewidth"} To determine the nature of the signal, we normalize the data set to the signal where the spin signal and the spin injection polarization is minimized, which is here the case for a DC bias of 0 $\mu$A (Fig. \[FigS5\]b). This way we can separate the charge and spin dependent signals in the background data that do not depend on the magnetization of the inner detector and injector electrodes. The resulting signal is shown in Fig.S5c. We find a clear dependence on the applied DC bias. We suspect this signal to arise either as contribution from the current reference electrode or as the rotation of the cobalt electrodes at high magnetic fields out of the sample plane. If we compare the signal amplitude averaged at $\pm$700 mT (\[${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$(+700 mT)+${\mathrm{R}_\mathrm{NL}}$(-700 mT)\]/2), we find a dependence on the DC bias as shown by the red squares in Fig. \[FigS5\]e. This slope approximately resembles that of the DC bias measurements but of opposite sign, which suggests that this signal might be actually spin related. Since the inner injector and detector signals are excluded from this data, we can identify the injector reference contact to be likely the origin. This contact is also biased with the DC current but does not have an hBN tunnel barrier. Therefore, the observation of such large signal is still surprising, especially for of the greater distance of the reference electrode to the detector of 4 $\mu$m instead of 1.9 $\mu$m. At this moment, we are unable to determine the origin of the DC bias dependence of the background signal. Further work is needed for clarification.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'G. Corbin, C. Engwer, A. Klar, J. Nieto, J. Soler, C. Surulescu, and M. Wenske' title: 'Modeling glioma invasion with anisotropy- and hypoxia-triggered motility enhancement: from subcellular dynamics to macroscopic PDEs with multiple taxis' --- We deduce a model for glioma invasion making use of DTI data and accounting for the dynamics of brain tissue being actively degraded by tumor cells via excessive acidity production, but also according to the local orientation of tissue fibers. Our approach has a multiscale character: we start with a microscopic description of single cell dynamics including biochemical and/or biophysical effects of the tumor microenvironment, translated on the one hand into cell stress and corresponding forces and on the other hand into receptor binding dynamics; these lead on the mesoscopic level to kinetic equations involving transport terms w.r.t. all kinetic variables and eventually, by appropriate upscaling, to a macroscopic reaction-diffusion equation for glioma density with multiple taxis, coupled to (integro-)differential equations characterizing the evolution of acidity and macro- and mesoscopic tissue. Our approach also allows for a switch between fast and slower moving regimes, according to the local tissue anisotropy. We perform numerical simulations to investigate the behavior of solutions w.r.t. various scenarios of tissue dynamics and the dominance of each of the tactic terms, also suggesting how the model can be used to perform a numerical necrosis-based tumor grading or support radiotherapy planning by dose painting. We also provide a discussion about alternative ways of including cell level environmental influences in such multiscale modeling approach, ultimately leading in the macroscopic limit to (multiple) taxis. Introduction {#intro} ============ Glioma is a common type of primary, fast growing brain tumor with a poor prognosis, the median survival time with the most frequent (and most aggressive) form called glioblastome multiforme amounting at 60 weeks, in spite of modern treatment involving resection, radio-, and chemotherapy (see e.g., [@wrensch] and references therein). An exhaustive removal of the tumor is in general impossible, due to the rapid advancement of glioma cells through their cycle and to the diffuse tumor infiltration. This leads to serious clinical challenges and to rather modest treatment outcomes. The correct assessment of tumor margins and of the related GTV, CTV, and PTV[^1] is therefore of utmost importance. Noninvasive medical imaging techniques like MRI and CT are valuable diagnostic tools, however they only provide a macroscopic classification of neoplastic regions and the surounding oedema, without being able to evaluate the actual tumor extent which is heavily influenced by the biological, mechanical, and chemical processes on single cell and subcellular levels. Moreover, every patient has a different brain structure and there is abundant evidence that glioma follow the white matter tracts made up of myelinated axon bundles [@giese-k; @giese-w]. Therefore, the personalized prediction of the tumor burden is necessary for an enhanced therapy planning and mathematical models are called upon to provide such information via numerical simulations, thereby relying on medical data, of which diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) is quite common [@sundgren]. It measures the spatial diffusion of water molecules by MRI per volume element (voxel). The information obtained in this way can be expressed in the form of a diffusion tensor containing the full (apparent) diffusion information along six directions. One way of visualizing diffusion tensors is by the so-called *fractional anisotropy index* FA which is a measure for the local tissue alignment and can directly be obtained from DTI data; it is a scalar value between zero and one, calculated by using the eigenvalues of the apparent diffusion tensor. A value close to one means high anisotropy, i.e., a strong preference for a specific direction, whereas a very small value corresponds to the nearly isotropic case. For more details we refer e.g., to [@beppu], see also [@EHKS]. For more about DTI and its visualization approaches along with advantages, drawbacks and extensions we refer e.g., to [@basser; @descoteaux; @jellison]. Several approaches to modeling glioma invasion have been considered so far; they range from discrete formulations [@hatzik-deutsch; @kansal; @kansal-b] over hybrid settings [@frieboes; @tanaka; @zhang] combining decriptions of individual cells moving on a lattice with PDEs describing the evolution of some stimulus (e.g., a chemoattractant) and up to pure continuum models coupling several types of differential equations. The latter category comprises in turn several classes of models, according to the scales taken into account and to the type of PDEs employed. Pure macroscopic models using reaction-diffusion equations (possibly with space- and time-dependent diffusion coefficients, or accounting for the interaction with the surrounding tissue by letting the diffusion coefficient be proportional to the water diffusion tensor assessed by DTI) have been introduced e.g., in [@bondiau; @jbabdi; @konukoglu; @wang] to characterize the evolution of glioma density; in [@clatz] some biomechanical effects have been included as well. While these models impose the precise form of the equations and their coefficients, other approaches [@hillen-painter; @Painter-Hillen] deduce them by using a scaling argument from a mesoscopic setting relying on kinetic transport equations for the glioma density function depending -supplementary to time and position- also on the cell velocities. These models have been further extended in [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hunt] to take into account subcellular level effects on the mesoscopic and ultimately macroscopic behavior of the tumor. Concretely, these multiscale settings included on the microscopic level receptor binding to tissue fibers, which was related to the mesoscale by way of an additional transport term and by the turning rate. Appropriate scalings then led to the macroscale dynamics, whose deduced coefficients are still carrying subcellular level information. In [@NieUrr] different types of scaling have been considered for this modeling approach, and a well-posedness result was provided for a model also involving the time-space evolution of tissue. A more general analytical result in less regular function spaces for a complex micro-meso-macroscale model involving both chemo- and haptotaxis introduced on the mesolevel has been proved in [@LorSur]. Here we propose a multiscale model starting from a kinetic transport equation formulation and accounting, too, for receptor binding dynamics. Unlike in [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hunt] where the space-dependent tissue was given by DTI data at a fixed time point and the glioma cells were migrating on this brain structure, in the current model the tissue is allowed to evolve in time as well and the glioma cells degrade it according to their respective orientation to the tissue fibers, similarly to the way introduced in [@Hillen] and readdressed in [@LorSur; @NieUrr]. Moreover, in this work we also include a characterization of velocity changes via a transport term involving derivatives with respect to the velocity variable, hence allowing for external forces to act on the cells. Specifically, these external actions are decisively influenced by the spatial gradients of tissue fibers in the tumor surroundings and by the bias induced through the acidity gradient. Reference [@CHP] considered a similar approach accounting for a given chemotactic force acting on the cells and being proportional to the concentration gradient of some non-evolving chemoattractant. Here we pay more detailed attention to the influence of time- and space-dependent acidity and tissue on the cell migration, proliferation, and depletion, thereby also looking into the effect of tissue fiber orientation, hence dealing with both macroscopic and mesoscopic tissue evolution. By formal upscaling we then obtain a system of ordinary and partial (integro-)differential equations with (myopic) diffusion, multiple taxis, and nonlinear source terms, which couples macroscopic dynamics of tumor cells, necrotic matter, acidity, and normal tissue with that of mesoscopic tissue. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section \[sec:setup\] we set up the micro- and mesoscopic descriptions of (sub)cellular glioma dynamics in the kinetic theory of active particles (KTAP) framework developed e.g., in [@bellom1; @bellom2] and also provide descriptions of the other involved model variables: tissue, necrotic matter, and acidity. Section \[sec:upscaling\] is dedicated to deducing effective equations for the macroscopic glioma density influenced by tissue and acidity dynamics. Formal parabolic and hyporbolic upscalings are performed and a low-order moment approximation is deduced for the characterization of mesoscopic tissue, in order to reduce the complexity of the system. Numerical simulations are conducted in Section \[sec:numerics\] for three different scenarios of increasing complexity, and the obtained results are compared and commented. Finally, Section \[sec:discussion\] provides a discussion of this work’s outcome, model extensions, and perspectives, along with a review of various ways of multiscale modeling of tactic cell behavior in the KTAP framework. Set up of the micro-meso model {#sec:setup} ============================== Our modeling approach aims at obtaining a macroscopic description of the tumor cell evolution in interaction with the underlying tissue. The resulting PDE should carry in its coefficients information about relevant processes occuring on the lower levels (subcellular/microscopic, individual cells/mesoscopic) and should be deduced from mathematical descriptions of the dynamics on the latter. On the macroscopic scale the two main components of cell motion in a tissue should be retrieved, namely diffusion and haptotaxis. We start by introducing some notations for the various variables and functions involved in this work. \[notation\] Next we characterize innovations of cell density function due to changes in velocity and activity variable under the influence of the tissue structure. Depending on their nature, these are incorporated into the model in different ways: 1. As transport parts of the mesoscopic equation for the cell density function $p$: a $\div_y$ term accounts for the binding of cell receptors to tissue fibers, while a $\div_v$ term describes biomechanical effects, such as cell stress and directionality dictated by the spatial variations in (mesoscopic) tissue density and macroscopic acidity concentration. 2. As a jump process, being modeled as an integral operator $L_0$ on the right-hand side of the equation. The kernel of that operator will depend as in previous works [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hillen; @HS] on the tissue structure, by way of the fiber directional distribution $q(t,x,\hat v)$, as will be explained below. 3. As a source term describing proliferation/decay and being modeled as another integral operator $\mathcal P$. This can be done for instance similarly to the approach in [@EHS], where the interaction of cells with the surrounding tissue was considered to be at the onset of cell survival and mitosis. Here we modify that approach in order to account for the unfavorable effect of acidity on these processes. The concrete form of the corresponding term $\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho)$ will be specified later. Thus, the equation for $p$ takes the following form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{KinEq1} \partial_t p + v \esc \nabla_x p + \partial_y (G(y,Q)p) &+ \alpha\div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v)(\nabla_x q(t,x,\hat v)-\nabla _xh(t,x))p\Big ) \notag \\ &= \lambda (x,y) L_0(p)+\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho),$$ where we used the notation $\mathbb B(v):=|v|^2\mathbb I_N-v\otimes v$, and where the transport coefficients are obtained from the subcellular (microlevel) dynamics [^2]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{microlevel-dyn} \frac{dx}{dt}=v;\quad \frac{dv}{dt}=\alpha \mathbb B(v)(\nabla _xq(t,x,\hat v)-\nabla_xh(t,x)); \quad \frac{dy}{dt}=G(y,Q), \end{aligned}$$ the latter equation in being just and the middle equation characterizing the dynamics of $v$ influenced by the space gradients of the directional distribution of tissue fibers and of the acidity. Thereby, the tensor $v\otimes v$ represents the active cell stress, while $-|v|^2\mathbb I_N$ is the isotropic part. Indeed, concerning cell velocities we are foremost paying attention to the direction of the vector $v$ and consider that it is mainly influenced by the fiber distribution (and in particular by its spatial variations), as well as by the acidity gradient. The latter is known to drive the tumor cells and seems to have a bidirectional effect: Low extracellular pH favorizes both their migration and proliferation [@estrella; @stock-schwab; @webb], but acidosis can also inhibit cell proliferation, induce stress response, and apoptosis, see e.g. [@ohtsubo]. Specifically in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) it can trigger motion in the opposite direction of the acidity gradient. Indeed, GBM cells form typical, garland-like structures called pseudopalisades, which are centered around the highly hypoxic occlusion site of a capillary [@brat; @wippold]. The presence of such histological patterns is an indication for poor prognosis of patient survival [@kleih]. In order not to complicate the exposition too much we will only consider here the latter situation, with the repellent effect of acidity, hence the motion of glioma cells being biased towards $-\nabla _xh$. The dimensionless parameter $\alpha$ will play an important role, since it incorporates information from the different scales on which the tumor density, fiber directional distribution or acidity are correlated. While the tumor has volume dimensions, the path of travel made up of targeting fibers has a thinner structure close to the flat one. We can assume that the relationship with acidity is similar in scale. Therefore, the gradients of $q$ and $h$ w.r.t. $x$ contribute with this new scale parameter $\alpha$ among the agents of this process, which must be, as a consequence, a large quantity. Observe that the dynamics of $v$ in ensures that $\frac{d|v|^2}{dt}$, hence the cell speed $|v|=s$ is constant (in line with the above assumption $V=s\mathbb S^{N-1}$), hence only the direction matters. For the evolution of acidity concentration $h$ we also need to provide an equation; it will take the form of a reaction-diffusion PDE describing the facts that protons diffuse through the entire available space with diffusion parameter $D_H$, acidity is produced by cancer cells, and may infer decay, e.g. through uptake by vasculature or normal cells. We denote by $b>0$ the uptake rate and consider a limited production by cancer cells irrespective of their motility and/or receptor binding state, with a constant rate $a>0$. In the constant $h_0$ denotes an acidity threshold which is critical for non-cancerous matter; the proton buffering is enhanced when that threshold is exceeded, and it is limited by the availability of normal tissue and cells, which decreases under hypoxia (as explained later on): $$\label{eq:acid} h_t=D_H\Delta h+\frac{a\rho }{1+\rho}-bQ(h-h_0).$$ The turning operator $L_0$ on the right hand side in is taken as a relaxation-type operator describing the velocity-jump discontinuities in the cell density function $p$ due to contact guidance, that is, these velocity alterations are assumed to be caused by the cells interacting with tissue fibers and adapting their motion to biochemical (biomechanical, etc.) cues available at sites in their direct proximity. More precisely, it is given by $$\label{L0} L_0(p) := \bar p(t,x,y) M(t,x,v) - p(t,x,v,y),$$ where $M(t,x, v)$ depends on the fiber directional distribution $q$: $$M(t,x,v) := \frac{q(t,x, \hat v)}{\omega}, \qquad \omega := \int _Vq(t,x, \hat v) \ud v,$$ thus $\int _VM(t,x,v) \ud v =1$. Notice that this corresponds to considering, as in [@Hillen; @EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Painter-Hillen], a turning operator of type $$L_0(p):=-p(t,x,v,y)+\int _V\tilde K(v,v')p(t,x,v',y)dv'$$ with the turning kernel defined by $\tilde K(v,v')=\frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\omega }$, that is, the random migration from any velocity $v'$ to a new one $v$ is given by the (normalized) orientational distribution of tissue fibers on this last velocity $v$, so through contact guidance. We recall that this turning operator is multiplied by the cell turning rate $\lambda(x,y)$. It will play an essential role in our attempt to characterize the alternation between slow and enhanced migration of tumor cells, which is mainly due to the tissue anisotropy. To capture this dependence we use the *fractional anisotropy* index FA mentioned in Section \[intro\]. Henceforth we deal with a turning rate of the form $$\lambda(x,y)= \frac{\kappa y}{FA(x)+y},$$ which is in agreement with the assumption of reduced turning in highly aligned regions and with its dependence on the receptor binding state $y$, the latter with a certain saturation modeled by the Monod type factor. Thereby, $\kappa $ is a constant that refers to the maximum turning frequency. Finally, we introduce the proliferation/decay operator. Similarly to the approach in [@EHS], both proliferation and decay of tumor cells originate (at least partially) in the interaction of cells with the surrounding tissue, but here we modify that approach in order to account for the unfavorable effects of acidity on these processes. Concretely, $\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho)$ is given by $$\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho):=\mu (\rho,h)\int _Z\chi(x,z,z')p(t,x,v,z')Q(t,x)dz',$$ where $\chi (x,z,z')$ is a kernel with respect to $z$ and represents the transition from the state $z'$ to the state $z$ during a proliferation-favorable glioma-tissue interaction. For the tissue dynamics we adopt the approach in [@Hillen] which was also employed in [@KelSur; @LorSur; @NieUrr], with slight modifications. We look for the evolution of $q(t,x,\theta )$, hence want an equation of the form $$\partial _tq(t,x,\theta )=\tau (\theta ,p,q),$$ with $\tau $ satisfying the natural conditions: $$\tau (\cdot, \cdot, 0)=0,\quad \int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\tau (\theta ,\cdot,\cdot)d\theta =0,\quad \forall \ \theta \in \mathbb S^{N-1}.$$ We thus compare -as in [@Hillen]- the fiber orientation $\theta $ with the cell direction $\hat v$, and introduce the operator: $$\label{mean-projection} \Pi [p](t,x,\theta):= \left \{\begin{array}{cl} \frac{1}{\rho(t,x)}\int_Y\int _V |\theta \cdot \hat v| p(t,x,v,y)\ud v \ud y,&\text{ for undirected tissue}\\ \frac{1}{\rho(t,x)}\int_Y\int _V \theta \cdot \hat v\ p(t,x,v,y)\ud v \ud y,&\text{ for directed tissue,} \end{array}\right .$$ which averages the projection of cell movement direction on the fiber orientation. It models the fact that cells preferentially degrade fibers which are nearly orthogonal to their movement direction (for more details see [@Hillen]). It holds that $0\le \Pi [p]\le 1$ and $-1\le \Pi [p]\le 1$ for undirected and for directed tissue, respectively. Thereby, *undirected* means that the fibers making up the tissue are symmetrical all along their axes, i.e. there is no ’up’ and ’down’ on such fibers, which translates into symmetry of the orientational distribution: $$q(t,x,-\theta )=q(t,x,\theta ),\quad \forall \ \theta \in \mathbb S^{N-1}.$$ If this is not the case, then the tissue is said to be *directed*. These tissue properties reflect on the cell motility: While undirected fibers do not impose any supplementary bias on the (re)orientation of a cell, in a directed tissue the cells will have a preferred direction of advancement along the fibers. As DTI data do not provide any information about such directionality, we will consider in the following both types of tissue, which will lead to two different ways of performing the transition from the lower scales (micro and meso) to the macroscopic description of tumor dynamics in interaction with their fibrous and biochemical surroundings. If we denote by $\textcrg (t,x,\theta )$ the mesoscopic density of tissue fibers with orientation $\theta $ we obtain for the evolution of this quantity the equation $$\label{tissue-evolution} \partial_t\textcrg (t,x,\theta) =r_D(h)(\Pi [p](t,x,\theta)-1)\rho (t,x) \textcrg (t,x,\theta ),$$ where $r_D$ is a nonnegative quantity characterizing the efficiency of fiber degradation (e.g., it can be considered to be proportional to the amount of matrix degrading enzymes[^3] expressed by the cells, thus to the acidity $h$, since MDEs are actually known to be enhanced by an acidic extracellular pH, see [@calorini; @kato]). We then consider $r_D$ to be a monotonically increasing function of $h$ with $r_D(h)=r_0(h-h_0)_+$. It would be important to have information about the directional distribution function $q(t,x,\theta)$, hence we express the latter with respect to the mesoscopic tissue density $\textcrg (t,x,\theta )$. Following [@Hillen], this relationship takes the form $$q(t,x,\theta )=\frac{\textcrg (t,x,\theta )}{\int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\textcrg (t,x,\theta )d\theta }, \qquad \textcrg \neq 0.$$ The macroscopic tissue density $Q(t,x)$ represents the volume fraction of tissue fibers, irrespective of their orientation, thus we also have the following relationship: $$\textcrg (t,x,\theta )=q(t,x,\theta)Q(t,x), \quad t>0,\ x\in \R^N,\ \theta \in \mathbb S^{N-1}.$$ Integrating w.r.t. $\theta \in \mathbb S^{N-1}$ we get $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Q-1} \partial_tQ=r_D(h)\rho Q\left(\int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\Pi[p](t,x,\theta)q(t,x,\theta )d\theta -1\right)=r_D(h)\rho \, Q \int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}} \big(\Pi [p] -1\big) q\, d\theta .\end{aligned}$$ In the sequel the average of $\Pi[p]$ w.r.t. the distribution of fiber orientations will be denoted as in [@Hillen] by $$\label{eq:A} A[p](t,x):=\int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\Pi[p](t,x,\theta)q(t,x,\theta )d\theta ,$$ hence becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:Q} \partial_tQ=r_D(h)\rho Q(A[p]-1).\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, we can deduce an equation for the fiber directional distribution function: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:fiber-q-gen} \partial _tq(t,x,\theta )&=r_D(h)\rho (t,x) q(t,x,\theta )\left (\Pi[p](t,x,\theta)-A[p](t,x)\right ).$$ Eventually, the decay of both tissue and glioma (primarily due to acidity) generates necrotic tissue, large amounts of which are an indicative of poor survival prognosis [@Hammoud1996; @Louis]. Therefore, the detection and assessment of necrosis is an important issue in therapy. Here we describe the dynamics of necrotic tissue density by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq1-necrotic} \partial_tn&=r_D(h)\rho Q\int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}(1-\Pi [p](t,x,\theta))q(t,x,\theta)d\theta +\mathcal F(h,\rho, Q) $$ where $\mathcal F(h,\rho,Q)$ describes glioma death due to hypoxia and is to be specified later. Thus, the full model for cell-tissue interactions and response to acidity is given by , , , , , supplemented with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. As in previous works [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @KelSur] we assume $p$ to be compactly supported in the $(v,y)$-space. The initial conditions and the boundary conditions w.r.t. space will be addressed in the following sections. The wellposedness of this problem (especially in less regular function spaces) is not trivial and also not the aim of this paper. When the space domain is the whole $\R^N$ the approach in [@KeSu11; @KelSur; @LorSur] could be used as a starting point in order to address this issue. Towards population behavior: Upscaling {#sec:upscaling} ====================================== Our objective is to assess the macroscopic evolution of the tumor cell population interacting with the brain tissue. As the latter exhibits anisotropy variability, with highly aligned regions alternating with areas of isotropic fiber distribution, the invasive behavior of glioma cells will be correspondingly -and locally- dominated by diffusion with or without drift. Therefore, it is desirable that our model includes a switch between these two kinds of motion, in the sense that the influence of drift together with diffusion can be potentiated against pure diffusion. These effects are built in via the turning rate $\lambda (x,y)$ given in Section \[sec:setup\] above. Indeed, its dependence on the (local) fractional anisotropy $FA(x)$ and the amount of receptors bound to their ligands on the tissue fibers will be able to capture the alternation between the epochs of higher- or less-aligned tissue.\ 1. [**Mass conservation:**]{} $\int _VL_0(p)(t,x,v,y) \ud v =0$. 2. [**Self–adjointness:**]{} $L_0$ is self–adjoint in $L^2(\frac{dv}{M(v)})$. 3. \[new4\] [**Kernel of $L_0$:**]{} $L_0(p)=0\ \Leftrightarrow \ p\in \langle M(v)\rangle $, thus $Ker(L_0)=\langle M(v)\rangle$, the space generated by $M(v)$. In particular, using the self–adjointness, we know that $M^\bot \in \langle M(v)\rangle^\bot $ iff $\int_V M^\bot (v) dv =0$. Before proceeding with the scaling we re-express (similarly to e.g. [@EHKS]) the subcellular dynamics in a more convenient way: Let us consider $y^*= f(Q):=\frac{k_+ Q}{k_-+k_+ Q }$, the steady-state of , and denote by $$z:=y-y^*$$ the deviation of the current activity variable $y$ from the steady state. Then $z\in Z\subseteq [-y^*,1-y^*]$ and the microscopic dynamics turns into $$\frac{dx}{dt}=v;\quad \frac{dv}{dt}=\alpha \Bmb(v)\, \big(\nabla _xq(t,x,\hat v)-\nabla_xh(t,x)\big); \quad \frac{dz}{dt}=-(k_+Q+k_-)z- f'(Q)(Q_t+v\esc \nabla_x Q).$$ Then becomes $$\begin{aligned} \label{KinEq2} \partial_t p &+ v \esc \nabla_x p - \partial_z \Big (((k_+Q+k_-)z+f'(Q)(Q_t+v\cdot \nabla Q))p\Big ) + \alpha \div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh) p\Big ) \nonumber \\ &= \lambda (x,z) L_0(p)+\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho),$$ where the turning rate in terms of $z$ is given by $\lambda (x,z)=\frac{\kappa (z+f(Q(t,x)))}{FA+z+f(Q(t,x))}$. To simplify the subsequent computations we linearize it as follows: $$\lambda (t,x,z)\simeq \lambda _0(t,x)+\lambda _1(t,x)z,\ \text{where} \ \lambda_0(t,x)=\frac{ \kappa f(Q)}{FA+f(Q)}\ \text{and}\ \lambda _1(t,x)=\frac{ \kappa FA}{(FA+f(Q))^2}.$$ *Notice that the fractional anisotropy FA changes dynamically, i.e. depend both on $t$ and $x$, since tissue evolution (here this means degradation) leads to local modifications of the water diffusion tensor and, correspondingly, of its eigenvalues. Indeed, the apparent diffusion tensor can even vanish locally, in which situation the cell diffusivity degenerates. In hitherto works [@Martina; @CKSS; @EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hunt; @HS; @jbabdi; @Painter-Hillen] FA has been assumed to be time-independent, motivating that the resolution of DTI data does rarely go below voxels with sizes of 1 $mm^3$, which is rather rough compared with the size of glioma cell bodies (15-60 $\mu m$, [@kuche]). This simplifies the numerical handling and also avoids problems related to the possibly singular behavior of solutions to the macroscopic PDE, as systems with degenerating myopic diffusion and haptotaxis can lead to blow-up even in 1D [@winkler; @WiSu]. In Section \[sec:numerics\], however, we will consider several simulation scenarios, including, in turn, evolving and time-stationary tissue, and compare their outcome.* Parabolic limit, undirected tissue {#sec:par-scaling} ---------------------------------- The parabolic scaling corresponds formally to the change of variables $t\to \eps^2 t, x\to \eps x.$ We perform it and thereby rescale as in [@EHS] the source term $\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho)$ with $\eps^2$, in order to let it act on the correct time scale. Correspondingly, equation becomes: $$\begin{aligned} \label{EscEq} &\eps ^2\partial_t p+\eps \nabla_x \cdot (vp)- \partial_z \Big (((k_+Q+k_-)z+f'(Q)(\eps ^2Q_t+\eps v\cdot \nabla Q))p\Big ) +\alpha \eps \div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh) p\Big )\notag \\ &\hspace*{1cm}= \lambda (t,x,z)L_0(p)+\eps^2\mu (\rho,h)Q(t,x)\int _Z\chi(x,z,z')p(t,x,v,z')dz'.$$ Next we consider the moments of $p$ with respect to $v$ and especially with $z$: $$\begin{aligned} &m(t,x,v):=\int _Zp(t,x,v,z)dz, \quad m^z(t,x,v):=\int _Z zp(t,x,v,z)dz, \quad \rho ^z(t,x)=\int _Vm^z(t,x,v)dv\\ &\bar p(t,x,z):=\int _Vp(t,x,v,z)dv,\quad \rho (t,x):=\int _Vm(t,x,v)dv=\int _Z\bar p(t,x,z)dz\end{aligned}$$ and neglect the higher order moments with respect to $z$ by assuming very small deviations of the receptor binding dynamics from the steady-state, i.e. by assuming $z$ to be very small. As the subcellular dynamics is very fast in comparison to cell motion and proliferation, this is a reasonable assumption. Then from we obtain the moment equations: $$\begin{aligned} & \eps ^2\partial_tm+\eps \nabla_x \cdot (vm)+\alpha \eps \div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh) m\Big )=\lambda _0(t,x)(M(v)\rho -m)\notag \\ &\hspace*{1cm}+\lambda _1(t,x)(M(v)\rho ^z-m^z) +\eps^2\mu (\rho,h)Q(t,x)\int _Z\int _Z\chi(x,z,z')p(t,x,v,z')dz'dz\label{subeq:moments1}\\ & \eps ^2\partial_tm^z+\eps \nabla_x \cdot (vm^z)+\alpha \eps \div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh) m^z\Big )+(k_+Q+k_-)m^z+\eps f'(Q)v\cdot \nabla Qm \notag \\ &+\eps^2f'(Q)mQ_t=\lambda _0(t,x)(M(v)\rho ^z-m^z)+\eps^2\mu (\rho,h)Q(t,x)\int _Z\int _Zz\chi(x,z,z')p(t,x,v,z')dz'dz\label{subeq:moments2}\end{aligned}$$ Performing the usual Hilbert expansion $p=\sum \limits _{k}\eps^k p_k$ and consequently the expansion of the moments: $$\begin{aligned} \label{new3} m=\sum \limits _{k}\eps ^km_k, \qquad m^z=\sum \limits _{k}\eps ^km_k^z,\qquad \rho=\sum \limits _{k}\eps ^k\rho _k,\qquad \rho^z=\sum \limits _{k}\eps ^k\rho_k^z \end{aligned}$$ and identifying the powers of $\eps$ we obtain from and the following relationships:\ $\epsilon^0$ terms: $$\begin{aligned} &0 = \lambda_0 (M(v)\rho _0-m_0) + \lambda_1 (M(v)\rho _0^z-m_0^z)\\ &(k_+Q+k_-) m_0^z = \lambda_0 (M(v)\rho _0^z-m_0^z)\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad\Rightarrow \quad \rho _0^z=m_0^z=0\quad \text{and}\quad M(v)\rho _0=m_0.\end{aligned}$$ $\epsilon^1$ terms: $$\begin{aligned} \nabla_x\cdot (vm_0) &+\alpha \div_v\Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh) m_0\Big )=\lambda _0(M(v)\rho_1-m_1)+\lambda _1(M(v)\rho_1^z-m_1^z)\\ \nabla_x\cdot (vm_0^z) & +\alpha \div_v\Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh) m_0^z\Big )\\ &+(k_+Q+k_-)m_1^z+f'(Q)v\cdot \nabla Qm_0=\lambda_0 (M(v)\rho _1^z-m_1^z).\end{aligned}$$ Integrating with respect to $v$ we obtain (for undirected tissue) \[sus\] $$\begin{aligned} \rho _1^z &=0,\quad m_1^z=-\frac{M(v)\rho_0}{k_+Q+k_-+\lambda _0}f'(Q)v\cdot \nabla Q,\\ m_1&=\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\Big [-\nabla _x\cdot (vM(v)\rho _0)- \alpha \div_v\Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(t,x,\hat v)-\nabla_xh)M(v)\rho _0\Big )-\lambda _1m_1^z\Big ]\\ &+M(v)\rho _1.\label{sus2}\end{aligned}$$ $\epsilon^2$ terms from , after expanding $\mu $ about $\rho_0$ and integrating the equation with respect to $v$: $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t\rho_0+\nabla _x\cdot \int _Vvm_1dv=\mu (\rho_0,h)Q\rho _0.\end{aligned}$$ From we can compute $$\begin{aligned} \int _Vvm_1dv&=\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\Big [-\nabla _x\cdot (\int _Vv\otimes vM(v)dv\rho _0) \\ &-\alpha \int _Vv\div_v\Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(t,x,\hat v)-\nabla_xh(t,x))M(v)\rho _0\Big )dv\\ &+\frac{\lambda _1f'(Q)}{k_+Q+k_-+\lambda _0}\int _Vv\otimes vM(v)dv\nabla Q\rho _0\Big ].\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $$\label{eq:Eq} \tilde {\mathbb E}_q(t,x):=\int _Vv \frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\omega } \ud v=s\int_{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\theta q(t,x,\theta )d\theta =s\mathbb E_q(t,x)$$ and with $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb D_T(t,x) := \ds \int _V(v-\tilde {\mathbb E}_q)\otimes (v-\tilde {\mathbb E}_q) M(t,x,v)\ud v=\ds \int _V(v-\tilde {\mathbb E}_q)\otimes (v-\tilde {\mathbb E}_q) \frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\omega } \ud v \label{tumor-diffusion-tensor}\end{aligned}$$ the so-called *tumor diffusion tensor*[^4]. In the situation with undirected tissue we have $\mathbb E_q(t,x)=0,$ thus in this case $\mathbb D_T(t,x)=s^2\mathbb V_q(t,x)$, where $\mathbb V_q$ denotes the variance-covariance matrix w.r.t. the fiber orientation distribution $q$. With the notation $$g(Q,\lambda _0)(t,x):=\frac{f'(Q)}{k_+Q+k_-+\lambda _0},$$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq-cu-Sigma} \int _Vvm_1dv&=-\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\nabla _x\cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho _0)+\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _0}g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho _0+\frac{ \alpha }{\lambda _0}\Sigma (t,x)\rho _0,\end{aligned}$$ with $\Sigma (t,x):=S_1(t,x;q)-S_2(t,x;h)$, where \[eqs:S\] $$\begin{aligned} &S_1(t,x;q):=\int _V\mathbb B(v) \nabla_x q(t,x,\hat v)M(t,x,v)dv=\frac{1}{\omega }\int _V\mathbb B(v) \nabla_x q(t,x,\hat v)q(t,x,\hat v)dv \label{haptotaxis-forces}\\ &S_2(t,x;h):=\int _V\mathbb B(v) M(t,x,v)dv\ \nabla_x h(t,x)=s^2(\mathbb I_N-\mathbb V_q(t,x))\nabla_x h(t,x).\end{aligned}$$ Then, the limiting macroscopic equation for the tumor cell density takes the form $$\begin{aligned} \label{macro-eq} \partial_t\rho_0&=&\nabla \cdot \Big [\frac{1}{\lambda _0(x)}\Big (\nabla \cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho _0) -\lambda _1(x)g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho _0- \alpha S_1(t,x;q)\rho _0\nonumber \\ & &+\alpha S_2(t,x;h)\rho _0\Big )\Big ]+\mu (\rho_0,h)Q\rho _0.\end{aligned}$$ The obtained equation is of drift-diffusion type; the first term on the right hand side represents a non-Fickian, so-called myopic diffusion: the cells spread out according to information available in their immediate surroundings. The next two terms feature a sign opposite to the myopic diffusion and represent drift corrections of the diffusive part in the direction of the macroscopic and mesoscopic tissue gradients $\nabla Q$ and $\nabla q$, respectively. They could therefore be interpreted as haptotaxis-like terms. The first of them carries through the function $g$ the influence of the subcellular receptor binding dynamics to the surrounding tissue, while the remaining drift term accounts for the (mesoscopic) stress exerted by the cells on the tissue, the latter being described by the directional distribution of fibers $q$. The drift term involving $S_2$ in has the same sign with the diffusion, and contains a bias towards the opposite direction of acidity gradient $\nabla h$, thus describes a repellent pH-taxis. The information about the brain tissue structure, which is decisive for personalized predictions of the tumor space-time evolution, is contained in via the tumor ’diffusion’ tensor $\mathbb D_T$ and the vector $S_1(t,x;q)$, which in view of can be seen as a biomechanical interaction force between tumor cells and tissue. Thereby, the stress tensor $\mathbb B(v)$ contributes (together with the kernel $M(t,x,v)=\frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\omega }$) to the (mesoscopic) haptotactic sensitivity of the cells, which is expressed here in a velocity-averaged way. The last term in encodes proliferation and decay of glioma embedded in tissue. The function $\mu (\rho_0,h)$ can be correspondingly chosen, e.g. in the form $$\label{eq:choice-mu} \mu (\rho_0,h)=\eta (1-\rho_0-n)(h_T-h)_+-\gamma h,$$ which would correspond to a logistic type of growth and a hypoxia-triggered necrosis. Thereby $\eta ,\gamma >0$ are constants and $h_T$ denotes an acidity threshold which is critical for the cancer cells: when the proton concentration exceeds it, they become hypoxic and cease proliferation. The choice of $\mu $ establishes the form of the last source term in . Thus, with we have in the equation for necrotic tissue $$\label{eq:choice-F-rond} \mathcal F(h,\rho, Q)=\gamma h\rho Q. $$ The role of the turning rate $\lambda $ is twofold: it connects the cell reorientations to the receptor binding kinetics and it also captures the effect of tissue anisotropy on the cells migrating through the tissue. While $\lambda _0$ influences all motility terms, $\lambda _1$ is specific for the haptotaxis component including subcellular level effects. The factor $\frac{1}{\lambda _0}$ is independent on $y$ and increasing with the space-varying fractional anisotropy $FA$, the effect of which is particularly accentuated in the term multiplied with $\lambda _1$. This means that $\lambda _1$ with the inherent $y$-dependence provides an anisotropy-triggered switch between myopic diffusion with ’mesolevel’ haptotaxis and migratory mode with enhanced haptotaxis, the latter supplementary providing bias in the direction of the tissue gradient. Observe that an almost isotropic tissue lets $\lambda _0$ be near constantly $\kappa$ and nearly turns off $\lambda _1$ and therewith the influence of subcellular dynamics. In this case, without the effect of $S_1(t,x;q)$ there would only be myopic diffusion, as e.g., in [@Painter-Hillen]. ### Boundary conditions and the full macro-meso system {#BC-approx-projections} So far we considered the space variable $x\in \R^N$, however the brain occupies a well delimited region inside the skull. Therefore we consider a bounded space domain $\Om \subset \R^N$ and assume it to have a smooth enough boundary. Through the rescaling $x\to \varepsilon x$ the domain on which holds is $\tilde \Om =\varepsilon \Om$, having outer unit normal vector $\nu (x)$ at $x\in \partial \tilde \Om$. In order to determine the corresponding boundary conditions on $\partial \tilde \Om$ we assume that there is no normal mass flux across the boundary [@lemou], which translates into the mesoscopic no-flux condition [@plaza] $$\label{BC-plaza} \int _Vvp(t,x,v,z)\cdot \nu (x)\ dv=0,\qquad \text{for all }x\in \partial \tilde \Om,\ t>0.$$ This condition actually means that the normal component of the macroscopic ensemble velocity $U(t,x)=\int _Vvm(t,x,v)dv$ of the tumor across the space boundary vanishes (the tumor cannot leave the brain). Following [@plaza] we write the boundary of the phase space as $$\partial \tilde \Om \times V\times Z=(\Gamma _+\cup \Gamma _-\cup \Gamma _0)\times Z,$$ where $$\Gamma _\pm :=\{(x,v)\in \partial \tilde \Om\times V\ :\ \pm v\cdot \nu (x)>0\},\quad \Gamma _0:=\{(x,v)\in \partial \tilde \Om\times V\ :\ v\cdot \nu (x)=0\}.$$ We assume that $\Gamma _0$ has zero measure w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure on $\partial \tilde \Om \times V$ and consider the trace spaces $$L^2_\pm:=L^2(\Gamma _\pm \times Z;|v\cdot \nu (x)|d\sigma (x)dvdz).$$ Moreover, $p$ is supposed to be regular enough so that we can define the traces $p|_{\Gamma _\pm \times Z}\in L^2_\pm$, and that for a fixed $t>0$ $$p|_{\partial \tilde \Om \times V\times Z}(t,x,v,z)=\lim _{\substack{\tilde x\in \tilde \Om \\ \tilde x\to x}}p(t,\tilde x,z),\quad \text{for each }x\in \partial \tilde \Om.$$ Assuming that a regular Hilbert expansion is valid in $\tilde \Om $ we can therefore compute the trace by simply passing to the corresponding limit in the Hilbert expansions for $p(t,x,v,z)$ and accordingly also for the moments . Thus, the no-flux condition becomes $$\int _Vv(p_0(t,x,v,z)+\varepsilon p_1(t,x,v,z))dv\cdot \nu(x)+O(\varepsilon^2)=0,\quad x\in \partial \tilde \Om ,\ z\in Z,\ t>0.$$ This condition should not depend on $\varepsilon$, therefore we should have $$\int _Vvp_j(t,x,v)\cdot \nu (x)dv=0\quad \text{for all }j\ge 0,\ x\in \partial \tilde \Om,\ z\in Z,\ t>0.$$ Indeed, for $j=0$ we already have this condition satisfied for undirected tissue: $$\begin{aligned} \int _Z\int _Vvp_0(t,x,v,z)dvdz\cdot \nu (x)&=\int _Vvm_0(t,x,v)dv\cdot \nu (x)\\ &=\int _Vv\frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\om}\rho _0(t,x)dv\cdot \nu (x)\\ &=\rho _0\tilde {\mathbb E}_q(t,x)\cdot \nu (x)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Next we look at the condition for $j=1$, more precisely at its integration w.r.t. $z$: $$\begin{aligned} \int _Z\int _Vvp_1(t,x,v,z)dv dz\cdot \nu (x)&=\int _Vvm_1(t,x,v)dv\cdot \nu (x)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq-cu-Sigma}}{=}\Big (-\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\nabla _x\cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho _0)+\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _0}g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho _0+\frac{\alpha }{\lambda _0}\Sigma (t,x)\rho _0\Big )\cdot \nu (x),\end{aligned}$$ which leads to a typical no-flux boundary condition $$\label{BC-macro-cells} \Big (-\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\nabla _x\cdot(\mathbb D_T\rho _0)+\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _0}g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho _0+\frac{\alpha }{\lambda _0}\Sigma (t,x)\rho _0\Big )\cdot \nu (x)=0\quad \text{on }\partial \tilde \Om,\ t>0$$ for the macroscopic PDE . This equation is coupled with the dynamics of acidity $h$ by way of $S_2(t,x;h)$ in $\Sigma (t,x)$. For this *ab initio* macroscopic equation we can directly impose a no-flux condition: $$\label{BC-macro-acid} D_H\nabla _xh=0\quad \text{on }\partial \tilde \Om,\ t>0.$$ In previous works [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hillen; @hillen-painter; @HiSw] the quantities relating to the tissue, i.e. $q$ and (where applicable) $Q$ were assumed to be time-invariant, whereby $Q$ itself was estimated from the DTI data, as in [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @HS]. No tissue degradation was accounted for, and one could also include a proliferation term, e.g. like in [@EHS]. In this much simplified situation only coupling with and using the no-flux boundary conditions given above, the system takes the form of a Keller-Segel problem with some supplementary drift terms, all of which are linear in $\rho_0$. When the full evolution of the tissue becomes relevant, then and have to be supplementally coupled with the dynamics of $q$, as given by , and with that of $Q$, given by . The resulting (reaction-)diffusion-taxis system then characterizes cell, acidity, and tissue dynamics evolving on two scales (macroscopic and mesoscopic, respectively). Thereby, we deal with the macroscopic cell density in the first PDE, while and involve the mesoscopic quantity $p(t,x,v,y)$, which is inconvenient both for the analysis and the numerics. Remark that, thanks to property \[new4\] of $L_0$, the Hilbert expansion is equivalent to splitting $p$ as $p(t,x,v,y)=\bar p(t,x,y)M(t,x,v)+\eps M^\bot(t,x,v)$, with $\int _V M^\bot(t,x,v)dv=0$, i.e. the Chapman-Enskog expansion used in [@Hillen]. The leading order of the operator in leads to $$\label{proj-undir-q} \Pi _{a}[q](t,x,\theta )\simeq \left \{\begin{array}{cl} \int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}|\theta \cdot \theta '|q(t,x,\theta ')d\theta '&\quad\text{for undirected tissue}\\ \int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\theta \cdot \theta 'q(t,x,\theta ')d\theta '&\quad\text{for directed tissue,} \end{array}\right .$$ along with correspondingly rewriting as $$\label{rewrite-CE-eq:A} A[q](t,x)=\int _{\mathbb S^{N-1}}\Pi _{a}[q](t,x,\theta )q(t,x,\theta )d\theta .$$ Therewith we obtain from the equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{rewrite-CE-eq:q} \partial _tq(t,x,\theta )=r_D(h)\rho (t,x)q(t,x,\theta)\Big (\Pi _{a}[q](t,x,\theta )- A[q](t,x)\Big )\end{aligned}$$ and from $$\begin{aligned} \label{rewrite-CE-eq:Q} \partial_tQ=r_D(h)\rho Q\left (A[q](t,x)-1\right ).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in order to determine the dynamics of tumor cells in interaction with the tissue they degrade and with the acidity they produce, we have to solve the macro-meso system \[macro-parabolic-full\] $$\begin{aligned} & \partial_t\rho=\nabla _x\cdot \Big [\frac{1}{\lambda _0(t,x)}\Big (\nabla _x\cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho ) -\lambda _1(t,x)g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho -\alpha S_1(t,x;q)\rho +\alpha S_2(t,x;h)\rho\Big )\Big ]\notag \\ & \hspace*{1cm}+\mu (\rho,h)Q\rho \label{cells-macro}\\ &\partial _tq(t,x,\theta )=r_D(h)\rho (t,x)q(t,x,\theta)\Big (\Pi _{a}[q](t,x,\theta )- A[q](t,x)\Big ) \label{tissue-meso}\\ &\partial_tQ=r_D(h)\rho Q\left (A[q]-1\right )\label{tissue-macro}\\ &h_t=D_H\Delta h+\frac{a\rho }{1+\rho}-bQ(h-h_0)\label{acidity-macro}\\ &\partial_tn=r_D(h)\rho Q\left (1-A [q]\right ) +\mathcal F(h,\rho, Q), \label{nekrose-macro}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb D_T$ is as in with $\mathbb E_q=0$, with $S_1$ and $S_2$ as in , $\Pi _{a}[q]$ as in , $A[q]$ as in , $\mu $ as in , $\mathcal F$ as in , with boundary conditions , , and with given initial conditions $\rho(0,x)$, $q(0,x,\theta)$, $Q(0,x)$, $h(0,x)$, and $n(0,x)$. These can be the tumor cell distribution (or an approximation of it) observed at diagnosis, the directional distribution of fibers obtained via DTI, some estimate of the macroscopic volume fraction of the tissue (e.g., most simply $FA$, as in [@CKSS; @EHKS]), some (estimated) acidity distribution at diagnosis, and the necrotic tissue distribution, respectively. A tumor segmentation of the diagnosis image could be useful in assessing the latter. The mathematical handling of system is nontrivial, both with respect to well posedness and numerics. The equations connect two modeling levels (macroscopic and mesoscopic) and the couplings via $q$ involved in the coefficients of all terms on the right hand side of render the problem highly nonlinear. Moreover, the equation for $\rho$ features (along with the myopic diffusion) three types of taxis: - macroscopic haptotaxis towards $\nabla Q$, - a new kind of mesoscopic haptotaxis (term with $S_1$), where the bias is actually given by $\nabla _xq^2$, and - pH-taxis, describing chemorepellence due to acidity (term with $S_2$). Moment closure for the fiber equation ------------------------------------- The system is macroscopic with respect to the cell dynamics: by an asymptotic expansion of $p(t, x, v,y)$ around the local Maxwellian $q(t,x,\theta)$, we derived a model for the local cell density $\rho(t, x)$. However, the tissue is modeled by the mesoscopic quantity $q(t,x,\theta)$. To reduce the level of detail in the tissue dynamics to match the rest of the model, we derive a low-order moment approximation to . For simplicity, we only consider the two-dimensional case. Recall the peanut distribution [@Hillen; @Painter-Hillen]: $$\begin{aligned} q(\theta) = \frac{1}{\ints{\theta\trans \DW \theta}} \theta\trans \DW \theta = \frac{1}{\pi \tr \DW} \theta\trans \DW \theta. \end{aligned}$$ We interpret this as a $P_2$-approximation [@brunner2005two] [@pomraning2005equations III.5] under some additional constraints. A second-order basis of monomials is given by $$\begin{aligned} \basisFull = \begin{pmatrix} \theta_x & \theta_y & \theta_x^2 & \theta_x\theta_y & \theta_y^2 \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ We drop the constant function from the basis, because it would introduce a linear dependence: $\theta_x^2 + \theta_y^2 = 1$. The $P_2$ ansatz is defined by the linear combination of basis functions $$\begin{aligned} \mathfrak{q}(\theta) = \mplFull \cdot \basisFull, \end{aligned}$$ wherein $\mplFull$ is a vector of multipliers such that the moment constraints $$\begin{aligned} \momFull := \ints{\basisFull q} = \ints{\basisFull \mathfrak{q} } = \ints{\basisFull\basisFull\trans} \mathfrak{k}\end{aligned}$$ are fulfilled. Due to the symmetry constraints $\ints{\theta q} = 0$, we drop the first-order monomials $\theta_x, \theta_y$ from the basis. The remaining basis functions are then: $$\begin{aligned} \basis = \begin{pmatrix} \theta_x^2 & \theta_x\theta_y & \theta_y^2 \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ With this choice it is easy to associate the multipliers $\mpl$ in the ansatz $$\begin{aligned} \mathfrak{q} = \mpl \cdot \basis(\theta)\end{aligned}$$ with the components of the normalized water diffusion tensor: $$\begin{aligned} \mpl := \begin{pmatrix} \mplcomp[xx] & \mplcomp[xy] & \mplcomp[yy] \end{pmatrix} = \frac{1}{\pi \tr \DW }\begin{pmatrix} \DW[xx] & 2 \DW[xy] & \DW[yy] \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the moments $\mom := \ints{\basis q}$ are directly related to the components of the (normalized) tumor diffusion tensor $P = \ints{\theta\theta\trans q}$: $$\begin{aligned} \mom := \begin{pmatrix} \momcomp[xx] & \momcomp[xy] & \momcomp[yy] \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} P_{xx} & P_{xy} & P_{yy} \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ We can translate multipliers to moments with the moment constraints $\mom = \ints{\basis \mathfrak{q}} = \ints{\basis \basis\trans} \mpl$. The transfer matrix is given by $$\begin{aligned} H &:= \ints{\basis\basis\trans} = \frac{\pi}{4} \begin{pmatrix} 3 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 3 \end{pmatrix}. \end{aligned}$$ With these tools in hand, we derive a $P_2$-approximation of the tissue dynamics through the following steps: Insert the ansatz $\mathfrak{q}$ into , multiply by the basis $\basis$ and integrate over $\mathbb{S}^1$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:tissue-moments-2d} \partial_t \mom &= r_D(h) \rho \left( \ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] } - \mom A\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] \right).\end{aligned}$$ It remains to calculate the moments $\ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] }$. Inserting the definitions of $\mathfrak{q}$ and $\Pi$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] } = \int_{\mathbb S^{1}} \int_{\mathbb S^{1}} \basis(\theta) \mpl \cdot \basis(\theta) \mpl \cdot \basis(\theta') |\theta \cdot \theta'| \dd \theta' \dd \theta. \end{aligned}$$ With the tensor $$\begin{aligned} \mathfrak{P}_{k, ij} = \int_{\mathbb S^{1}} \int_{\mathbb S^{1}} \basiscomp[k](\theta) \basiscomp[i](\theta) \basiscomp[j](\theta') |\theta \cdot \theta'| \dd \theta' \dd \theta\end{aligned}$$ we can write the $k$-th component $\ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] }_k$ as $$\begin{aligned} \ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] }_k = \mpl\trans \mathfrak{P}_k \mpl = \mom\trans \left(H\trans[-1] \mathfrak{P}_k H^{-1}\right) \mom. \end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain $A\left[\mathfrak{q}\right]$ from the identity $ \theta_x^2 + \theta_y^2 = 1$: $$\begin{aligned} A\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] = \ints{1 \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] } = \ints{(\theta_x^2 + \theta_y^2) \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] } = \ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] }_{xx} + \ints{\basis \mathfrak{q} \Pi\left[\mathfrak{q}\right] }_{yy}. \end{aligned}$$ The tensor $\mathfrak{P}_{k, ij}$ can be precomputed once and for all with a high-order quadrature. To evaluate each component of the right-hand side of we need to compute only a quadratic form at run time. Note that the normalization $\ints{q} = 1$ results in the loss of an additional degree of freedom. It holds $\tr P = 1$, therefore we can reconstruct $\momcomp[yy] = 1 - \momcomp[xx]$ and only need the evolve the two moments $\momcomp[xx], \momcomp[xy]$ in . #### Remark: *In three dimensions, the previous considerations are completely analogous for the basis $\basis = \begin{pmatrix} \theta_{x}^2 & \theta_{y}^2 & \theta_{z}^2 & \theta_{x}\theta_{y} & \theta_{x}\theta_{z} & \theta_{y}\theta_{z} \end{pmatrix}$.* Hyperbolic scaling, directed tissue ----------------------------------- Here we also aim to investigate the effect of reducing diffusivity that might not be experimentally consistent. In order to achieve this objective and for the sake of completeness, we propose in this subsection to perform a hyperbolic limit that will provide us with a macroscopic vision in which the terms of transport and potentials win the battle over diffusion. We will take advantage of most of the calculations in Subsection \[sec:par-scaling\], that we will omit in part so as not to be repetitive. Finally, in order to try to model a series of effects of a priori minor influence according to the experiments, not contemplated in the model variables, we carry out a “small” extension to the second order of the hyperbolic expansion and compare this double development on the scale with the parabolic approach. In the following we address a version of where we neglect the dependence of the turning rate on the subcellular dynamics, i.e. we consider it to be of the form $\lambda (x)=\frac{\kappa }{FA(x)+1}$ and are interested in the situation of directed tissue. We thus consider the kinetic transport equation $$\begin{aligned} \label{KinEq-hyperb} \partial_t p &+ v \esc \nabla_x p - \partial_z \Big (((k_+Q+k_-)z+f'(Q)(Q_t+v\cdot \nabla Q))p\Big ) + \alpha \div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla _xh) p\Big )\notag \\ &= \lambda (x) L_0(p)+\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho),$$ with $L_0(p)=\bar p(t,x,z) \frac{q(x,\hat v)}{\omega } - p(t,x,v,z)$ having the same properties as in Subsection \[sec:par-scaling\] and perform a hyperbolic scaling $t\to \eps t$, $x\to \eps x$, while the proliferation term is rescaled as previously with $\eps^2$. This leads to $$\begin{aligned} \label{KinEq-hyperb1} \eps \partial_t p &+ \eps v \esc \nabla_x p - \partial_z \Big (((k_+Q+k_-)z+\eps f'(Q)(Q_t+v\cdot \nabla Q))p\Big ) + \alpha \eps \div_v \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla _xh) p\Big )\notag \\ &= \lambda (x) L_0(p)+\eps^2\mathcal P(p,Q,h,\rho).\end{aligned}$$ We now consider a Chapman-Enskog expansion (equivalent here to the Hilbert one, as stated in Subsection \[sec:par-scaling\]), i.e., a decomposition of $p$ into a $Ker(L_0)$-component and a $Ker(L_0)^\bot$-part, as follows: $$\label{chap-ensk} p(t,x,v,z)=\bar p(t,x,z)\frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\omega }+\eps p^\perp(t,x,v,z),$$ where $p^\perp\in \left <\frac{q}{\omega}\right >^\perp$ verifies $\int _Vp^\perp(t,x,v,z)dv=0$. This decomposition leads to the corresponding expansion for the moments of $p$, in particular: $m(t,x,v)=\rho (t,x) \frac{q(t,x,\hat v)}{\omega }+\eps m^\perp(t,x,v,z)$, and then, integrating w.r.t. $z\in Z$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned} \label{KinEq-hyperb2} \eps \partial_t\rho \frac{q}{\omega}+\eps \rho \partial_t(\frac{q}{\omega})+\eps ^2\partial_tm^\perp +\eps v\cdot \nabla_x(\rho \frac{q}{\omega})+\eps ^2v\cdot \nabla _xm^\perp+&\alpha \eps \nabla_v\cdot \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla _xh)m\Big )\notag \\ &=\eps \lambda(x)L_0(m^\perp )+\eps^2\mu(\rho,h)Qm.\end{aligned}$$ Integrate w.r.t. $v$ and divide by $\eps $ to get $$\label{KinEq-hyperb3} \rho _t+\nabla _x\cdot (\rho \tilde {\mathbb E}_q+\eps \int _Vvm^\perp dv)=\eps \rho \mu (\rho,h)Q,$$ where as before $\tilde {\mathbb E}_q(t,x)=\int _Vv\frac{q(t, x,\hat v)}{\omega }dv=s\mathbb E_q(t,x)$. Clearly is drift-dominated; however, it is worth computing the ${\cal O}(\eps)$ correction with respect to the pure drift. From and follows $$\begin{aligned} \label{KinEq-hyperb4} \lambda (x)L_0(m^\perp)&=\eps \frac{q}{\omega}\rho \mu (\rho,h)Q-\frac{q}{\omega}\nabla_x\cdot \Big (\rho \tilde {\mathbb E}_q+\eps \int _Vvm^\perp dv\Big )+\rho \frac{\partial_tq}{\omega}+\eps \partial_tm^\perp +v\cdot \nabla _x(\rho \frac{q}{\omega}+\eps m^\perp)\notag \\ +&\alpha \nabla_v\cdot \Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh)m\Big )-\eps\rho \mu (\rho,h)Q .\end{aligned}$$ Now observe that the integral w.r.t. $v$ of the right hand side in vanishes, so that we can take the (pseudo)inverse of $L_0$ giving (at leading order) $$\begin{aligned} m^\perp\simeq &-\frac{1}{\lambda (x)}\Big [\frac{q}{\omega}(v-\tilde {\mathbb E}_q)\cdot \nabla \rho +\rho \Big (v\cdot \nabla _x\frac{q}{\omega}-\frac{q}{\omega}\nabla_x \cdot \tilde {\mathbb E}_q\Big )+\rho \frac{\partial_tq}{\omega} \\ &+\alpha \nabla _v\cdot\Big (\mathbb B(v) (\nabla_x q(\hat v)-\nabla_xh)m\Big ) \Big ],\end{aligned}$$ hence $$\begin{aligned} \label{vm-orthog} \int _Vvm^\perp dv&\simeq -\frac{1}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\int _Vv\otimes (v-\tilde{\mathbb E}_q)\frac{q}{\omega}dv\ \nabla \rho \\ &+\rho\Big (\nabla_x \cdot \int_Vv\otimes v\frac{q}{\omega}dv -\tilde{\mathbb E}_q\nabla_x \cdot \tilde{\mathbb E}_q\Big )+\rho \partial_t\tilde{\mathbb E}_q-\alpha \rho \Sigma (t,x)\Big )\notag \\ &=-\frac{1}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\nabla _x\cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho)-\rho \tilde{\mathbb E}_q\nabla_x\cdot \tilde{\mathbb E}_q+\rho \partial_t\tilde{\mathbb E}_q-\alpha \rho \Sigma (t,x)\Big ),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb D_T(t,x)$ and $\Sigma (t,x):=S_1(t,x;q)-S_2(t,x;h)$ are as introduced in Section \[sec:par-scaling\] and we observe that $$\begin{aligned} \int _Vv\otimes (v-\tilde{\mathbb E}_q)\frac{q}{\omega}dv=\int _V(v-\tilde{\mathbb E}_q)\otimes (v-\tilde{\mathbb E}_q)\frac{q}{\omega}dv=\mathbb D_T.\end{aligned}$$ Together with this leads to the macroscopic PDE $$\label{macro-hypscale} \rho_t+\nabla \cdot (\rho\tilde{\mathbb E}_q)=\eps \nabla \cdot \Bigg (\frac{1}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbb D_T(t,x))+\rho(\partial_t\tilde{\mathbb E}_q-\tilde{\mathbb E}_q \nabla \cdot \tilde{\mathbb E}_q-\alpha \Sigma(t,x))\Big )\Bigg )+\eps \rho \mu (\rho,h)Q,$$ which is drift-dominated. Notice that for $\mathbb E_q=0$, i.e. if the tissue is undirected, the correction term in has the same form as the right hand side of - except for the middle term therein, which got lost when integrating w.r.t. $z$. In fact, it was the assumption of the turning rate not depending on $z$ which effaced the whole influence of subcellular dynamics. The effect of this is not having the macroscopic haptotaxis term in the $\varepsilon$-correction on the right hand side. Nevertheless we still get the pH-taxis and (mesoscopic) haptotaxis correction terms contained in $$\varepsilon \nabla \cdot \Big (\frac{\alpha}{\lambda (x)}\rho \Sigma (t,x)\Big )=\varepsilon \nabla \cdot \Big (\frac{\alpha}{\lambda (x)}\rho (S_1(t,x;q)-S_2(t,x;h))\Big ).$$ Coupling with the equations and describing tissue and acidity evolution, respectively, leads to challenges similar to those in Section \[sec:par-scaling\]. We need to prescribe boundary conditions. To this aim we consider again a bounded, sufficiently smooth domain $\tilde \Om=\varepsilon \Om \subset \R^N$ and start from a mesoscopic no-flux condition of the form . Using the Chapman-Enskog expansion of $p(t,x,v,z)$ we rewrite this condition as $$\begin{aligned} \Big (\rho(t,x)\tilde{\mathbb E}_q(x)+\varepsilon \int _Z\int _Vvp^\perp(t,x,v,z)dvdz\Big )\cdot \nu (x)=0,\qquad \text{for all }x\in \partial \tilde \Om,\ t>0,\end{aligned}$$ which in virtue of leads to $$\begin{aligned} \Big (-\rho\tilde{\mathbb E}_q+\frac{\varepsilon}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbb D_T(t,x))+\rho(\partial_t\tilde{\mathbb E}_q-\tilde{\mathbb E}_q \nabla \cdot\tilde{\mathbb E}_q-\alpha \Sigma(t,x))\Big )\Big )\cdot \nu (x)=0,\quad x\in \partial \tilde \Om,\ t>0,\end{aligned}$$ meaning that the normal macroscopic flux and its $\varepsilon $-correction vanish on the spatial boundary.\ Thus, in the case with directed tissue and when no subcellular dynamics are taken into account, the macro-meso system to be solved becomes \[macro-hyperbolic-full\] $$\begin{aligned} &\rho_t+s\nabla \cdot (\rho\mathbb E_q)=\eps \nabla \cdot \Bigg (\frac{s^2}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbb V_q(t,x))+\rho(\frac{1}{s}\partial_t\mathbb E_q-\mathbb E_q \nabla\cdot \mathbb E_q-\frac{\alpha}{s^2} \Sigma(t,x))\Big )\Bigg )+\eps \rho \mu (\rho,h)Q\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-cells}\\ &h_t=D_H\Delta h+\frac{a\rho }{1+\rho}-bQ(h-h_0)\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-acid}\\ &\partial _tq(t,x,\theta )=r_D(h)\rho (t,x) q(t,x,\theta )\left (\Pi[p](t,x,\theta)-A[p](t,x)\right ),\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-tissue-q}\\ &\partial_tQ=r_D(h)\rho Q(A[p]-1)\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-tissue-Q}\\ &\partial_tn=r_D(h)\rho Q\left (1-A [p]\right ) +\mathcal F(h,\rho, Q),\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-necrotic}\end{aligned}$$ with $\Pi[p]$ and $A[p]$ as given in and , respectively. Observe that upon assuming the tisue to be undirected (i.e. that $\mathbb E_q=0$), takes the form of , which was obtained by parabolic scaling, with the difference of the right hand side of the glioma dynamics being scaled here by $\eps$. As for the parabolic limit, in the dependence of the featured operators on the mesoscopic cell distribution function $p$ is inconvenient, so we use the same approach as in Subsection \[BC-approx-projections\] to approximate $\Pi[p]$ and $A[p]$ by and , respectively. Notice that in the present case (directed tissue) we can rewrite $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_a[q](t,x,\theta )&=\theta \cdot \mathbb E_q(t,x)\\ A[q](t,x)&=\mathbb E_q(t,x)\cdot \mathbb E_q(t,x)\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, can be replaced by $$\begin{aligned} \partial _tq(t,x,\theta )=r_D(h)\rho (t,x) q(t,x,\theta )(\theta \cdot \mathbb E_q(t,x)-\mathbb E_q^2(t,x)),\end{aligned}$$ hence we can compute $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t\mathbb E_q=r_D(h)\rho (\mathbb V_q+\mathbb E_q\otimes \mathbb E_q-\mathbb E_q^2\mathbb I_N)\cdot \mathbb E_q\end{aligned}$$ and plug it into . Let us denote $$\begin{aligned} \mathbb T_q:=\frac{1}{s}r_D(h)\rho (\mathbb V_q+\mathbb E_q\otimes \mathbb E_q-\mathbb E_q^2\mathbb I_N)\cdot \mathbb E_q-\mathbb E_q\nabla \cdot \mathbb E_q.\end{aligned}$$ Then altogether the system becomes \[macro-hyperbolic-full-neu\] $$\begin{aligned} &\rho_t+\nabla \cdot (\rho\mathbb E_q)=\eps \nabla \cdot \Bigg (\frac{s^2}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbb V_q(t,x))+\rho(\mathbb T_q-\frac{\alpha}{s^2} \Sigma(t,x))\Big )\Bigg )+\eps \rho \mu (\rho,h)Q\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-cells-neu}\\ &h_t=D_H\Delta h+\frac{a\rho }{1+\rho}-bQ(h-h_0)\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-acid-neu}\\ &\partial _tq=r_D(h)\rho q(\theta \cdot \mathbb E_q-\mathbb E_q^2)\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-tissue-q-neu}\\ &\partial_tQ=r_D(h)\rho Q(\mathbb E_q^2-1)\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-tissue-Q-neu}\\ &\partial_tn=r_D(h)\rho Q\left (1-\mathbb E_q^2\right ) +\mathcal F(h,\rho, Q),\label{macro-hyperbolic-full-necrotic-neu}\end{aligned}$$ with $\theta \in \mathbb S^{N-1}$, $t>0$, and $x\in\tilde \Om $. The functions $\mu(\rho,h)$ and $\mathcal F(h,\rho, Q)$ are still those given in and , respectively. The equations are completed by initial conditions as in Subsection \[BC-approx-projections\] and by the no-flux boundary conditions $\nabla h\cdot \nu=0$ on $\partial \tilde \Om$ and $$\begin{aligned} \Big (-s\rho\mathbb E_q+\frac{s^2\varepsilon}{\lambda (x)}\Big (\nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbb V_q(t,x))+\rho(\mathbb T_q(t,x)-\frac{\alpha}{s^2} \Sigma(t,x))\Big )\Big )\cdot \nu (x)=0,\quad x\in \partial \tilde \Om,\ t>0.\end{aligned}$$ Numerics {#sec:numerics} ======== In this section the equations obtained by parabolic upscaling are solved numerically. Simulations are conducted for three scenarios of increasing complexity. In each scenario we describe a set of assumptions simplifying the equations. This allows for directly investigating the relative importance of the different effects included in our model. The results are presented in Subsection \[subsec:numerical results\]. For convenience we state in brevity the exact macroscopic systems of PDEs for the considered scenarios: 1. We assume that neither $q$ nor $Q$ depend on time, thus can be assessed from the DTI data. We follow previous works, starting from a pre-assigned directional distribution $q$ (peanut) and independently estimate $Q$ using the approach in [@EHS; @Hunt; @HS] relying on Brownian motion description of water molecule diffusion.[^5] The system then reduces to , , merely featuring myopic diffusion, pH-taxis, and transport terms with drift velocities computed from the data, together with the necrosis dynamics with $r_D(h)=0$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho =&\nabla _x\cdot \Big [\frac{1}{\lambda _0(x)}\Big (\nabla _x\cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho ) -\lambda_1(x)g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho - \alpha S_1(t,x;q)\rho + \frac{\alpha}{h_0} S_2(t,x;h)\rho\Big )\Big ]\nonumber\\ &+Q \rho \eta (1-\rho-n)\frac{(h_T-h)_+}{h_0} -\gamma \frac{h}{h_0} \rho Q \\ \partial_t h =&D_H \Delta h+\frac{a\rho }{1+\rho}-bQ(h-h_0)\\ \partial_t n =& \mathcal F(h,\rho, Q). \end{aligned}$$ 2. $Q$ evolves in time, meaning that the tissue is degrading irrespective of the fibre orientations (hence the anisotropy does not play any role in the degradation). Here $A[q]$ is zero. This corresponds to an indirect depletion, i.e. not upon contact with glioma cells, but rather through the acidity they produce. Consequently, the macroscopic system simplifies to $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \rho =&\nabla _x\cdot \Big [\frac{1}{\lambda _0(x)}\Big (\nabla _x\cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho ) -\lambda_1(x)g(Q,\lambda _0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho - \alpha S_1(t,x;q)\rho + \alpha S_2(t,x;h)\rho\Big )\Big ]\nonumber\\ &+Q \rho \eta (1-\rho-n)\frac{(h_T-h)_+}{h_0} -\gamma \frac{h}{h_0} \rho Q \\ \partial_t Q =& -r_D(h)\rho Q\\ \partial_t h =&D_H\Delta h+\frac{a \rho}{1+\rho}-bQ (h-h_0)\\ \partial_t n =&r_D(h)\rho Q + \mathcal F(h,\rho, Q). \end{aligned}$$ 3. Both $q$ and $Q$ evolve and the full system is solved. Numerical discretization ------------------------ The equations were discretized by the method of lines approach in all three cases. For the spatial discretization we used a vertex centered finite volume method. The mesh is naturally structured because of the underlying medical dataset. The mesh width $h=2mm$ is imposed by the particular DTI dataset, which is publicly available [@camino]. The reconstructed diffusion tensors were averaged with a component-wise arithmetic mean at the control volume interfaces. The advective fluxes were approximated by a first order upwind discretization. The no-flux barrier between the brain and the background were implemented by suppressing flux assembly at the relevant cell interfaces[^6]. The integration of the reaction terms coupling the evolving fields was performed by a first order midpoint rule at the cell centers. As an initial condition we used a small Gaußian peak as an approximation of the tumor and took for the spatial distribution of the acidity field $h$ the uniform steady-state of . The initial condition for necrotic matter was simply $n=0$. The time discretization was realized by an implicit Euler scheme. The resulting nonlinear system was solved via Newton iteration which internally used a BiCGSTAB solver preconditioned via AMG with an SSOR smoother [@BiCGSTAB]. ### Software The implementation was performed within the DUNE software framework [@BBD; @BBD2], specifically with the dune-pdelab discretization module[@dune24:16; @dune-pdelab]. The BiCGSTAB solver and the AMG were provided by the iterative solver template library dune-istl [@dune-istl]. Choice of simulation parameters and coefficient functions --------------------------------------------------------- In Table \[tab:parameters\] we present the parameters used throughout all numerical simulations, their meaning, and their respective sources. We can also assess the parabolic scaling parameter $$\eps =\frac{s}{\kappa X}\simeq 2\cdot 10^{-6},$$ where we use $X=0.06\ m$ as a reference length, corresponding to the side length of he plots in e.g., Figure \[fig:scenario3-fields\]). This value indicates that the parabolic limit is an adequate approximation to the kinetic model for the chosen parameters. Let us also highlight here the role of the scaling parameter $ \alpha $. It is influenced by the position gradients of $q$ and $h$ (involved in $ \Sigma $) and hence should be a large quantity, say of the order $\frac{1}{\gamma} \eps^ {- \gamma} $ for some $ \gamma> 0 $. This is similar to what happens when we perform hyperbolic scaling in a fairly similar kinetic framework (see [@BCNS; @PS]), where hydrodynamic limits with dominant drift are obtained, but where the small diffusion correction of a non-diffusive limit can be made explicit by displaying the dependency of $\eps $ on all scaling parameters. In the present context $\gamma $ should be a parameter related to smaller scales, such as the microtubule (MT) extension zones that are responsible for the biochemical and biomechanical exchange of cells with their environment [@Gradilla; @Tom]. The length of microtubules is between $5$ and $8$ cell units [@Portela], whereas a glioma cell has a diameter of ca. $15 \mu m = 15\times 10^{-3 } mm$ [@bionumbers]. This means that the regions of MTs that would correspond to the tumor front have a length around $100 \mu m = 0.1mm$. Then, the parameter $\gamma$ will represent the ratio of such MT area with respect to the whole tumor; here we take $\gamma = 0.001$. Therefore, and in view of the above choice of $\eps$, the parameter $ \alpha $ is taken here of the order of $10^3$. The coefficient functions involved in the simulations are summarized below: $$\begin{split} & \text{For all scenarios:}\quad \mathcal F(h,\rho, Q)=\gamma \frac{h}{h_0}\rho Q,\qquad \\[1ex] & \lambda_0=\frac{\kappa f(Q)}{FA+f(Q)},\qquad \lambda_1=\frac{\kappa FA}{(FA+f(Q))^2},\qquad f(Q)=\frac{k_+Q}{k_+ Q + k_-}\\[1ex] &f'(Q)=\frac{k_+ k_-}{(k_+ Q + k_-)^2},\qquad g(Q,\lambda _0)=\frac{f'(Q)}{k_+Q+k_- + \lambda _0},\qquad r_D(h)=r_0\left (\frac{h}{h_0}-1\right )_+. \\[1ex] & \text{For Scenario 1:}\quad Q(x)= 1-\Big(\frac{tr(\mathbb{D_W}(x))}{\lambda_{max}}\Big)^{\frac{3}{2}},\qquad \mathbb D_T(x)=\frac{s^2}{(N+2)} \Big( \mathbb I_N + 2 \frac{\mathbb{D_W}(x)}{tr(\mathbb{D_W}(x))} \Big), \end{split}$$ with $\lambda_{max}$ denoting the maximum eigenvalue of the water diffusion tensor $\mathbb D_W$. **parameter** **value** **meaning** **source** --------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------ $s$ 50 ($\mu $m/h) ($=$ 1.389e-8 m/s) cell speed [@Milo] $\alpha$ $10^3$ ($1$) weight for advective terms estimated $\kappa$ 0.1 (1/s) maximum turning frequency estimated $h_0$ 1.0e-7.2 (mol/l) healthy acidity value [@vaupel] $h_T$ 1.995e-07 (mol/l) threshold of possible proliferation [@vaupel] $D_H$ $0.5e-03 \ (mm^2/s)$ diffusion coefficient of protons [@lide] $a$ $2.2e-17$ (mol $cm^3 (cells\cdot sec)^{-1}$) acid production rate [@martin] $b$ 0.8e-04 (1/sec) proton buffering by healthy tissue [@Ma-Ga] $\eta$ 0.26e-06 (1/sec) tumor proliferation rate [@mercap] $k_{+}$ 0.034 (1/sec) attachment rate of tumor cells to tissue [@lauffi] $k_{-}$ 0.01 (1/sec) cell detachment rate [@lauffi] $\gamma$ 5e-08 (1/sec) acid-induced death rate of tumor cells [@swanson] $r_0$ 1.0e-6 (1/(mol sec)) efficiency of fiber degradation estimated : Full set of parameters for the numerical simulations[]{data-label="tab:parameters"} Numerical results {#subsec:numerical results} ----------------- We focus the presentation of the numerical results on those aspects where the new model and its extension, in particular by including tissue dynamics, produce new qualitative effects. Computations were conducted with a simulated time of $52$ weeks. We first present line plots from the coordinate origin through the tumor to the upper right of the domain in order to visualize and discuss the evolution of the involved fields. This helps to establish the general dynamics of the model in Subsection \[subsubsec:dynamic\]. We present the final states of the involved fields in \[subsubsec:states\] and investigate in Subsection \[subsubsec:dominant\_effects\] which advective effect is playing a dominant role with respect to the tumor extent and appearance. We then directly compare the solutions of the three considered scenarios in Subsection \[subsubsec:compare\_scenarios\], and address in Subsection \[subsubsec:tumor\_grading\] the grading of a tumor upon relying on the numerical results, particularly with respect to the amount of necrotic matter. We also suggest in Subsection \[subsubsec:dose\_painting\] how the simulations of the model could be used to perform dose painting for radiation treatment. ### Scenario 3: overall dynamics {#subsubsec:dynamic} Figure \[fig:scenario3-lineout\] shows the amplitude of the four fields $\rho,n,Q$ for densities of tumor cells, necrotic matter, and macroscopic tissue, respectively, and for the proton concentration field $h$ converted to its corresponding $pH$-value (right scale) at three distinct points in time. The uppermost plot indicates the initial condition we chose for the $\rho$- and $h$ fields, progressing then downwards with the simulation time. As the tumor density $\rho $ increases due to the proliferation (thus also leading to an increase in acidity concentration) the cells start to accumulate at the interface with tissue due to pH-taxis and meso- and macroscopic haptotaxis. The sustained expression of protons (lower pH) leads to necrotic core formation and growth. The total neoplasm is considered to be made up by the densities of necrotic matter $n$ and living tumor cells $\rho$. At the final stage of the simulation, the former represents the largest part of the neoplasm ($n>0.6$), with a comparatively small density (approx. $\rho<0.2$) of living tumor cells. This is consistent with high grade tumors typically observed in clinical practice [@Hammoud1996; @raza]. ### Scenario 3: solution components at the end of simulation {#subsubsec:states} In Figure \[fig:scenario3-fields\] we show the final states of the four fields of Scenario 3, overlain with the main axis of the water diffusion tensor $\mathbb{D}_w$ from the DTI data sets, as well as the direction of the combined advective fields. The dominant $S_2$ term describing repellent pH-taxis results in active transport of tumor mass away from the center. Similarly to the line plots presented earlier in Figure \[fig:scenario3-lineout\], we can identify a reduction of active tumor cells and tissue degradation within the acidic core area of the neoplasm, where necrosis is growing instead. ### Scenario 3: study of dominant advective effects {#subsubsec:dominant_effects} To evaluate the relative importance of the four advective terms within the model, we investigated their dynamically changing magnitudes. We include the dynamic scaling term $1/\lambda_0(x)$ in these presentations. Figure \[fig:scenario3-overview\] shows the fractional anisotropy of the underlying data set, the magnitudes of $S_1, S_2$, and the magnitude of all combined advective terms at 52 weeks simulation time. For the literature-based parameter set in Table \[tab:parameters\] the chemotactic term $S_2$ is orders of magnitudes stronger than the other advective fields in this late stage of tumor progression. In the bottom right plot of Figure \[fig:scenario3-overview\] it can be observed that the dominant advective effect at the proliferation front is given by $S_2$, while the other effects may only contribute significantly in the absence of acidity gradients, i.e. beyond the visible tumor margins. We also investigated in Figure \[fig:adv\_tests\] the relative importance of the different advective effects by successively excluding them in the simulation runs. That way, the total time-integrated effect of inclusion and exclusion of the terms could be investigated. The repellent pH-taxis described by the $S_2$-term was found to have the most dominant effect on the tumor density, but the haptotaxis terms also contribute to establishing low-density areas at the tumor edges. Given the infiltrative spread of glioma cells and post-treatment tumor recurrence which is mainly due to such relatively small cell aggregates located further away from the main tumor mass, such margins might be relevant for treatment planning, especially as far as radiotherapy is concerned (see also Subsection \[subsubsec:dose\_painting\]). ### Comparison between model scenarios {#subsubsec:compare_scenarios} In the following we compare the simulation results for Scenarios 1-3 with identical initial condition, in order to find out whether there are any potentially relevant differences. Figure \[fig:scenario\_compare\] shows the density $\rho+n$ of the neoplasm after 52 weeks. As expected, Scenario 3 involving three-fold taxis and myopic diffusion predicts the largest tumor spread, with the most substantial difference being that w.r.t. Scenario 1. It is a modeling problem in itself to predict how living cells and necrotic matter influence the gray scale images in different ways. A direct comparison of Scenarios 2 and 3 with medical images is therefore not possible without knowing the underlying mapping of the two species to the MRI gray scale imaging. However, the distinction of $\rho$ and $n$ allows deeper insights into the dynamics of the tumor expansion. The two plots in the second row of Figure \[fig:scenario\_compare\] illustrate the differences between the densities $\rho+n$ after 52 simulated weeks, computed upon using Scenarios 3-2, and 3-1. Thus, the latter comparison shows that taking into account the evolution of normal tissue is of high relevance, while considering the dynamics of mesoscopic tissue distribution $q$ (i.e the step from Scenario 2 to 3) is contributing less (please note the different scales of the color maps therein). Hence, the evolution of macroscopic tissue density $Q$ seems to contribute most to the prediction of tumor spread. On the other hand, the dynamics of mesoscopic tissue $q$ contributes to substantially modifying the fractional anisotropy FA, which is a key observable in the DTI imaging of brain tumors. Our new model allows to directly model the depletion of brain structure and the therewith associated changes in FA, as indicated in Figure \[fig:tissue\_dynamics\]. The two plots of the first row show the initial fractional anisotropy and how it is diminished by the tumor growth after 52 weeks, again overlain by the direction of the total advective fields. The plot on the second row illustrates the difference in FA between the final and the initial simulation times.\ The results indicate that tissue dynamics can be seen as a downstream effect, after tumor density and acidity have changed from baseline. The differences in $FA$ are therefore most prominent closer to the tumor center, and not so much at the invasion edge. Scenario 3 is more complex and requires more effort to treat, but beyond the differences put in evidence in Figures \[fig:scenario\_compare\] and \[fig:tissue\_dynamics\] it also provides a framework for a careful description of macroscopic tissue dynamics - along with its effects on the other solution components. Still with the aim of investigating the influence of evolving tissue, we also compare a reduced version of Scenario 3 with a previous model obtained in [@Painter-Hillen] and accounting for the effect of tissue anisotropy on the migration of glioma cells, however with fixed tissue. Specifically, we compare the PDE $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:PH-model} \rho_t=\nabla \nabla : \left (\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\mathbb D_T\rho \right )+\eta \rho (1-\rho)\end{aligned}$$ which is a slight modification of that in [@Painter-Hillen], by adding the proliferation term and letting $\lambda_0$ be nonconstant, but depend on $x$ like in the rest of this paper, with the system \[eq:red\_scenario3\] $$\begin{aligned} &\rho_t=\nabla \cdot \left (\frac{1}{\lambda _0}\nabla \cdot (\mathbb D_T\rho)-\lambda _1g(Q,\lambda_0)\mathbb D_T\nabla Q\rho -\alpha S_1(q)\rho \right )+\eta \rho (1-\rho)\\ &q_t=r_0\rho q\left (\Pi_a[q]-A[q]\right)\\ &Q_t=r_0\rho Q\left (A[q]-1\right ),\end{aligned}$$ both with the same initial conditions and no-flux boundary conditions and the same function $\lambda_0$. Figure \[fig:comp\_PH\_plots\] shows the computation results. Note that none of the two model makes any distinction between active and necrotic tumor. The complete tumor mass is encoded in $\rho$. As before, the evolution of tissue leads to substantial changes in FA, although the dynamics of acidity and its influence are absent in these settings. The simulations predict a larger area of glioma spread when the cells are allowed to degrade the tissue; although there are rather small amounts of tumor cells in the enlarged regions, these might be relevant for tumor recurrence. Model leads to higher cell densities at the core of the neoplasm, due to the migrating cells only performing myopic diffusion and not being supplementary driven by haptotaxis. \[fig:comp\_PH\_plots\] ### Tumor grading and importance of tissue evolution {#subsubsec:tumor_grading} Tumor grade assessment is decisive for the treatment planning of glioma and for patient survival prognosis. Typically, glioma are classified according to cell activity and tumor aggressiveness, upon relying on a series of indicators, including histological patterns [@brat; @wippold] and tumor composition. Among these, grading by the amount of necrosis relative to the whole tumor volume (both visible via biomedical imaging) has been addressed e.g., in [@Hammoud1996; @kros; @raza]. In fact, [@Hammoud1996] observed that ’location and volume of tumors were not statistically significant predictors of survival’, which is in accordance to most conducted studies, as reviewed e.g. in [@Henker]. We therefore address here only necrosis-based grading. In [@Hammoud1996] the percentage of necrotic matter visible on MRI is related to the total visible tumor volume. An attempt at tumor grading by way of connecting the results of numerical simulations for our model to this definition proves to be difficult without in-depth information on how the tissue types (e.g., obtained by segmentation) affect the MRI shading. The numerical results of our model do not contain any thresholding or shading effects, therefore we define the time-dependent grade $G(t)\in [0,1]$ of the simulated tumors via: $$G(t):= \frac{V_{n}(t)}{V_{n}(t) +V_{\rho}(t)} \label{eq:tumor_grade_def}$$ where $V_{n}(t)$ and $V_{\rho}(t)$ denote integrals over the whole space domain $\Omega$ of the necrosis and living cell densities $n(t,x)$ and $\rho(t,x)$, respectively. We investigate then the evolution of this quantity over time, upon being guided by the percentage classification in [@Hammoud1996]: $0<G<25\%$: grade 1; $25\%\le G< 50\%$: grade 2; $G\ge 50$: grade 3, with the highest grade corresponding to the most aggressive tumor and the poorest prognosis. ![Grade of tumor for the three considered Scenarios. $G$ is essentially the same for Scenarios 2 and 3, whereas in Scenario 1 (with the same parameter choice) it exhibits significantly slower progress. Full information is assumed, so that there is no visibility threshold. Scenario 1 predicts the progression from grade 1 towards grade 2 after about 28 weeks, whereas in Scenarios 2 and 3 it needs only about 5 weeks. The progression to grade 3 occurs after about 16 weeks for Scenarios 2 and 3. For Scenario 1 it does not happen within the simulated time of 52 weeks (recall that the median survival time of patients with glioma is approx. 60 weeks [@wrensch]).[]{data-label="fig:necrotic_grading"}](./data/postprocessing/scenario_123_tissue_grading.png){width="\linewidth"} Figure \[fig:necrotic\_grading\] illustrates the evolution of the tumor grade for the three considered scenarios. We found only tiny differences between the grades for Scenarios 2 and 3, whereas the difference in tumor grade progression between Scenarios 1 and 2 is substantial. The definition of grade $G$ effectively skips grade 0, as there is no threshold on the visibility of the necrotic tissue density $n$. The fact that Scenario 1 fails to predict tumor progression into grade 3 in due (biomedically realistic) time might be an indicator of Scenario 1 being insufficient for modeling glioma dynamics, thus endorsing the role played by tissue evolution. ### Dose painting {#subsubsec:dose_painting} Beyond tumor grading based on assessment of necrotic matter and heterogeneity of the neoplasm, the model can provide valuable information about the extent and shape of the tumor and hence help establishing the contours for radiation treatment. The ability to predict space-time densities of clonogens as well as necrosis opens the way for more accurate tumor segmentation and dose painting. Figure \[fig:dose\_painting\] shows a gray scale image of the computed neoplasm ($\rho +n$) for a simulated time of 52 weeks. Level sets for the density of living glioma cells are shown, thus providing information about the regions where higher radiation doses should be applied in order to eradicate the active cells, at the same time sparing areas where their density is lower (either as a consequence of necrosis - in the tumor core, or due to less cells having invaded the healthy tissue at the tumor margins). Discussion {#sec:discussion} ========== We proposed in this paper a novel model for glioma invasion, which takes into account the interaction with the biochemical and biophysical tumor microenvironment, represented here by acidity acting as a repellent and, respectively, oriented tissue fibers guiding the cell migration. Both environmental components, most prominently the acidity, also influence the growth or depletion of tumor cells. The modeling approach has a multiscale character: it starts from ODE descriptions of single cell (position, velocity, activity variable) dynamics, which are translated into a kinetic transport equation for the space-time distribution function of cells sharing the same regimes of velocity and activity variables, and eventually arrives at a macroscopic PDE for the evolution of the whole tumor as a population of such cells performing myopic diffusion and multiple taxis. The cell behavior is thereby dynamically coupled to that of the environment, the latter featuring a system of macroscopic and mesoscopic (integro-)differential equations with dependencies on space, time, and orientation of tissue fibers. We refer to [@KSSSL] for a review of existing models of cell migration with multiple taxis and therewith associated challenges. The diffusion and taxis coefficients of the PDE obtained here for the cell density and the source terms of the equations for meso- and macrocopic tissue and necrosis densities involve nonlocalities w.r.t. the orientations of tissue fibers and cell velocities; see [@CPSZ] for a review of models for cell migration involving this and other types of nonlocality. There are several alternative ways to include cell level environmental influences in a KTAP modeling framework, ultimately leading in the macroscopic limit to taxis terms: - by using in the operator describing velocity reorientations turning rates which depend on the pathwise gradient of one or several signals, as done e.g. in [@LoPr20; @OtHi]; - by describing the dynamics of activity variables for the cell state, which translates into corresponding transport terms in the kinetic equations and turning rates depending on the activity variable(s), see [@CKSS; @EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hunt; @HS] for glioma interacting with tissue and e.g., [@EO04; @XueOth09] for swimming bacteria biased by some chemoattractant; - by accounting for biochemical and/or biophysical effects translated into cell stress and forces acting on the cells and leading to transport terms w.r.t. the velocity variable in the kinetic PDE on the mesolevel, see [@CHP] for the case of cancer cells responding to a ’chemotaxis force’ proportional to the gradient of a given chemoattractant concentration; - by considering turning operators where the cell reorientation depends on the interaction with (some of) the environmental cues and using equilibrium distributions for the moment closure, as e.g. in [@CHP]. While (i) and (iv) have a rather mesoscopic flavor, (ii) and (iii) refer closer to microscopic, single cell descriptions, therefore we employed in this work a combination of the latter: (ii) led to the macroscopic haptotaxis term, while (iii) with the description of cell stress and associated, speed-preserving forces acting on glioma cells yielded the terms characterizing repellent pH-taxis and mesoscopic haptotaxis. Notice that the coupling with evolving acidity and macro- and mesoscopic tissue led to genuine taxis, unlike previous models [@CKSS; @EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Hunt; @HS] where the tactic cue (e.g., macroscopic tissue) was only space-dependent. To our knowledge dynamics of such complexity has not been treated in previous works, neither numerically nor from an analytical viewpoint. In [@Painter09] were performed interesting simulations on the kinetic level for a simpler model of cells migrating through the extracellular matrix with oriented fibers, which they degrade according to certain rules. Our closed macro-meso description has the advantage of a lower dimensional phase space, thus allowing -among others- to accommodate even further possibly relevant biological effects with a rather detailed description via (ii) and/or (iii), without facing problems due to a prohibitive increase of the number of kinetic variables and therewith associated computational costs. Concerning possible relationships between (i)-(iv), it has been proved in [@PeTaWa] that (ii) actually implied (iii) under certain assumptions on the subcellular dynamics for a model of bacterial run-and-tumble swimming. In [@KuSu20] such connection was investigated in a less rigorous way for a model describing glioma pseudopalisade patterning under the influence of repellent pH-taxis and anisotropic, but non-evolving tissue. In order to pass from the KTAP framework to effective equations for the tumor spread we performed here a hyperbolic as well as a parabolic upscaling, according to the underlying tissue being directed or not. The latter is still not clarified from a biological viewpoint; the study (via numerical simulations) performed in [@KuSu20] for the mentioned model of glioma pseudopalisades revealed that such patterns which are invariably observed on histological samples of high grade tumors [@brat; @wippold] formed in due time when using the system obtained in the parabolic limit, while the hyperbolic scaling led to a drift-dominated system predicting only a rapid shift of the initial aggregate of glioma cells towards the leading tissue orientation, without pattern development. This suggests that brain tissue might be undirected and induced us here to perform numerical simulations only for the equations obtained by parabolic scaling. Our model makes use of DTI data and accounts for the evolution of brain tissue, transferring biomedical information through the directional distribution of tissue fibers. As mentioned before, this information belongs to both micro and macro worlds and they coexist in the macroscopic limit. In Subsection \[sec:par-scaling\] we put in evidence the versatility of this model w.r.t. the influence of (spatially varying) tissue anisotropy in characterizing the tumor spread, thereby also considering the impact of hypoxia. In fact, our study of dominant advective effects suggests that pH-taxis is the dominating drift - at least as far as this model and its parameterization are concerned. In this work we used the approaches (ii) and (iii) to describe cell-tissue interactions and (iii) for the response of cells to acidity. This led to the anisotropy-triggered switch between myopic diffusion with ’meso-haptotaxis’ and the migratory behavior with the supplementary ’macro-haptotaxis’. Instead, using (ii) for cell-acid interplay and correspondingly define the turning rate would conduct to a hypoxia-triggered switch. Several other options of combining (ii) and/or (iii) can be conceived as well, raising further questions about the relationship of these alternative approaches. How appropriate a particular model is for a specific problem eventually depends on a multitude of factors and can properly be assessed when validated with adequate patient data. The current high costs of collecting such data still keeps a reliable validation out of reach, but the unprecedented development of biomedical technology during the last decade gives hope of it becoming available in the near future. Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered} =============== GC, CE, AK, CS, and MW acknowledge funding by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF in the project *GlioMaTh* 05M2016. This work has been also partially supported by the MINECO-Feder (Spain) research grant number RTI2018-098850-B-I00, the Junta de Andalucía (Spain) Project PY18-RT-2422 & A-FQM-311-UGR18 (JN, JS). We also thank our cooperation partners C. Berdel, Y. Dzierma, S. Knobe, W. Reith, and C. Rübe from the Saarland University Hospital for their support and interesting meetings and discussions on glioma cancer and its treatment. [\[999\]]{} https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?s=n&v=0&id=108941. P. Basser, Diffusion and diffusion tensor MR imaging:fundamentals. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain and Spine (S. Atlas ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams, 2008, pp. 1752–1767. P. Bastian, M. Blatt, A. Dedner et al, A generic grid interface for parallel and adaptive scientific computing. Part I: abstract framework. Computing 82 (2008) 103–119. P. Bastian, M. Blatt, A. Dedner et al, A generic grid interface for parallel and adaptive scientific computing. Part II: implementation and tests in DUNE. Computing 82 (2008) 121–138. P. Bastian, F. Heimann, S. Marnach, Generic implementation of finite element methods in the Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment (DUNE). Kybernetika 46 (2010), 294–315. N. Bellomo. Modeling Complex Living Systems. Birkäuser, Boston, 2008. N. Bellomo, A. Bellouquid, J. Nieto, J. Soler, On the asymptotic theory from microscopic to macroscopic growing tissue models: an overview with perspectives. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 22 (2012), 1130001, 37 pages. A. Bellouquid, J. Calvo, J. Nieto, J. Soler, Hyperbolic vs parabolic asymptotics in kinetic theory towards fluid dynamic models, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 73(4) (2013) 1327–1346. S. Benedetto, R. Pulito, S. Geninatti Crich, G. Tarone, S. Aime, L. Silengo, J. Hamm, Quantification of the Expression Level of Integrin Receptor $\alpha _v\beta _3$ in Cell Lines and MR Imaging With Antibody-Coated Iron Oxide Particles. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 56 (2006) 711–716. T. Beppu, T. Inoue, Y. Shibata, A. Kurose, H. Arai, K. Ogasawara, A. Ogawa, S. Nakamura, H. Kabasawa, Measurement of fractional anisotropy using diffuson tensor MRI in supratentorial astrocytic tumors. J Neuro Oncol 63 (2003) 109–116. M. Blatt, P. Bastian, The Iterative Solver Template Library. Proc. of the 8th intern. conf. on Applied Parallel Computing: State of the Art in Scientific Computing, 2007, 666–675. M. Blatt, A. Burchardt, A. Dedner, Ch. Engwer, J. Fahlke, B. Flemisch, Ch. Gersbacher, C. Gräser, F. Gruber, Ch. Grüninger, D. Kempf, R. Kl[ö]{}fkorn, T. Malkmus, S. Müthing, M. Nolte, M. Piatkowski, O. Sander, The Distributed and Unified Numerics Environment, Version 2.4. Archive of Numerical Software, 2016. P. Bondiau, O. Clatz, M. Sermesant, P. Marcy, H. Delignette, M. Frenay, N. Ayache, Biocomputing: numerical simulation of glioblastoma growth using diffusion tensor imaging. Phys. Med. Biol., 53 (2008) 879–893. D. J. Brat, A. A. Castellano-Sanchez, S. B. Hunter, M. Pecot, C. Cohen, E. H Hammond, S. N Devi, B. Kaur, E. G. Van Meir, Pseudopalisades in glioblastoma are hypoxic, express extracellular matrix proteases, and are formed by an actively migrating cell population, Cancer Research 64 (2004) 920–927. T.A. Brunner, J.P. Holloway, Two-dimensional time dependent Riemann solvers for neutron transport. J. comp. Phys. 210 (2005) 386-399. L. Calorini, S. Peppicelli, and F. Bianchini, Extracellular acidity as favoring factor of tumor progression and metastatic dissemination. Exp. Oncol. 34 (2012) 79–84. Camino: Open-Source Diffusion-MRI Reconstruction and Processing, 14th Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2006. J. Chiche, M.C. Brahimi-Horn, J. Pouysségur, Tumour hypoxia induces a metabolic shift causing acidosis: A common feature in cancer. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 14 (2010) 771–794. A. Chauvière, T. Hillen, L. Preziosi, Modeling cell movement in anisotropic and heterogeneous network tissues. Networks & Heterogeneous Media 2 (2007) 333–357. L. Chen, K. Painter, C. Surulescu, A. Zhigun, Mathematical models for cell migration: a non-local perspective. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (in press) arXiv:1911.05200v1. O. Clatz, M. Sermesant, P. Bondiau, H. Delignette, S. Warfield, G. Malandain, N. Ayache, Realistic simulation of the 3D growth of brain tumors in MRI images coupling diffusion with biomechanical deformation. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, 24 (2005), 1334–1346. M. Conte, L. Gerardo-Giorda, M. Groppi, Glioma invasion and its interplay with the nervous tissue: a multiscale model. J. Theor. Biol. 486 (2020): 110088 G. Corbin, A. Hunt, A. Klar, F. Schneider, C. Surulescu, Higher-order models for glioma invasion: from a two-scale description to effective equations for mass density and momentum, Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 28 (2018) 1771-1800. M. Descoteaux, High angular resolution diffusion MRI: from local estimation to segmentation and tractography. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Nice-Sophia Antipolis, 2008. C. Engwer, T. Hillen, M. Knappitsch, C. Surulescu, Glioma Follow White Matter Tracts; a Multiscale DTI-based Model, J. of Math. Biol. 71 (2015) 551–582. C. Engwer, A. Hunt, C. Surulescu, Effective equations for anisotropic glioma spread with proliferation: a multiscale approach, IMA J. Mathematical Medicine & Biology 33 (2016) 435-459. C. Engwer, M. Knappitsch, C. Surulescu, A multiscale model for glioma spread including cell-tissue interactions and proliferation, Math. Biosc. Eng. 13 (2016) 443–460. R. Erban, H.G. Othmer, From Individual to Collective Behavior in Bacterial Chemotaxis, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 65 (2004) 361–391. V. Estrella, T. Chen, M. Lloyd, J. Wojtkowiak, H. H. Cornnell, A. Ibrahim-Hashim, K. Bailey, Y. Balagurunathan, J. M. Rothberg, B. F. Sloane, J. Johnson, R. A. Gatenby, R. J. Gillies, Acidity generated by the tumor microenvironment drives local invasion. Cancer Res, 73 (2013) 1524–1535. P.T. Fletcher, S. Joshi, Riemannian geometry for the statistical analysis of diffusion tensor data. Signal Processing 87 (2007) 250–262. H.B. Frieboes, J.S. Lowengrub, S. Wise, X. Zheng, P. Macklin, E. Bearer, V. Cristini, Computer Simulation of Glioma Growth and Morphology, Neuroimage 37 (2007), S59–S70. A. Giese, L. Kluwe, H. Meissner, M.E. Berens, M. Westphal, Migration of human glioma cells on myelin, Neurosurgery 38 (1996), 755–764. A. Giese, M. Westphal, Glioma invasion in the central nervous system, Neurosurgery, 39 (1996) 235–252. L. González-Méndez, A. C. Gradilla, I. Guerrero, The cytoneme connection: direct long-distance signal transfer during development. Development 146(9), dev174607 (2019). M.A. Hammoud, R. Sawaya, W. Shi, P.F. Thall, N.E. Leeds: Prognostic significance of preoperative MRI scans in glioblastoma multiforme, J. Neurooncol. 27 (1996) 65–73. H. Hatzikirou, A. Deutsch: Cellular automata as microscopic models of cell migration in heterogeneous environments, Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 81 (2008) 401–434. C. Henker, T. Kriesen, Ä. Glass, B. Schneider, J. Piek, Volumetric quantification of glioblastoma: experiences with different measurement techniques and impact on survival. J Neurooncol 135 (2017) 391–402. T. Hillen, $M^5$ mesoscopic and macroscopic models for mesenchymal motion, J. Math. Biol. 53 (2006) 585–616. T. Hillen, K. Painter, Transport and anisotropic diffusion models for movement in oriented habitats, Dispersal, Individual Movement and Spatial Ecology (M. Lewis, P. Maini & S. Petrovskii eds). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2071. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 2013, p. 46. T. Hillen, A. Swan, The Diffusion Limit of Transport Equations in Biology. In: L. Preziosi, P. Ciarletta, T. Hillen, M. Chaplain, A. Pugliese, H. Othmer, D. Trucu (eds.), Mathematical Models and Methods for Living Systems, LNM 2167, Springer, 2016. A. Hunt, DTI-Based Multiscale Models for Glioma Invasion, PhD thesis, TU Kaiserslautern, 2017. A. Hunt, C. Surulescu, A multiscale modeling approach to glioma invasion with therapy, Vietnam J. Math. 45 (2017) 221–240. A. Jbabdi, E. Mandonnet, H. Duffau, L. Capelle, K. Swanson, M. Pelegrini-Issac, R. Guillevin, H. Benali, Simulation of anisotropic growth of low-grade gliomas using diffusion tensor imaging. Mang. Res. Med., 54 (2005) 616–624. B. Jellison, A. Field, J. Medow, M. Lazar, M. Salamat, A. Alexander, Diffusion tensor imaging of cerebral white matter: a pictorial review of physics, fiber tract anatomy, and tumor imaging patterns. Am. J. Neuroradiol., 25 (2004) 356–369. A.R. Kansal, S. Torquato, G.R. Harsh IV, E.A. Chiocca, T.S. Deisbrock, Cellular automaton of idealized brain tumor growth dynamics, BioSystems 55 (2000) 119–127. A.R. Kansal, S. Torquato, G.R. Harsh IV, E.A. Chiocca, T.S. Deisbrock, Simulated Brain Tumor Growth Dynamics Using a Three-Dimensional Cellular Automaton, J. Theor. Biol. 203 (2000) 367–382. Y. Kato, S. Ozawa, C. Miyamoto, Y. Maehata, A. Suzuki, T. Maeda, Y. Baba, Acidic extracellular microenvironment and cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 13 (2013) 8 pp. J. Kelkel, C. Surulescu, On some models for cancer cell migration through tissue, Math. Biosci. Engrg. 8 (2011), 575–589. J. Kelkel, C. Surulescu, A multiscale approach to cell migration in tissue networks, Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 22 (2013), 1150017 (25 p.). P.T. Kim, D. Richards, Deconvolution density estimation on the space of positive definite symmetric matrices. In Nonparametric Statistics and Mixture Models: A Festschrift in Honor of Thomas P Hettmansperger (pp. 147-168). World Scientific Publishing Co., 2011. P. Kleihues, F. Soylemezoglu, B. Schäuble, B.W. Scheithauer, P.C. Burger, Histopathology, classification and grading of gliomas. Glia 5 (1995) 211–221. N. Kolbe, N. Sfakianakis, C. Stinner, C. Surulescu, J. Lenz, Modeling multiple taxis: tumor invasion with phenotypic heterogeneity, haptotaxis, and unilateral interspecies repellence, arXiv:2005.01444v1. E. Konukoglu, O. Clatz, P. Bondiau, H. Delignette, N. Ayache, Extrapolation glioma invasion margin in brain magnetic resonance images: suggesting new irradiation margins. Med. Image Anal., 14 (2010) 111–125. T.B. Kornberg, L. Gilboa, Developmental biology: Nanotubes in the niche. Nature 523 (2015) 292–293. J.M. Kros, Grading of Gliomas: The Road From Eminence to Evidence, J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 70 (2011) 101–109. L.Y. Kucheryavykh, Y.V. Kucheryavykh, K. Rolon-Reyes, S.N. Skatchkov, M.J. Eaton, L.A. Cubano, M. Inyushin, Visualization of implanted GL261 glioma cells in living mouse brain slices using fluorescent 4-(4-(dimethylamino)-styryl)-N-methylpyridinium iodide (ASP+). BioTechniques, 53 (2012) 305–309. P. Kumar, C. Surulescu, Modeling glioma pseudopalisade patterning: a multiscale approach, in preparation. D.A. Lauffenburger, J.L. Lindermann, Receptors. Models for binding, trafficking and signaling. Oxford University Press, 1993. M. Lemou and L. Mieussens, A new asymptotic preserving scheme based on micro-macro formulation for linear kinetic equations in the diffusion limit. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 31 (2008) 334–368. D.R. Lide (ed). CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, vol. 85. CRC Press, 2004. T. Lorenz, C. Surulescu, On a class of multiscale cancer cell migration models: well-posedness in less regular function spaces, Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 24 (2014) 2383-2436. D. Louis: Molecular Pathology of Malignant Gliomas, Annu. Rev. Pathol. 1 (2006) 97–117. N. Loy, L. Preziosi, Kinetic models with non-local sensing determining cell polarization and speed according to independent cues, J. Math. Biol. 80 (2020) 373–421. N.K. Martin, E.A. Gaffney, R.A. Gatenby, R.J. Gillies, I.F. Robey, and P.K. Maini. A mathematical model of tumour and blood pHe regulation: The buffering system. Mathematical Biosciences, 230 (2011) 1–11. G.R. Martin and R.K. Jain. Noninvasive measurement of interstitial ph profiles in normal and neoplastic tissue using fluorescence ratio imaging microscopy. Cancer Research, 54 (1994) 5670–5674. J. Mercapide, R. Lopez De Cicco, J.S. Castresana, and A.J.P. Klein-Szanto. Stromelysin-1/matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) expression accounts for invasive properties of human astrocytoma cell lines. International Journal of Cancer, 106 (2003) 676–682. R. Milo and R. Phillips, Cell biology by the numbers, Garland Science, 2015. J. Nieto and L. Urrutia: A multiscale model of cell mobility: From a kinetic to a hydrodynamic description, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 433 (2016) 1055–1071. T. Ohtsubo, X. Wang, A. Takahashi, K. Ohnishi, H. Saito, et al. p53-dependent induction of WAF1 by a low-pH culture condition in human glioblastoma cells. Cancer Res. 57 (1997) 3910–3913. H.G. Othmer, T. Hillen, The diffusion limit of transport equations II: Chemotaxis equations. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 62 (2003) 1220–1250. K. Painter, Modelling cell migration strategies in the extracellularmatrix. J. Math. Biol. 58 (2009) 511–543. K. Painter, T. Hillen, Mathematical modelling of glioma growth: the use of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) data to predict the anisotropic pathways of cancer invasion, J. Theor. Biol. 323 (2013) 25–39. B. Perthame, M. Tang, N. Vauchelet, Derivation of the bacterial run-and-tumble kinetic equation from a model with biochemical pathway, J. Math. Biol. 73 (2016), pp.1161-1178. R.G. Plaza, Derivation of a bacterial nutrient-taxis system with doubly degenerate cross-diffusion as the parabolic limit of a velocity-jump process. J. Math. Biol. 78 (2019) 1681–1711. G.C. Pomraning, The Equations of Radiation Hydrodynamics. Dover books on physics (2005) M. Portela, et al., Glioblastoma cells vampirize WNT from neurons and trigger a JNK/MMP signaling loop that enhances glioblastoma progression and neurodegeneration. [ PLoS Biol.]{} [17(12)]{} (2019). D. Poyato, J. Soler, Euler-type equations and commutators in singular and hyperbolic limits of kinetic Cucker-Smale models, Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci, 27(6) (2017), pp. 1089–1152. S.M. Raza, G.N. Fuller, C.H. Rhee, S. Huang, K. Hess, W. Zhang, R. Sawaya, Identification of Necrosis-Associated Genes in Glioblastoma by cDNA Microarray Analysis, Clin. Canc. Res. 10 (2004) 212–221. C. Stock, A. Schwab, Protons make tumor cells move like clockwork. Pflugers Arch. 458 (2009) 981–992. P.C. Sundgren, Q. Dong, D. Gomez-Hassan, S.K. Mukherji, P. Maly, R. Welsh, Diffusion tensor imaging of the brain: Review of clinical applications, Neurocarciology, 46 (2004) 339–350. K.R. Swanson, R.C. Rockne, J. Claridge, M.A. Chaplain, E.C. Alvord, and A.R.A. Anderson. Quantifying the role of angiogenesis in malignant progression of gliomas: In silico modeling integrates imaging and histology. Cancer Research, 71 (2011) 7366–7375. M.L. Tanaka, W. Debinski, I.K. Puri, Hybrid mathematical model of glioma progression, Cell Prolif. 42 (2009) 637–646. van der Vorst, Bi-cgstab: A fast and smoothly converging variant of bi-cg for the solution of nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing 13 (1992) 631–644. P. Vaupel, F. Kallinowski, P. Okunieff: Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: A review. Cancer Res. 49 (1989) 6449–6465. C. Wang, J. Rockhill, M. Mrugala, D. Peacock, A. Lai, K. Jusenius, J. Wardlaw, T. Cloughesy, A. Spence, R. Rockne, E. Alvord Jr., K. Swanson, Prognostic significance of growth kinetics in newly diagnosed glioblastomas revealed by combining serial imaging with a novel biomathematical model. Cancer Res., 69 (2009) 9133–9140. B.A. Webb, M. Chimenti, M.P. Jacobson, D.L. Barber, Dysregulated pH: A perfect storm for cancer progression. Nature Rev. Cancer 11 (2011) 671–677. M. Winkler, Singular structure formation in a degenerate haptotaxis model involving myopic diffusion. J. Math. Pures Appl. 112 (2018) 118–169. M. Winkler, C. Surulescu, Global weak solutions to a strongly degenerate haptotaxis model. Commun. Math. Sci. 15 (2017) 1581–1616. F. J. Wippold, M. L[ä]{}mmle, F. Anatelli, J. Lennerz, A. Perry, Neuropathology for the neuroradiologist: palisades and pseudopalisades. American Journal of Neuroradiology 27 (2006) 2037–2041. R.K.W. Wong, T.C.M. Lee, D. Paul, J. Peng, Fiber direction estimation, smoothing, and tracking in diffusion MRI. Ann. appl. Stat. 10 (2016) 1137–1156. M. Wrensch, Y. Minn, T. Chew, M. Bondy, M. S. Berger, Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: Current concepts and review of the literature, Neuro-Oncology, 4 (2002) 278–299. C. Xue, H.G. Othmer, Multiscale models of taxis-driven patterning in bacterial populations, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 70 (2009) 133-169. L. Zhang, B. Jiang, Y. Wu, C. Strouthos, P. Zhe Sun, J. Su, X. Zhou, Developing a multiscale, multi-resolution agent- based brain tumor model by graphics processing units, Theor. Biol. Medical Mod. 8:46 (2011). [^1]: GTV=gross tumor volume; CTV= clinical target volume; PTV=planning target volume [^2]: Strictly speaking we understand the ODEs for $v$ and $y$ as being written for tissue $q$, $Q$ and acidity $h$, scaled with their reference quantities (e.g., tissue carrying capacity $K_Q$ and acidity threshold $h_0$ introduced below), but for the sake of simplifying the notation we do not explicitly write those denominators. Same applies to the complementary solution components involved in the source terms of the forthcoming equations for cell density, acidity, and necrotic matter. [^3]: shortly MDEs [^4]: This designation is somewhat abusive, since here -unlike previous works [@EHKS; @EHS; @EKS; @Painter-Hillen]- the turning rate is not involved in its expression, due to its dependence on the position. When writing out the myopic diffusion it becomes evident that the ’actual’ diffusion tensor is $\mathbb D_T/\lambda _0$. [^5]: Alternative, more precise ways to assess the (macroscopic and/or mesoscopic) tissue density from DTI data would be to perform density estimation by using statistical or variational methods, see e.g. [@descoteaux; @FlJo; @kim-rich; @wong]. Here we do not address this issue, as our focus is on providing a continuous approach to modeling glioma growth and spread which is amenable to efficient computations and at the same time able to capture lower scale effects. [^6]: here we mean by ’cell’ the numerical discretization element and not the biological entity

ArXiv

--- author: - | \ State Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,\ Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics China,\ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,\ Beijing, 100190, P.R. China\ E-mail: title: Direct detection of fourth generation Majorana neutrino dark matter --- Models with chiral fourth generation fermions are among the simplest and well-motivated extensions of the standard model (SM) and have been extensively studied [@Frampton:1999xi]. The condition for CP symmetry violation in the SM requires at least three generations of fermions [@Kobayashi:1973fv]. But, there is no upper limit on the number of generations from the first principle. In the SM the amount of CP violation is not large enough to explain the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry in the Universe. The inclusion of fourth generation quarks leads to two extra CP phases in quark sector and possible larger CP violation [@0803.1234], which is helpful for electroweak baryogenesis. With very massive quarks in the fourth generation, it has been proposed that the electroweak symmetry breaking may become a dynamical feature of the SM [@Holdom:1986rn; @Carpenter:1989ij; @Hill:1990ge; @Hung:2009hy]. Heavy stable neutrinos with mass greater than $\sim 1$ GeV are possible candidates for the cold DM [@Lee:1977ua; @Kolb:1985nn]. However, if the neutrino is the dominant component of the halo DM, the current DM direct search experiments have imposed strong constraints on its mass [@Goodman:1984dc; @Srednicki:1986vj; @Falk:1994es; @0706.0526; @Angle:2008we; @Keung:2011zc]. On the other hand, it is well-known that for a neutrino heavier than $ \sim m_Z/2$, the cross section for its annihilation is in general too large to reproduce the observed DM relic density. For the neutrino heavier than $m_W$, the contribution from $f\bar{f}$ channels decrease rapidly, but other channels such as $W^\pm W^\mp$, $Z^0 h^0$ etc. are opened. For these processes the corresponding cross section does not decrease with the increasing of the neutrino mass, resulting in a relic density always decreases with the growing of the neutrino mass, and a thermal relic density far below the observed total DM relic density [@Enqvist:1988we]. [ Thus the neutrino DM can only contribute to a small fraction of the relic density of DM and a small fraction of the halo DM density as well. ]{} Despite its very low number density in the halo, it can still be probed by the underground DM direct detection experiments due to its relatively strong coupling to the target nuclei, which provides a way to search for new physics beyond the SM complementary to the LHC. In this talk, we discuss the consequence of this possibility in a model with a fourth generation Majorana neutrino DM. The stability of the fourth Majorana neutrino protected by an additional generation-dependent $U(1)$ gauge symmetry which is anomaly-free. The details of the analysis can be found in Ref. [@Zhou:2011fr]. We consider a simple extension of the SM with a sequential fourth generation and an additional $U(1)_F$ gauge symmetry. [The $U(1)$ extensions to the SM are well motivated from the point view of grand unification such as the $SO(10)$ and $E_6$ and have rich phenomenology [@Langacker:2008yv] which can be reached by the on going LHC experiments]{}. The flavor contents in the model are given by $$\begin{aligned} q_{iL}=\begin{pmatrix} u_{iL} \\ d_{iL} \end{pmatrix}, \ \ell_{iL}=\begin{pmatrix} \nu_{iL} \\ e_{iL} \end{pmatrix}, \ u_{iR},\ d_{iR}, \ \nu_{iR}, \ e_{iR} \ (i=1,\dots, 4) .\end{aligned}$$ All the fermions in the model are vector-like under the extra gauge interactions associated with $U(1)_F$. The $U(1)_F$ charges of the fermions could be generation-dependent. In order to evade the stringent constraints from the tree-level flavor changing neutral currents (FCNCs), the $U(1)_F$ charges $Q_{qi}$ for the first three generation quarks are set to be the same, i.e. $Q_{qi}=Q_q, \ (i=1,2,3)$ while $Q_{q4}=-3 Q_q$ for the fourth generation quarks. Similarly, the $U(1)_F$ charges for the first three generation and the fourth generation leptons are $Q_L$ and $-3 Q_L$, respectively. In general, $Q_q$ and $Q_L$ can be different. For simplicity, we consider $Q_q=Q_L=1$. With this set of flavor contents and $U(1)_F$ charge assignments, it is straight forward to see that the new gauge interactions are anomaly-free. Since the gauge interaction of $U(1)_F$ is vector-like, the triangle anomalies of $[U(1)_F]^3$, $[SU(3)_C]^2 U(1)_F$ and $[\mbox{gravity}]^2 U(1)_F$ are all vanishing. The anomaly of $U(1)_Y [U(1)_F]^2$ is zero because the $U(1)_Y$ hypercharges cancel for quarks and leptons separately in each generation, namely $\sum (- Y_{qL}+Y_{qR})=0$ and $\sum (- Y_{\ell L}+Y_{\ell R})=0$. The anomaly of $[SU(2)_L]^2 U(1)_F$ is also zero due to the relation $\sum_{i=1}^{4}Q_{qi}=0 $ and $\sum_{i=1}^{4} Q_{Li}=0$. Thus in this model, the gauge anomalies generated by the first three generation fermions are canceled by that of the fourth generation one, which also gives a motivation for the inclusion of the fourth generation. The gauge symmetry $U(1)_F$ is to be spontaneously broken by the Higgs mechanism. For this purpose we introduce two SM singlet scalar fields $\phi_{a,b}$ which carry the $U(1)_F$ charges $Q_a=-2 Q_L$ and $Q_b=6 Q_L$ respectively. The $U(1)_F$ charges of $\phi_{a,b}$ are arranged such that $\phi_a$ can have Majorana type of Yukawa couplings to the right-handed neutrinos of the first three generations $\nu_{iR}\ (i=1,2,3)$ while $\phi_b$ only couples to the fourth generation neutrino $\nu_{4R}$. After the spontaneous symmetry breaking, the two scalar fields obtain vacuum expectation values (VEVs) $\langle \phi_{a,b}\rangle=v_{a,b}/\sqrt{2}$. The relevant interactions in the model are given by $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L}&= \bar{f}_i i\gamma^\mu D_\mu f_i +(D_\mu\phi_a)^\dagger (D_\mu\phi_a)+(D_\mu\phi_b)^\dagger (D_\mu\phi_b) \nonumber\\ &-Y^d_{ij} \bar{q}_{iL} H d_{iR} -Y^u_{ij} \bar{q}_{iL} \tilde{H} u_{iR} -Y^e_{ij} \bar{\ell}_{iL} H e_{iR} -Y^\nu_{ij} \bar{\ell}_{iL} \tilde{H} \nu_{iR} \nonumber\\ &-\frac{1}{2}Y^m_{ij}\overline{\nu_{iR}^c} \phi_a \nu_{jR} \ (i,j=1,2,3) -\frac{1}{2}Y^m_4 \overline{\nu_{4R}^c} \phi_b \nu_{4R} -V(\phi_a, \phi_b, H)+\mbox{H.c} .\end{aligned}$$ where $f_i$ stand for left- and right-handed fermions, and $H$ is the SM Higgs doublet. $D_\mu f_i=(\partial_\mu -ig_1\tau^a W^a_\mu -iYg_2 B_\mu -i Q_f g_F Z'_\mu)f_i$ is the covariant derivative with $Z'_\mu$ the extra gauge boson associated with the $U(1)_F$ gauge symmetry, and $g_F$ the corresponding gauge coupling constant. Since $\phi_{a,b}$ are SM singlets, they do not play any role in the electroweak symmetry breaking. Thus $Z'$ obtains mass only from the VEVs of the scalars $$\begin{aligned} m_{Z'}^2=g_F^2 (Q_a^2 v_a^2+Q_b^2 v_b^2) .\end{aligned}$$ From the $U(1)_F$ charge assignments in the model, the four by four Yukawa coupling matrix is constrained to be of the block diagonal form $\bm 3\otimes \bm 1$ in the generation space. Since the $U(1)_F$ charges are the same for the fermions in the first three generation, there is no tree level FCNC induced by the $Z'$-exchange in the physical basis after diagonalization. Thus a number of constraints from the low energy flavor physics such as the neutral meson mixings and the $b\to s \gamma$ can be avoided. The direct search for the process $e^+e^-\to Z'\to \ell^+\ell^-$ at the LEP-II leads to a lower bound on the ratio of the mass to the coupling to leptons: $M_{Z'}/g_{F} \geq 6 \mbox{ TeV}$ [@Carena:2004xs] for vector-like interactions, which corresponds to a more stringent lower bound: $\sqrt{Q_a^2 v_a^2+Q_b^2 v_b^2}\geq 6 \mbox{ TeV}$. The current searches for narrow resonances in the Drell-Yan process $pp\to Z'\to \ell^+\ell^-$ at the LHC impose an alternative bound on the mass and the couplings of the $Z'$ boson. For a model with sequential neutral gauge boson $Z'_{SSM}$ which by definition has the same couplings as that for the SM $Z^0$ boson [@Langacker:2008yv], the latest lower bounds on its mass $M_{Z'_{SSM}}$ is $1.94$ TeV from CMS [@Timciuc:2011ji] and $1.83$ TeV from ATLAS [@Collaboration:2011dca] respectively. The bound on $M_{Z'_{SSM}}$ can be translated into the bound on the mass and couplings of the $Z'$ in this model. For instance, $g_F\lesssim 0.029$ for $M_{Z'}=1.44$ TeV and $g_F \lesssim 0.0051$ for $M_{Z'}=0.94$ TeV, respectively. The fourth generation neutrinos obtain both Dirac and Majorana mass terms through the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of $H$ and $\phi_b$. In the basis of $(\nu_L, \nu_R^c)^T$ the mass matrix for the fourth neutrino is given by $$\begin{aligned} m_\nu=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & m_D \\ m_D & m_M \end{pmatrix} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $m_D=Y_4^\nu v_H/\sqrt{2}$ with $v_H=246\mbox{ GeV}$ and $m_M=Y^m_4 v_{\phi_{b}} /\sqrt{2}$. The left-handed components $(\nu_{1L}^{(m)}, \nu_{2L}^{(m)})$ of the two mass eigenstates are related to the ones in the flavor eigenstates by a rotation angle $\theta$ $$\begin{aligned} \nu^{(m)}_{1L}& =-i (c_{\theta} \nu_L -s_{\theta} \nu_R^c) , \quad \nu^{(m)}_{2L} =s_{\theta}\nu_L +c_{\theta} \nu_R^c ,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{\theta}\equiv\sin\theta$ and $c_{\theta} \equiv\cos\theta$. [The value of $\theta$ is defined in the range $(0,\pi/4)$]{} and is determined by $$\begin{aligned} \tan 2\theta=\frac{2m_D}{m_M},\end{aligned}$$ with $\theta=0 \ (\pi/4)$ corresponding to the limit of minimal (maximal) mixing. The phase $i$ is introduced to render the two mass eigenvalues real and positive. The two Majorana mass eigenstates are $\chi_1=\nu_{1L}^{(m)}+\nu_{1L}^{(m)c}$ and $\chi_2=\nu_{2L}^{(m)}+\nu_{2L}^{(m)c}$, respectively. The masses of the two neutrinos are given by $m_{1,2}=(\sqrt{m_M^2+4 m_D^2}\mp m_M)/2$. In terms of the mixing angle $\theta$ they can be rewritten as $m_1=(s_{\theta}/c_{\theta})m_D$ and $m_2=(c_{\theta}/s_{\theta})m_D$. [ with $m_1\leq m_2$. Note that for all the possible values of $\theta$ the lighter neutrino mass eigenstate $\chi_1$ consists of more left-handed neutrino than the right-handed one, which means that $\chi_1$ always has sizable coupling to the SM $Z^0$ boson. Therefore the LEP-II bound on the mass of stable neutrino is always valid for $\chi_1$, which is insensitive to the mixing angle.]{} [ As the fermions in the first three generations and the fourth generation have different $U(1)_F$ charges, the fourth generation fermions cannot mix with the ones in the first three generations through Yukawa interactions. After the spontaneous breaking down of $U(1)_F$, there exists a residual $Z_2$ symmetry for the fourth generation fermions which protect the fourth neutrino $\chi_1$ to be a stable particle if it is lighter than the fourth generation charged lepton $e_4$, which makes it a possible dark matter candidate.]{} The thermal relic density of $\chi_1$ is related to its annihilation cross section at freeze out. We numerically calculate the cross sections for $\chi_1\chi_1$ annihilation into all the relevant final states using CalHEP 2.4 [@Belanger:2010gh]. In Fig. \[fig:cross-section\], we show the quantity $ r_\Omega\equiv \Omega_{\chi_{1}}/ \Omega_{DM}$ the ratio of the relic density of $\chi_1$ to the observed total DM relic density $\Omega_{DM} h^2=0.110\pm0.006$ [@Nakamura:2010zzi] as function of the mass of $\chi_1$ for different values of the mixing angle $\theta$. The results show a significant dependence on the mixing angle $\theta$. For smaller mixing angle $\theta$ the couplings between $\chi_1$ and gauge bosons $W^\pm, Z$ are stronger, resulting in a smaller relic density. The results also clearly show that due to the large annihilation cross section, $\chi_1$ cannot make up the whole DM in the Universe. $\chi_1$ can contribute to $\sim 20-40\%$ of the total DM relic density when its mass is around 80 GeV. But for $m_1\gtrsim m_t$, it can contribute only a few percent or less to the whole DM. However, since $\chi_1$ has strong couplings to $h^0$ and $Z^0$, even in the case that the number density of $\chi_1$ is very low in the DM halo, it is still possible that it can be detected by its elastic scattering off nucleus in direct detection experiments. Given the difficulties in detecting such a neutral and stable particle at the LHC, there is a possibility that the stable fourth generation neutrino could be first seen at the DM direct detection experiments. ![ The rescaled $\chi_1$ relic density $r_\Omega$ as function of the mass of $\chi_1$. The shaded region is excluded by the LEP-II experiments.[]{data-label="fig:cross-section"}](plot_rOmega.eps){width="65.00000%"} The generic formula for the differential event rate of DM-nucleus scattering per nucleus mass is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:event-rate} \frac{dN}{dE_R}=\frac{\rho_{DM} \sigma_N}{2m_{DM} \mu_N^2}F^2(E_{R})\int^{v_{esc}}_{v_{min}}d^3 v \frac{f(v)}{v} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_R$ is the recoil energy, $\sigma_N$ is the scattering cross section corresponding to the zero momentum transfer, $m_{DM}$ is the mass of the DM particle, $\mu_N=m_{DM}m_{N}/(m_{DM}+m_N)$ is the DM-nucleus reduced mass, $F(E_{R})$ is the form factor, and $f(v)$ is the velocity distribution function of the halo DM. The local DM density $\rho_{DM}$ is often set to be equal to $\rho_0\simeq 0.3 \mbox{ GeV}/\mbox{cm}^3$ which is the local DM density inferred from astrophysics based on a smooth halo profile. [Since the neutrino DM can only contribute to a small fraction of the relic density of DM, it is likely that it also contributes to a small fraction of the halo DM density, namely, its local density $\rho_1$ is much smaller than $\rho_0$. We assume that $\rho_1$ is proportional to the relic density of $\chi_1$ in the Universe, namely]{} $$\begin{aligned} r_\rho\equiv \frac{\rho_1}{\rho_{0}}\approx \frac{\Omega_{\chi_{1}}}{\Omega_{DM}} ,\end{aligned}$$ or $r_\rho\approx r_\Omega$. Consequently, the expected event rates of the DM-nucleus elastic scattering will be scaled down by $r_\rho$. In order to directly compare the theoretical predictions with the reported experimental upper limits which are often obtained under the assumption that the local DM particle density is $\rho_0$, we shall calculate the rescaled elastic scattering cross section $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\sigma} \equiv r_\rho \sigma \approx r_\Omega \sigma ,\end{aligned}$$ which corresponds to the event rate to be seen at the direct detection experiments. Note that $\tilde{\sigma}$ depends on the mass of $\chi_1$ through the ratio $r_\rho$ even when $\sigma$ is mass-independent. The spin-independent DM-nucleon elastic scattering cross section in the limit of zero momentum transfer is given by [@Jungman:1995df] $$\begin{aligned} \sigma^{SI}_n=\frac{4 \mu_n^2}{\pi }\frac{[Z f_p+(A-Z) f_n]^2}{A^2} ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ and $A-Z$ are the number of protons and neutrons within the target nucleus, respectively. $\mu_n=m_1 m_n/(m_1+m_n)$ is the DM-nucleon reduced mass. The couplings between DM and the proton (neutron) read $$\begin{aligned} f_{p(n)}&=\sum_{q=u,d,s}f^{p(n)}_{Tq} a_q \frac{m_{p(n)}}{m_q} +\frac{2}{27} f^{p(n)}_{TG}\sum_{q=c,b,t}a_q \frac{m_{p(n)}}{m_q} ,\end{aligned}$$ with $f^{p(n)}_{Tq}$ the DM coupling to light quarks and $ f^{p(n)}_{TG}=1-\sum_{q=u,d,s}f^{p(n)}_{Tq}$. The coefficient $a_q$ in the model is given by $$\begin{aligned} a_q=c_{\theta}^2\frac{m_1 m_q}{v_H^2 m_h^2} .\end{aligned}$$ The value of $a_q$ is proportional to $m_1$, thus larger elastic scattering cross section is expected for heavier $\chi_1$. The quark mass $m_q$ in the expression of $a_q$ cancels the one in the expression of $f_{p(n)}$. Thus there is no quark mass dependence in the calculations. In Fig. \[fig:SIneutron\] we give the predicted spin-independent effective cross sections $\tilde{\sigma}^{SI}_n$ for the fourth generation neutrino elastic scattering off nucleon as function of its mass for different values of the mixing angle $\theta$. One sees that even after the inclusion of the rescaling factor $r_\rho$, the current Xenon100 data can still rule out a stable fourth generation neutrino in the mass range $55\mbox{ GeV}\lesssim m_1 \lesssim 175 \mbox{ GeV}$ which corresponds to $r_\Omega \lesssim 1 \%$. Thus the stable fourth generation neutrino must be heavier than the top quark, and can only contribute to a small fraction of the total DM relic density On the other hand, for $m_{\chi_1} \gtrsim 200$ GeV, the cross section does not decrease with $m_{\chi_1}$ increasing, and is nearly a constant $\tilde{\sigma}^{SI}_{n}\approx 1.5\times 10^{-44}\mbox{cm}^2$ in the range $200 \mbox{ GeV}\lesssim m_{\chi_1}\lesssim 400 \mbox{ GeV}$. This is due to the enhanced Yukawa coupling between the fourth generation neutrino and the Higgs boson which is proportional to $m_{\chi_1}$, as it is shown in the expression of $a_{q}$. Similar conclusions are expected for other models in which DM particles interact with SM particles through Higgs portal, for instance, the singlet scalar DM in extensions of left-right symmetry model [@Guo:2011zze; @Guo:2010sy; @Guo:2010vy; @Guo:2008si]. One can see from the Fig. \[fig:SIneutron\] that the result is not sensitive to the mixing angle $\theta$ either, which is due to the compensation of the similar dependencies on $\theta$ in the relic density. [For instance, the cross sections for the $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$ and $Z^{0}Z^{0}$ channel of $\chi\chi$ annihilation are proportional to $c_{\theta}^4$, which compensates the $\theta$-dependence in the $a_q$ for the elastic scattering processes.]{} ![Effective spin-independent cross section $\tilde{\sigma}^{SI}_n$ which is $\sigma^{SI}_n$ rescaled by $r_\rho\approx r_\Omega$ for $\chi_1$ elastically scattering off nucleon as function of the mass of $\chi_1$. Four curves correspond to the mixing angle $\theta=10^\circ$(solid), $20^\circ$(dashed), $30^\circ$(dotted) and $40^\circ$(dot-dashed) respectively. The current upper limits from CDMS [@Ahmed:2009zw] and Xenon100 [@Aprile:2011hi] experiments are also shown. []{data-label="fig:SIneutron"}](plot_SIneutron.eps){width="65.00000%"} The Majorana neutrino DM contributes also to spin-dependent elastic scattering cross section through axial-vector interaction induced by the exchange of the $Z^0$ boson. At zero momentum transfer, the spin-dependent cross section has the following form [@Jungman:1995df] $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_N^{SD}=\frac{32}{\pi}G_F^2 \mu_n^2 \frac{J+1}{J} \left(a_p \langle S_p\rangle + a_n \langle S_n\rangle \right)^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ where $J$ is the spin of the nucleus, $a_{p(n)}$ is the DM effective coupling to proton (neutron) and $\langle S_{p(n)}\rangle$ the expectation value of the spin content of the nucleon within the nucleus. $G_F$ is the Fermi constant. The coupling $a_{p(n)}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} a_{p(n)}=\sum_{u,d,s}\frac{d_q}{\sqrt{2} G_F} \Delta^{p(n)}_q , \end{aligned}$$ where $d_q$ is the DM coupling to quark and $\Delta^{p(n)}_q$ is the fraction of the proton (neutron) spin carried by a given quark $q$. The coefficients $d_q$ in this model are given by $$\begin{aligned} d_u=-d_d=-d_s=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} .\end{aligned}$$ For the axial-vector interactions, the coupling strengths do not depend on the electromagnetic charges of the quarks. In Fig. \[fig:SDn\] we show the predicted effective spin-dependent DM-neutron cross section $\tilde{\sigma}_n^{SD}$ as function of the neutrino mass for different mixing angles, together with various experimental upper limits. Since $\sigma^{SD}_n$ is independent of $m_{\chi_1}$, the dependency of $\tilde{\sigma}_{p(n)}^{SD}$ on the neutrino mass comes from the dependency of $r_\rho$ on $m_{\chi_1}$, which can be seen by comparing Fig. \[fig:SDn\] with Fig. \[fig:cross-section\]. The Xenon10 data is able to exclude the neutrino DM in the mass range $60\mbox{ GeV}\lesssim m_{\chi_1} \lesssim 120\mbox{ GeV}$, which is not as strong as that from the Xenon100 data on spin-independent elastic scattering cross section. For a heavy neutrino DM with mass in the range $200\mbox{ GeV}\lesssim m_{\chi_1} \lesssim 400 \mbox{ GeV}$ the predicted spin-dependent cross section is between $10^{-40}\mbox{ cm}^2$ and $10^{-39}\mbox{ cm}^2$. In Fig. \[fig:SDp\] we give the predicted spin-dependent DM-proton cross section $\tilde{\sigma}_p^{SD}$. The cross sections for Majorana neutrino DM scattering off proton and neutron are quite similar, which is due to the fact that the relative opposite signs in $\Delta_u$ and $\Delta_d$ are compensated by the opposite signs in $d_u$ and $d_n$. So far the most stringent limit on the DM-proton spin-dependent cross section is reported by the SIMPLE experiment [@1106.3014]. The SIMPLE result is able to exclude the mass range $50\mbox{ GeV}\lesssim m_{\chi_1} \lesssim 150\mbox{ GeV}$, which is compatible with the constraints from Xenon100. In Fig. \[fig:SDp\], we also show the upper limits from indirect searches using up-going muons which are related to the annihilation of stable fourth generation neutrinos captured in the Sun. The limit from the Super-K experiment is obtained with the assumption that 80$\%$ of the DM annihilation products are from $b\bar{b}$, $10\%$ from $c\bar{c}$ and $10\%$ from $\tau\bar{\tau}$ respectively [@Desai:2004pq]. In the range $170\mbox{ GeV} \lesssim m_{\chi_1} \lesssim 400\mbox{ GeV}$, the limit from Super-K is $\sim 5\times 10^{-39}\mbox{ cm}^2$. The IceCube sets a stronger limit $\tilde{\sigma}_p^{SD} \leq 2\times 10^{-40}\mbox{ cm}^2$ for the DM mass at $250$ GeV [@0902.2460]. This limit is obtained with the assumption that the DM annihilation products are dominated by $W^\pm W^\mp$. If the annihilation products are dominated by $b\bar{b}$, the limit is much weaker, for instance $\tilde{\sigma}_p^{SD} \leq 5\times 10^{-38}\mbox{ cm}^2$ for the DM mass at $500$ GeV [@0902.2460]. Note that in this model, the dominant final state is $Z^0h^0$. The expected limit should be somewhere in between. Nevertheless, the IceCube has the potential to test these predictions. ![ Effective spin-dependent cross section $\tilde{\sigma}^{SD}_n$ which is $\sigma^{SD}_n$ rescaled by $r_\rho\approx r_\Omega$ for $\chi_1$ elastically scattering off neutron as function of the mass of $\chi_1$. Four curves correspond to the mixing angle $\theta=10^\circ$(solid), $20^\circ$(dashed), $30^\circ$(dotted) and $40^\circ$(dot-dashed) respectively. The current upper limits from various experiments such as KIMS [@Lee.:2007qn], CDMS [@Akerib:2005za] and Xenon10 [@Angle:2008we] are also shown. []{data-label="fig:SDn"}](plot_SDneutron.eps){width="65.00000%"} ![Effective spin-dependent cross section $\tilde{\sigma}^{SD}_p$ which is $\sigma^{SD}_p$ rescaled by $r_\rho\approx r_\Omega$ for $\chi_1$ elastically scattering off proton as function of the mass of $\chi_1$. Four curves correspond to the mixing angle $\theta=10^\circ$(solid), $20^\circ$(dashed), $30^\circ$(dotted) and $40^\circ$(dot-dashed) respectively. The current upper limits from various experiments such as KIMS [@Lee.:2007qn], CDMS [@Akerib:2005za], Xenon10 [@Angle:2008we], Coupp [@Behnke:2010xt], Picasso [@Archambault:2009sm], SIMPLE [@Felizardo:2011uw], SuperK [@Desai:2004pq], and IceCube [@0902.2460] are also shown. []{data-label="fig:SDp"}](plot_SDproton.eps){width="65.00000%"} In summary, we have investigated the properties of stable fourth generation Majorana neutrinos as dark matter particles. Although they contribute to a small fraction of the whole DM in the Universe, they can still be easily probed by the current direct detection experiments due to their relatively strong couplings to the SM particles. We have considered a fourth generation model with the stability of the fourth Majorana neutrino protected by an additional generation-dependent $U(1)$ gauge symmetry. We have shown that the current Xenon100 data constrain the mass of the stable Majorana neutrino to be greater than the mass of the top quark. For a stable Majorana neutrino heavier than the top quark, the effective spin-independent cross section for the elastic scattering off nucleon is found to be insensitive to the neutrino mass and is predicted to be around $10^{-44} \mbox{ cm}^2$, which can be reached by the direct DM search experiments in the near future. The predicted effective spin-dependent cross section for the heavy neutrino scattering off proton is in the range $10^{-40} \mbox{ cm}^2\sim 10^{-39}\mbox{ cm}^2$, which can be tested by the ongoing [DM indirect search experiments such as IceCube.]{} This work is supported in part by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) under Grants No. 2010CB833000; the National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grants No. 10975170, No. 10821504 and No. 10905084; and the Project of Knowledge Innovation Program (PKIP) of the Chinese Academy of Science. [10]{} P. H. Frampton, P. Q. Hung, and M. Sher, [*[Quarks and leptons beyond the third generation]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rept.*]{} [**330**]{} (2000) 263, \[[[hep-ph/9903387]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9903387)\]. M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, [*[CP Violation in the Renormalizable Theory of Weak Interaction]{}*]{}, [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**49**]{} (1973) 652–657. W.-S. Hou, [*[CP Violation and Baryogenesis from New Heavy Quarks]{}*]{}, [ *Chin. J. Phys.*]{} [**47**]{} (2009) 134, \[[[arXiv:0803.1234]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0803.1234)\]. B. Holdom, [*[heavy quarks and electroweak symmetry breaking]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**57**]{} (1986) 2496. J. Carpenter, R. Norton, S. Siegemund-Broka, and A. Soni, [*[properties of a composite higgs particle in a dynamically broken formulation of the standard model]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**65**]{} (1990) 153–156. C. T. Hill, M. A. Luty, and E. A. Paschos, [*[Electroweak symmetry breaking by fourth generation condensates and the neutrino spectrum]{}*]{}, [ *Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D43**]{} (1991) 3011–3025. P. Q. Hung and C. Xiong, [*[Renormalization Group Fixed Point with a Fourth Generation: Higgs-induced Bound States and Condensates]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B847**]{} (2011) 160–178, \[[[ arXiv:0911.3890]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0911.3890)\]. B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, [*[Cosmological lower bound on heavy-neutrino masses]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**39**]{} (1977) 165–168. E. W. Kolb and K. A. Olive, [*[The Lee-Weinberg Bound Revisited]{}*]{}, [ *Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D33**]{} (1986) 1202. \[Erratum-ibid.D34:2531,1986\]. M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, [*[Detectability of certain dark-matter candidates]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D31**]{} (1985) 3059. M. Srednicki, K. A. Olive, and J. Silk, [*[High-Energy Neutrinos from the Sun and Cold Dark Matter]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B279**]{} (1987) 804. T. Falk, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki, [*[Heavy Sneutrinos as Dark Matter]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B339**]{} (1994) 248–251, \[[[hep-ph/9409270]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9409270)\]. G. Belanger, A. Pukhov, and G. Servant, [*[Dirac Neutrino Dark Matter]{}*]{}, [*JCAP*]{} [**0801**]{} (2008) 009, \[[[arXiv:0706.0526]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0706.0526)\]. J. Angle [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Limits on spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross-sections from the XENON10 experiment]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **101**]{} (2008) 091301, \[[[ arXiv:0805.2939]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0805.2939)\]. W.-Y. Keung and P. Schwaller, [*[Long Lived Fourth Generation and the Higgs]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**06**]{} (2011) 054, \[[[arXiv:1103.3765]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1103.3765)\]. K. Enqvist, K. Kainulainen, and J. Maalampi, [*[cosmic abundances of very heavy neutrinos]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B317**]{} (1989) 647–664. Y.-F. Zhou, [*[Probing the fourth generation Majorana neutrino dark matter]{}*]{}, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D85**]{} (2012) 053005, \[[[arXiv:1110.2930]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1110.2930)\]. P. Langacker, [*[The Physics of Heavy Z-prime Gauge Bosons]{}*]{}, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**81**]{} (2009) 1199–1228, \[[[arXiv:0801.1345]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0801.1345)\]. M. S. Carena, A. Daleo, B. A. Dobrescu, and T. M. P. Tait, [*[Z-prime gauge bosons at the Tevatron]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D70**]{} (2004) 093009, \[[[hep-ph/0408098]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0408098)\]. Collaboration, V. Timciuc, [*[Search for High-Mass Resonances in the Dilepton Final State with the CMS Detector]{}*]{}, [[arXiv:1111.4528]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1111.4528). A. Collaboration, [*[Search for dilepton resonances in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} (2011) 272002, \[[[ arXiv:1108.1582]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1108.1582)\]. G. Belanger [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Indirect search for dark matter with micrOMEGAs2.4]{}*]{}, [*Comput. Phys. Commun.*]{} [**182**]{} (2011) 842–856, \[[[arXiv:1004.1092]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1004.1092)\]. Collaboration, K. Nakamura [*et. al.*]{}, [ *[Review of particle physics]{}*]{}, [*J. Phys.*]{} [**G37**]{} (2010) 075021. G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, [*[Supersymmetric dark matter]{}*]{}, [*Phys.Rept.*]{} [**267**]{} (1996) 195–373, \[[[hep-ph/9506380]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9506380)\]. W.-L. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and Y.-F. Zhou, [*[Dark matter candidates in left-right symmetric models]{}*]{}, [*Int.J.Mod.Phys.*]{} [**D20**]{} (2011) 1389–1397. W.-L. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and Y.-F. Zhou, [*[Searching for Dark Matter Signals in the Left-Right Symmetric Gauge Model with CP Symmetry]{}*]{}, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D82**]{} (2010) 095004, \[[[ arXiv:1008.4479]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1008.4479)\]. W.-L. Guo, Y.-L. Wu, and Y.-F. Zhou, [*[Exploration of decaying dark matter in a left-right symmetric model]{}*]{}, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D81**]{} (2010) 075014, \[[[arXiv:1001.0307]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1001.0307)\]. W.-L. Guo, L.-M. Wang, Y.-L. Wu, Y.-F. Zhou, and C. Zhuang, [*[Gauge-singlet dark matter in a left-right symmetric model with spontaneous CP violation]{}*]{}, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D79**]{} (2009) 055015, \[[[arXiv:0811.2556]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0811.2556)\]. Collaboration, Z. Ahmed [*et. al.*]{}, [ *[Dark Matter Search Results from the CDMS II Experiment]{}*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**327**]{} (2010) 1619–1621, \[[[ arXiv:0912.3592]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0912.3592)\]. Collaboration, E. Aprile [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Dark Matter Results from 100 Live Days of XENON100 Data]{}*]{}, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} (2011) \[[[arXiv:1104.2549]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1104.2549)\]. M. Felizardo [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Final Analysis and Results of the Phase II SIMPLE Dark Matter Search]{}*]{}, [[ arXiv:1106.3014]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1106.3014). Collaboration, S. Desai [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Search for dark matter WIMPs using upward through-going muons in Super-Kamiokande]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D70**]{} (2004) 083523, \[[[hep-ex/0404025]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ex/0404025)\]. \[Erratum-ibid.D70:109901,2004\]. Collaboration, R. Abbasi [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Limits on a muon flux from neutralino annihilations in the Sun with the IceCube 22-string detector]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} (2009) 201302, \[[[arXiv:0902.2460]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0902.2460)\]. Collaboration, H. S. Lee [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Limits on WIMP-nucleon cross section with CsI(Tl) crystal detectors]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **99**]{} (2007) 091301, \[[[ arXiv:0704.0423]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0704.0423)\]. Collaboration, D. S. Akerib [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Limits on spin-dependent WIMP nucleon interactions from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D73**]{} (2006) 011102, \[[[astro-ph/0509269]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0509269)\]. E. Behnke [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Improved Limits on Spin-Dependent WIMP-Proton Interactions from a Two Liter CF$_3$I Bubble Chamber]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**106**]{} (2011) 021303, \[[[arXiv:1008.3518]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1008.3518)\]. S. Archambault [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Dark Matter Spin-Dependent Limits for WIMP Interactions on 19-F by PICASSO]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B682**]{} (2009) 185–192, \[[[arXiv:0907.0307]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0907.0307)\]. M. Felizardo, T. Girard, T. Morlat, A. Fernandes, F. Giuliani, [*et. al.*]{}, [*[Final Analysis and Results of the Phase II SIMPLE Dark Matter Search]{}*]{}, [[arXiv:1106.3014]{}](http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1106.3014).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Let $p$ be a prime and let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of a finite nonabelian group $G$. Let ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$ be the size of the largest conjugacy class of the group $G$. We show that $|P/O_p(G)| < {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$ if $G$ is not abelian.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, Changshu Institute of Technology, Changshu, JiangSu 215500, Peoples Republic of China' - 'Department of Mathematics, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA' author: - Guohua Qian and Yong Yang title: 'The largest size of conjugacy class and the $p$-parts of finite groups' --- Introduction ============ Throughout this paper, $G$ is a finite group. Let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of a finite nonabelian group $G$, let $b(G)$ denote the largest irreducible character degree of $G$, and let ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$ denote the size of the largest conjugacy classes of a finite group $G$. It is known for finite groups that $b(G)$ is connected with the structure of $G$. In  [@GLUCK] Gluck proved that in all finite groups the index of the Fitting subgroup ${{\mathbf{F}}}(G)$ in $G$ is bounded by a polynomial function of $b(G)$. For solvable groups, Gluck further shows that $|G : {{\mathbf{F}}}(G)| \leq b(G)^{13/2}$ and conjectured that $|G : {{\mathbf{F}}}(G)| \leq b(G)^2$. In  [@MOWOLF], this bound was improved to $|G:{{\mathbf{F}}}(G)| \leq b(G)^3$. When we focus on a single prime, a stronger bound can be found. In  [@QIANSHI], Qian and Shi showed that if $G$ is any finite group, then $|P/O_p(G)| < b(G)^2$ and $|P/O_p(G)| \leq b(G)$ if $P$ is abelian. Recently, the authors  [@QianYang1] improved the previous result, and showed that for a finite nonabelian group $G$, $|P/O_p(G)| \leq (b(G)^p/p)^{\frac {1} {p-1}}$. Since there is some analogy between conjugacy class sizes and character degrees of a finite group, one may ask: do there exist some similar results for conjugacy class sizes? Inspired by the results in  [@QIANSHI], He and Shi  [@HESHI Theorem A] showed that for any finite group $|P/O_p(G)|< {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)^2$ and $|P/O_p(G)| \leq {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$ if $P$ is abelian. In  [@LiuSong], Liu and Song improved the previous bound by showing that $|P/O_p(G)| \leq ({{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)^p/p)^{\frac {1} {p-1}}$ for a finite nonabelian group $G$. Yang  [@Yanglargeconj] recently strengthened the bound to $|P/O_p(G)| \leq {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$ when $p$ is an odd prime but not a Mersenne prime. In this paper we remove the extra conditions and show that as long as $G$ is nonabelian, then we will always have $|P/O_p(G)| < {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$. This strengthened all the previously mentioned results in this paragraph. We also show that the bound is the best possible. Main Theorem {#sec:maintheorem} ============ While the proofs in  [@HESHI; @LiuSong; @Yanglargeconj] mainly use the consequences of some orbit theorems of linear group actions, it seems one has to get a weaker bound or to exclude some important cases due to the limit of those orbit theorems. However, by using the consequence of the $k(GV)$ problem, we are able to achieve the best possible bound. The $p$-solvable case of the famous Brauer’s $k(B)$ conjecture was discovered to be equivalent to the $k(GV)$ problem (Fong  [@Fong], Nagao  [@Nagao]). Namely, when a finite group acts coprimely on a finite vector space $V$, the number of conjugacy classes of the group $G \ltimes V$ is less than or equal to $|V|$, the number of elements in the vector space. Thompson, Robinson, Maggard, Gluck, Schmid  [@RobinsonThompson; @GMRS; @Schmid] and many others have contributed to this well-known problem, and the key to the solution is to study the orbit structure of the linear group actions. The following could be viewed as a generalization of a special case of the $k(GV)$ problem by Guralnick and Robinson.  [@GuralnickRobinson]. The proof does not use the full strengthen of the $k(GV)$ problem, only the special case Knörr  [@Knorr] proved a while back where the acting group is nilpotent. \[lem2\] Let $G$ be a finite solvable group such that $G/{{\mathbf{F}}}(G)$ is nilpotent, then we have $k(G) \leq |{{\mathbf{F}}}(G)|$. This is  [@GuralnickRobinson Lemma 3]. \[lem3\] Let $G$ be a finite nilpotent group that acts faithfully and coprimely on an abelian group $V$, and we consider the semidirect product $G \ltimes V$, then the largest conjugacy class size in $G \ltimes V$ is of size greater than $|G|$. By Lemma  \[lem2\], we know that the number of conjugacy classes in $G \ltimes V$ is less than or equal to $|V|$. Also the identity is a conjugacy class of size $1$, and the result follows. \[lem1\] Let $G$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of a permutation group of degree $n$. Then $|G| \leq 2^{n-1}$. This result is well known (cf.  [@LiuSong Lemma 5]). \[simple\] Let $G$ be one of the nonabelian simple groups and $P\in {\rm Syl}_p({ {\rm Aut} }(G))$ for some prime $p$. Then ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)> 2|P|$. It was stated in  [@Yanglargeconj Proposition 2.6] that ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)\geq 2|P|$ but a close examination of the proof indeed shows that ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)> 2|P|$. We now prove the main result. \[thm2\] Let $p$ be a prime and let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of a finite nonabelian group $G$. Let ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$ be the size of the largest conjugacy class of the group $G$. Then $|P/O_p(G)| < {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)$. We will work by induction on $|G|$. Note that for any subgroup or quotient group $L$ of $G$, ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)\geq {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(L)$. Clearly we may assume that $O_p(G)=1$. Assume that $\Phi(G)>1$. Since $O_p(G)=1$, we see that $\Phi(G)$ is a $p'$-group since $\Phi(G)$ is nilpotent. Let $T$ be the pre-image of $O_p(G/\Phi(G))$ in $G$. It is clear that $T=\Phi(G)Q$ where $Q$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $T$. By the Frattini’s argument, we have that $G=N_G(Q) T=N_G(Q) \Phi(G) Q = N_G(Q)$, and thus $Q$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. Thus we know that $Q=1$ and $O_p(G/\Phi(G))=1$. Hence we may assume that $\Phi(G)=1$. Assume that all minimal normal subgroups of $G$ are solvable. Let $F$ be the Fitting subgroup of $G$. Since $\Phi(G)=O_p(G)=1$, $G = F \rtimes A$ is a semidirect product of an abelian $p'$-group $F$ and a group $A$. Clearly, $C_G(F) = C_A(F) \times F$ and $C_A(F) \unlhd G$. Since $F$ contains all the minimal normal subgroups of $G$, we conclude that $C_A(F) = 1$, and hence, $C_G(F) = F$. Let us investigate the subgroup $K = PF$. Since $O_p(K)$ centralizes $F$ and hence $O_p(K) \leq C_G(F)=F$, it follows that $O_p(K)=1$. By induction, we may assume that $G= K = PF$. Observe that $G = PF$ is solvable and $P$ acts faithfully on the abelian $p'$-group $F$. By Lemma  \[lem3\], we know the result follows. Now we assume that $G$ has a nonsolvable minimal normal subgroup $V$. Set $V = V_1 \times \cdots \times V_k$, where $V_1, \ldots, V_k$ are isomorphic nonabelian simple groups. Let us investigate the subgroup $K = P(V \times C_G(V))$. Since $V$ is a direct product of nonabelian simple groups, $O_p(V)=1$. This implies that $V \cap O_p(K)=1$. Since $V$ and $O_p(K)$ are both normal in $K$, $O_p(K)$ centralizes $V$, so $O_p(K) \leq C_G(V)$, and hence $O_p (K) \le O_p(C_G(V))$. Since $C_G(V)$ is normal in $G$, we see that $O_p (C_G(V)) \le O_p (G) = 1$. Thus, we conclude that $O_p(K) = 1$. Therefore we may assume by induction that $G=P(V \times C_G(V))$. Set $|C_G(V)|_p=p^u$, $|G/C_G(V)|_p=p^v.$ Clearly $O_p(C_G(V))=1$. If $C_G(V)$ is not abelian, then by induction there exists $t \in C_G(V)$ such that $|t^{C_G(V)}| \geq |C_G(V)|_p=p^u$. If $C_G(V)$ is abelian, then clearly and $p^u=1$. Thus in all cases, we can find and $t \in C_G(V)$ such that $|t^{C_G(V)}| \geq |C_G(V)|_p=p^u$. Let $x_i \in V_i$ such that $|x_i^{V_i}| = {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V_i)$ and set $x = x_1 \cdots x_k$. Clearly $x \in V$ and $|x^{V}| = {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V_1)^k = {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V)$. Note that $G/(V \times C_G(V)) \leq {{\rm Out}}(V) \cong {{\rm Out}}(V_1) \wr S_k$, $G /C_G(V) \leq { {\rm Aut} }(V)\cong { {\rm Aut} }(V_1) \wr S_k$. By Lemma  \[lem1\], we have $p^v=|G/C_G(V)|_p \leq 2^{k-1}(|{ {\rm Aut} }(V_1)|_p)^k$. By Proposition  \[simple\], we have $${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V_1)> 2|{ {\rm Aut} }(V_1)|_p,$$ thus $${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V)> (2|{ {\rm Aut} }(V_1)|_p)^k \geq |S_k|_p (|{ {\rm Aut} }(V_1)|_p)^k \geq |G/C_G(V)|_p=p^v,$$ and then $${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)\geq {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V\times C_G(V)) \geq {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(V) \cdot {{\operatorname{bcl}}}(C_G(V))> |G|_p,$$ and we are done. Remark: We provide a family of examples to show that our result is the best possible. Let $G=K \rtimes V$ where $|V|$ is a Fermat prime, $|K|=|V|-1=2^n$ and $K$ acts fixed point freely on $V$. Note that ${{\operatorname{bcl}}}(G)=|V|$ and $|G/O_2(G)|_2=2^n=|V|-1$. Acknowledgement {#sec:Acknowledgement} =============== The project is partially supported by the NSFC (Nos: 11671063 and 11471054), the NSF of Jiangsu Province (No.BK20161265), and the Simons Collaboration Grants (No 499532). [19]{} P. Fong, ‘On the characters of p-solvable groups’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1961), 263-284. , ‘The largest irreducible character degree of a finite group’, [Canad. J. Math.]{} 37 (3) (1985), 442-451. , ‘The solution of the $k(GV)$-problem’, J. Algebra 279 (2004), 694-719. R.M. Guralnick and G.R. Robinson, ‘On the commuting probability in finite groups’. J. Algebra 300 (2006), no. 2, 509-528. , ‘The largest lengths of conjugacy classes and the Sylow subgroups of finite groups’, [Arch. Math.]{} 86 (2006), 1-6. , ‘On the number of characters in a $p$-block of a $p$-solvable group’, Illinois J. Math. 28 (1984) 181-210. , ‘On the largest conjugacy class length of a finite group’. Monatsh. Math. 174 (2014), no. 2, 259-264. , ‘Orbit sizes, character degrees and Sylow subgroups’, [Adv. in Math.]{}, 184 (2004), 18-36. , ‘On a conjecture of Brauer for $p$-solvable groups’, J. Math. Osaka City Univ. 13 (1962), 35-38. , ‘The largest character degree and the Sylow subgroups of finite groups’, [J. Algebra]{} 277 (2004), 165-171. , ‘The largest character degree and the Sylow subgroups of finite groups’, J. Algebra Appl. (2016), 1650066. , ‘On Brauer’s $k(B)$-problem’, J. Algebra 184 (1996), 1143-1160. P. Schmid, The Solution of the k(GV) Problem, Imperial College Press, 2008. , ‘The largest size of conjugacy class and the Sylow $p$-subgroups of finite groups’, [Arch. Math.]{} (2017), no.1, 9-16.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The longitudinal dynamics of electron bunches with a large energy spread circulating in the storage rings with a small momentum compaction factor is considered. Also the structure of the longitudinal phase space is considered as well as its modification due to changes in the ring parameters. The response of an equilibrium area upon changes of the nonlinear momentum compaction factor is presented.' author: - Eugene Bulyak - Peter Gladkikh - Vladislav Skomorokhov title: 'Synchrotron dynamics in Compton x-ray ring with nonlinear momentum compaction' --- Introduction ============ Engagement of electron storage rings for production of x rays through Compton scattering of laser photons against ultrarelativistic electrons was proposed in 1998 [@huang98]. Two basic schemes exist so far. One of them supposes use of electron beams with unsteady parameters [@loewen] and applies the continual injection (and ejection of circulating bunches by the next injecting pulse) of dense intensive bunches. The second scheme is based on the continuous circulation of bunches. To make the bunches acquired a sufficiently large energy spread confined (see [@buepac04]), a lattice with a small controllable momentum compaction factor is proposed to employ [@gladkikh05]. The longitudinal dynamics in the small compaction lattice is governed not only by the linear effects of the momentum deviation but by the nonlinear ones as well. In Compton sources storing the bunches with the large energy spread which can be as high as a few percents, ring’s energy acceptance becomes compared to the energy spread. To get proper life time of the circulating electrons, the energy acceptance $\sigma\equiv \max (E-E_s)/E_s$ ($E_s$ is the energy of synchronous particle) should be high enough. Within a linear approximation according to the energy deviation, the acceptance can be increased either by enhancement of the RF voltage, $V_\mathrm{rf}$, or by decreasing of the linear momentum compaction factor $\alpha_0$ since $\sigma\propto\sqrt{V_\mathrm{rf}/\alpha_0}$. The paper presents results of study on the longitudinal dynamics of electron bunches circulating in storage rings with a small linear momentum compaction factor $\alpha_0$. Structure of the phase space are considered and its deformation with changes in the ring lattice parameters. In particular, the size of stable area as a function of the RF voltage and momentum compaction is evaluated. Finite-difference model of longitudinal motion ============================================== Let us consider a model of the ring comprised only two components: drift and radio frequency (rf) cavity. For the sake of simplicity we will suggest the cavity infinitely short, in which the particle momentum (energy) suffer an abrupt change while the phase of a particle remains unchanged. On the contrary, the phase of a particle traveling along the drift changes while the energy remains invariable. The longitudinal motion in a such idealized ring will be described in canonically conjugated variables $\phi $ (the phase about zero voltage in the cavity) and the momentum $p\equiv (\gamma -\gamma_s)/\gamma_s$ equal to the relative deviation of the particle energy from the synchronous one ($\gamma_s $ is the Lorentz factor of the synchronous particle). To study systems able to confine the beams with large energy spread, one needs to account not only the linear part of the orbit deviation from the synchronous one, but nonlinear terms as well: $$\label{c:1a} \Delta x\approx D_1p+D_2p^2+\dots \;,$$ where $D_1$ and $D_2$ are the dispersion functions of the first and second orders, respectively. Accordingly, relative lengthening of a (flat) orbit is $$\begin{aligned} \label{c:2} \frac{\Delta L}{L_0}&=\oint\sqrt{\left(1+\frac{\Delta x}{\rho} \right)^2+\left(\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}\Delta x}{{\,\mathrm{d}}s} \right)^2}{\,\mathrm{d}}s\nonumber\\ & \approx \alpha_0p +\alpha_1p^2+\dots\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $L_0$ is the length of synchronous orbit, $\rho(s)$ the local radius of curvature, $s$ the longitudinal coordinate. The coefficients $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$ are determined as \[c:3\] $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_1 &= \frac1{L_0}\oint\frac{D_1}{\rho}{\,\mathrm{d}}s\; ; \label{c:3a}\\ \alpha_2 &= \frac1{L_0}\oint\left(\frac{D'^2_1}{2}+ \frac{D_2}{\rho}\right){\,\mathrm{d}}s \;.\end{aligned}$$ In accordance with the definitions for $\alpha_0$ and $\alpha_1$, the momentum compaction factor $\alpha_c$ can be written as $$\label{c:1} \alpha_c = \frac1{L_0}\frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}L}{{\,\mathrm{d}}\delta}\approx \alpha_0 +2\alpha_1 p + \dots \;.$$ To study the phase dynamics in a storage ring with small momentum compaction factor $\alpha_0$, the next terms of expansion of the compaction over the energy deviation should be accounted for, hence — the higher terms in the sliding factor $\eta$ [@pellegrini91; @lin93; @feikes04]. Magnitude of $\eta$ characterizes a relative variation of the phase due to changes of the particle velocity and orbit length. It is determined by the relation $$\label{c:4} \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}= \eta(p) p \approx (\eta_0 + \eta_1 p + \dots)p\;,$$ with $\eta_0$ and $\eta_1$ having been determined by \[c:4a\] $$\begin{aligned} \eta_0 &=\alpha_0-1/\gamma^2_s\\ \eta_1 &=\alpha_1+\eta_0+\frac{3}{2\gamma^2_s} \left( 1-\frac{1}{\gamma^2_s} \right) \; .\end{aligned}$$ The finite-difference equations for the phase $\phi$ and the variation of relative energy $p$ in the model under consideration read \[eq:3\] $$\begin{aligned} \phi_f&= \phi_i+ (\kappa_0 p_i+\kappa_1 p_i^2)\Delta\tau\; ;\label{eq:3a} \\ p_f&= p_i -U_\mathrm{rf}\sin\phi_f \Delta\tau\; \label{eq:3b},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{c:5} \Delta\tau=\tau_f-\tau_i=\frac{\beta c}{L}(t_f-t_i)\nonumber\;,$$ the subscripts $i$ and $f$ correspond to the initial and final values, respectively. The dimensionless variable $\tau=t\beta c/L$ represents time expressed in number of rotations ($t$ is time, $\beta c$ the velocity of a particle). The factors $\kappa_0$ and $\kappa_1$ at a large $\gamma_s$ are determined by the expressions $\kappa_0 = 2\pi h \eta_0\approx 2\pi h \alpha_0$, $\kappa_1 = 2\pi h \eta_1\approx 2\pi h (\alpha_0+\alpha_1)$ ( $h$ the harmonic number). From Eqs. , differential (smoothed) equations can be deduced. As it seen, the RHS of contains the final value of the phase $\phi_f$ expressed via the initial value $\phi_i$ and momentum $p_i$ by the equation . Let us expand $\sin\phi_f$ into series of powers of $\Delta\tau$: $$\begin{aligned} \label{c:6} \sin\phi_f &= \sin\left[ \phi_i+ (\kappa_0 p_i+\kappa_1 p_i^2)\Delta\tau\right]\nonumber\;\\ &\approx \sin\phi_i+\cos\phi_i(\kappa_0 p_i+\kappa_1 p_i^2)\Delta\tau\; .\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Delta\tau$ can not be regarded as infinitesimal (formally Eqs.  present a complete turn, $\Delta\tau = 1$), then the linear term can be neglected if $\kappa_0 p_i + \kappa_1 p_i^2\ll 1$. In the considered case it can be done since maximum of the energy spread does not exceed a few percents, and the momentum compaction factor $\alpha_0$ supposed small. From these assumptions, finite difference equations reduce to \[eq:3c\] $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\Delta\phi}{\Delta\tau}&=\kappa_0 p_i+\kappa_1 p_i^2\; ; \\ \frac{\Delta p}{\Delta\tau}&= -U_\mathrm{rf}\sin\phi_i \; .\end{aligned}$$ Differential model of motion ============================ Noting of formal similarity of Eqs.  to canonical Hamilton equations describing a mathematical pendulum, we can use a smoothed analog to these equations (a differential substitute for a finite difference equation, $\Delta\tau \to 0$) to facilitate analysis of the motion \[eq:4\] $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}\phi}{{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau} &= \kappa_0 p+\kappa_1 p^2\; ; \\ \frac{{\,\mathrm{d}}p}{{\,\mathrm{d}}\tau} &= -U_\mathrm{rf}\sin\phi\; .\end{aligned}$$ A Hamilton function for possesses a specific form with the cubic canonical momentum term $$\label{eq:5} H=\frac{\kappa_1}3 p^3+\frac{\kappa_0}2 p^2+U_\mathrm{rf}(1 -\cos\phi) \; .$$ To analyze a phase portrait of the system, it is expedient to present Hamilton function of the longitudinal motion in the reduced form: $$\label{k:1} \tilde{H} = \mu\frac{\tilde{p}^3}{3} +\frac{\tilde{p}^2}2 +1 -\cos\phi \;,$$ where \[h:5a\] $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{p} &=\sqrt{\frac{\kappa_0}{U_\mathrm{rf}}}p = \sqrt{\frac{2\pi h \alpha_0 \gamma_s E_0}{eV}}p \; ;\\ \mu^2 &=\frac{\kappa^2_{1}U_\mathrm{rf}}{\kappa^3_{0}} =\frac{(\alpha_0+\alpha_1)^2 eV}{2\pi h\alpha^3_0 \gamma_s E_0}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Phase portraits of motion with the Hamiltonian represented in Fig. \[fig:1\]. Topology of the phase plane is governed by the magnitude and sign of the parameter $\mu$. At zero value, $\mu=0$, the Hamiltonian or has a form of mathematical pendulum; its phase plane is presented in Fig. \[fig:1\](a). Within the interval $0\leq \mu^2 < 1/12$, there an additional area of finite motion appears; this area is separated from the main area with the band of infinite motion as depicted in Fig. \[fig:1\](b). When the parameter $\mu $ exceeds the critical value $\mu^2_{c}=1/12$ \[see Fig. \[fig:1\](c)\], e.g. $1/12\leq \mu^2 < \infty $, the structure of the phase plane will have changed as is represented in Fig. \[fig:1\](d). The dimension of a stable (finite) longitudinal motion, i.e., the area comprised by a separatrix, is in direct proportion with ratio of the ring parameters. For the considered case of the nonlinear Hamiltonian , the separatrix height (size along the $p$ axis) is determined by \[k:2\] $$\begin{aligned} \Delta p &= \frac{\alpha_0}{\alpha_0+\alpha_1} \left[\cos\frac\xi3+\cos\left(\frac\xi3+\frac\pi3\right)\right] \;,\label{k:2a}\\ &\cos\xi = 12U_\mathrm{rf}\frac{\left(\alpha_0+\alpha_1\right)^2} {\pi h\alpha^3_0}-1\;, \nonumber\\ \Delta p &= \frac32 \frac{\alpha_0}{\alpha_0+\alpha_1}\;,\label{k:2b}\end{aligned}$$ for $\mu\leq\mu_c$ and $\mu\geq\mu_c$ , respectively. \[bth\] {width="\textwidth"} The phase width of the separatrix (dimension along the $\phi$ axis) is determined by expressions \[k:3\] $$\begin{aligned} \Delta \phi &= 2\pi\; ; \qquad \mu\le \mu_c\; ,\\ \Delta \phi &= 2\arccos\left[1-\frac{\pi h}{3U_\mathrm{rf}} \frac{\alpha^3_0}{\left(\alpha_0+\alpha_1\right)^2}\right]\;; \\ &\mu\geq \mu_c \; ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for the subcritical and overcritical values of the parameter $\mu$. Dependence of the phase and momentum separatrix extensions on rf amplitude at fixed other parameters, which values are listed in Tab. \[tab:table1\], is presented in Fig. \[fig:2\]. \[bth\] parameter desig value ----------------------- ----------------- --------------- Accel. voltage (Volt) $V_\mathrm{rf}$ $4\times10^5$ Lorentz factor $\gamma_s$ 84 Harmonic number $h$ 32 Lin. comp. factor $\alpha_0$ 0.01 Quad. comp. factor $\alpha_1$ 0.2 : \[tab:table1\] Ring parameters \[bth\] ![Separatrix height (above) and width (below) as functions of the parameter $U_\mathrm{rf}$ \[fig:2\]](graph1.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} As it can be seen from the plot in Fig. \[fig:2\], while increasing the parameter $U_\mathrm{rf}$ the separatrix height grows up reaching its maximum, $\Delta p\approx 7.1 \times 10^{-2}$, at $U_{\mathrm{rf}(c)}\approx 3.8\times 10^{-4}$ (which is equal to the rf voltage of $V_{(c)}\approx 16.3$kV at $\gamma_s = 84$). With further increase in the rf voltage, the separatrix height remains constant. The separatrix width remains constant with increase of the rf voltage up to the critical value $U_{\mathrm{rf}(c)}$, then it *is diminishing.* In Fig. \[fig:3\], a dependence of the separatrix dimensions upon the linear momentum compaction factor under other system parameters fixed is presented. \[bth\] ![Separatrix height (above) and width (below) as functions of $\alpha_0$ \[fig:3\]](graph3.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} Quite the reverse to the dependence $\Delta\phi=\Delta\phi (U_\mathrm{rf})$, a dependence of the separatrix width upon the linear compaction factor, $\Delta\phi=\Delta\phi(\alpha_{0})$, is increasing while $\alpha_0$ grows. At a certain critical value of the linear momentum compaction factor $\alpha_{0(c)}$ (in the suggested case $\alpha_{0(c)} \approx 0.03$ ), the width of equilibrium area has reached its maximum and remains constant with further increase in $\alpha_0$. A dependence of the separatrix height on $\alpha_0$ is of increasing within interval $0\leq\alpha_0\leq\alpha_{0(c)}$. Then, after the maximum at $\alpha_0=\alpha_{0(c)}$ this dependence becomes declining, coming to zero at a large $\alpha_0$. Since the phase volume enclosed within the separatrix (and, therefore, the storage ring acceptance) is proportional to product of the transverse dimensions of the separatrix, $\sigma\sim \Delta p \Delta \phi$, then from comparison of the plots in Fig. \[fig:2\] and Fig. \[fig:3\] it follows that optimal working point is about the critical parameters. In addition, it can be seen that, dislike a linear lattice, nonlinear terms in the momentum compaction factor restrict the infinite increase of energy acceptance with decreasing of the linear momentum compaction factor: The acceptance increase takes place while the linear compaction is above certain critical value $\alpha_{0(c)}$, which is determined by the ring lattice parameters according to equality $$\label{k:4} \frac{(\alpha_0+\alpha_1)^2 eV}{2\pi h\alpha^3_0 \gamma_s E_0} =\frac{1}{12}\;.$$ With further decrease of $\alpha_{0}$ the acceptance decreases also. To validate use of differential (smoothed) equations of motion for analysis of Compton storage rings, a code has been developed based on the finite difference equations . A simulated phase space portrait at the ring parameters listed in Tab. \[tab:table1\] for $\mu\geq\mu_{c}$ is presented in Fig. \[fig:4\]. \[bth\] ![Distribution of confined electrons over the longitudinal phase plane in a system with cubic nonlinearity at $\mu\geq\mu_{c}$; left bunch corresponds to the “linear” case, right – to the “nonlinear” (additional) one \[fig:4\]](coolfig13.eps "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} From the figure it follows that the electrons can be confined within not only the “linear” area (minimum of Hamilton function ), but the “nonlinear” as well. (The nonlinear stable region disappears in a linear lattice.) RMS sizes and the center of weight positions perfectly correspond to the analytical estimations presented above. Summary. Conclusion =================== Results of the study on dynamics of synchrotron motion of particles in the storage rings with the nonlinear momentum compaction factor presented in the paper, can be digested as follows: - Grounded on a simplified model of the storage ring, the finite-difference equations were derived. Hamiltonian treatment of the phase space structure was performed. As was shown, the structure of the phase space is governed by ratios of the ring parameters. An analytical expression for the factor $\mu $, which determines the topology of the longitudinal phase space, was derived. - Dependencies of the sizes of the equilibrium areas of the synchrotron motion in a nonlinear lattice were derived. Analysis of dependence of the longitudinal acceptance upon the amplitude of rf voltage, and the linear compaction factor at the fixed quadratic nonlinear term was presented. As was shown, the acceptance is growing up only to a definite magnitude which determines by the critical value of parameter $\mu=\mu_{c}$. It was emphasized that in order to maximize the acceptance of a lattice with a small linear momentum compaction factor and a wide energy spread of electrons in the bunches, the system parameters should be chosen close to the critical value of $\mu$. - To validate the use of smoothed equations of motion, a simulating code was developed. The code is based on the finite-difference equations. The results of simulation manifest a good agreement with the theoretical predictions on the sizes and position of equilibrium areas. The results obtained allow to make the following conclusion: Enlargement of the energy acceptance of a ring by decreasing of the momentum compaction factor is limited with the nonlinearity in the compaction factor. Decreasing of the linear compaction factor below the certain limit causes the reversed effect — decreasing of the acceptance. Similar consequence corresponds to the build–up of the rf voltage: Increase of the voltage above a certain limit causes narrowing of possible bunch lengthes while the energy acceptance remains constant. This effect can lead to decrease in the injection efficiency for high rf voltages. [7]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} , ****, (). , Ph.D. thesis, (). , in ** (), . , , , ****, (). , ****, (). , ****, (). , , , , , ****, ().

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'X-ray computed tomography (CT) reconstructs cross-sectional images from projection data. However, ionizing X-ray radiation associated with CT scanning may induce cancer and genetic damage. Therefore, the reduction of radiation dose has attracted major attention. Few-view CT image reconstruction is an important topic to reduce the radiation dose. Recently, data-driven algorithms have shown great potential to solve the few-view CT problem. In this paper, we develop a dual network architecture (DNA) for reconstructing images directly from sinograms. In the proposed DNA method, a point-wise fully-connected layer learns the backprojection process requesting significantly less memory than the prior arts do. Proposed method uses $O(C\times N\times N_c)$ parameters where $N$ and $N_c$ denote the dimension of reconstructed images and number of projections respectively. $C$ is an adjustable parameter that can be set as low as 1. Our experimental results demonstrate that DNA produces a competitive performance over the other state-of-the-art methods. Interestingly, natural images can be used to pre-train DNA to avoid overfitting when the amount of real patient images is limited.' author: - Huidong Xie - Hongming Shan - Wenxiang Cong - Xiaohua Zhang - Shaohua Liu - Ruola Ning - Ge Wang bibliography: - 'main.bib' title: 'Dual Network Architecture for Few-view CT – Trained on ImageNet Data and Transferred for Medical Imaging' --- INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro} ============ Few-view CT is often mentioned in the context of tomographic image reconstruction. Because of the requirement imposed by the Nyquist sampling theorem, reconstructing high-quality CT images from under-sampled data was considered impossible. When sufficient projection data are acquired, analytical methods such as filtered backprojection (FBP)[@wang_approximate_2007] are widely used for clinical CT image reconstruction. In few-view CT circumstance, severe streak artifacts are introduced in these analytically reconstructed images due to the incompleteness of projection data. To overcome this issue, various iterative techniques were proposed in the past decades, which can incorporate prior knowledge in the image reconstruction. Well-known methods include algebraic reconstruction technique (ART) [@gordon_algebraic_1970], simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique (SART) [@andersen_simultaneous_1984], expectation maximization (EM) [@dempster_maximum_1977], etc. Nevertheless, these iterative methods are time-consuming and still not able to produce satisfying results in many cases. Recently, the development of the graphics processing unit (GPU) technology and the availability of big data allow researchers to train deep neural networks in an acceptable amount of time. Therefore, deep learning has become a new frontier for CT reconstruction research [@wang_perspective_2016; @wang_guest_2015; @wang_image_2018]. In the literature, only a few deep learning methods were proposed for reconstructing images directly from raw data. Zhu et al. [@zhu_image_2018] use fully-connected layers to learn the mapping from raw k-space data to a corresponding reconstructed MRI image. There is no doubt that fully-connected layers can be used to learn the mapping from the sinogram domain to the image domain. However, importing the whole sinograms into the network requires a significant amount of memory and posts a major challenge to train the network for a full-size CT image/volume on a single consumer-level GPU such as an NVIDIA Titan Xp. A recently proposed method, iCT-Net [@li_learning_2019] reduces the computational complexity from $O(N^4)$ in [@zhu_image_2018] to $O(N^2\times N_d)$, where $N$ and $N_d$ denote the size of medical images and the number of detectors respectively. But one consumer-level GPU is still unable to handle the iCT-Net. In this study, we propose a dual network architecture (DNA) for CT image reconstruction, which reduces the required parameters from $O(N^2\times N_d)$ of iCT-Net to $O(C\times N\times N_c)$, where $C$ is an adjustable hyper-parameter much less than $N$, which can be even set as low as 1. Theoretically, the larger the $C$, the better the performance. The proposed network is trainable on one consumer-level GPU such as NVIDIA Titan Xp or NVIDIA 1080 Ti. The proposed DNA is inspired by the FBP formulation to learn a refined filtration backprojection process for reconstructing images directly from sinograms. For X-ray CT, every single point in the sinogram domain only relates to pixels/voxels on an X-ray path through a field of view. With this intuition, the reconstruction process of DNA is learned in a point-wise manner, which is the key ingredient in DNA to alleviate the memory burden. Also, insufficient training dataset is another major issue in deep imaging. Inspired by [@zhu_image_2018], we first pre-train the network using natural images from the ImageNet [@noauthor_ImageNet_nodate] and then fine-tune the model using real patient data. To our best knowledge, this is the first work using ImageNet images to pre-train a medical CT image reconstruction network. In the next section, we present a detailed explanation for our proposed DNA network. In the third section, we describe the experimental design, training data and reconstruction results. Finally, in the last section, we discuss relevant issues and conclude the paper. METHODS ======= This section presents the proposed dual network architecture and the objective functions. Dual network architecture (DNA) {#sec:2.1} ------------------------------- DNA consists of 2 networks, $G_1$ and $G_2$. The input to the $G_1$ is a batch of few-view sinograms. According to the Fourier slice theorem, low-frequency information is sampled denser than high-frequency information. Therefore, if we perform backprojection directly, reconstructed images will become blurry. Ramp filter is usually used to filter projections for avoiding this blurring effect. In DNA, filtration is performed on the sinogram in the Fourier domain through multiplication with the filter length (filter length, can be shorten, equals twice the length of sinogram). Then, the filtered projections are fed into the first network $G_1$. $G_1$ tries to learn a filtered backprojection algorithm and output an intermediate image. Then, $G_2$ further optimizes the output from $G_1$, generating the final image. $G_1$ can be divided into three components: filtration, backprojection, and refinement. In the filtration part, 1-D convolutional layers are used to produce filtered data. Theoretically, the length of the filter is infinitely long for a continuous signal, but it is not practical in reality. Filter length is here set as twice the length of a projection vector (which can be further shortened). Since the filtration is done through a multi-layer CNN, different layers can learn different parts of the filter. Therefore, the 1-D convolutional window is empirically set as $\frac{1}{4}$ the length of the projection vector to reduce the computational burden. The idea of residual connections is used to reserve high-resolution information and to prevent gradient from vanishing. Next, the learned sinogram from the filtration part is backprojected by $G_1$. The backprojection part of $G_1$ is inspired by the following intuition: every point in the filtered projection vector only relates to pixel values on the x-ray path through the corresponding object image and any other data points in this vector contribute nothing to the pixels on this x-ray path. There is no doubt that a single fully-connected layer can be implemented to learn the mapping from the sinogram domain to the image domain, but its memory requirement becomes an issue due to extremely large matrix multiplications in this layer. To reduce the memory burden, the reconstruction process is learned in a point-wise manner using a point-wise fully-connected layer. By doing so, DNA can truly learn the backprojection process. The input to the point-wise fully-connected layer is a single point in the filtered projection vector, and the number of neurons is the width of the corresponding image. After this point-wise fully-connected layer, rotation and summation operations are applied to simulate the analytical FBP method. Bilinear interpolation [@gribbon_novel_2004] is used for rotating images. Moreover, $C$ is empirically set as 23, allowing the network to learn multiple mappings from the sinogram domain to the image domain. The number of $C$ can be understood as the number of branches. Note that different view-angle uses different parameters. Although the proposed filtration and backprojection parts all together learn a refined FBP method, streak artifacts cannot be eliminated perfectly. An image reconstructed by the backprojection part is fed into the last portion of $G_1$ for refinement. Refinement part is a typical U-net [@ronneberger_u-net:_2015] with conveying paths and is built with the ResNeXt [@xie_aggregated_2016-1] structure. U-net was originally designed for biological images segmentation and had been utilized in various applications. For example, Ref [@shan_3-d_2018-1; @shan_competitive_2019; @chen_low-dose_2017-1] use U-net with conveying paths for CT image denoising, Ref [@jin_deep_2017; @lee_deep-neural-network-based_2019] for few-view CT problem and Ref [@quan_compressed_2018] for compressed sensing MRI, etc. U-net in the DNA contains 4 down-sampling and 4 up-sampling layers, each has a stride of 2 and is followed by a rectified linear unit (ReLU). A $3\times 3$ kernel is used in both convolutional and transpose-convolutional layers. The number of kernels in each layer is 36. To maintain the tensor’s size, zero-padding is used. $G_2$ uses the same structure as the refinement part in $G_1$. The input to $G_2$ is a concatenation of FBP-result and output from $G_1$. With the use of $G_2$, the network becomes deep. As a result, the benefits of deep learning can be utilized in this direct mapping for CT image reconstruction. Objective functions ------------------- As shown in Fig. \[fig:Network\_structure\], DNA is optimized using the Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) framework [@arjovsky_wasserstein_2017-1], which is one of the most advanced framework in the field. In this study, the proposed framework contains three components: 2 generator networks $G_1$ and $G_2$ which are introduced in Subsection \[sec:2.1\], and a discriminator network $D$. $G_1$ and $G_2$ aim at reconstructing images directly from a batch of few-view sinograms. $D$ receives images from $G_1$, $G_2$ or ground-truth dataset, and intends to distinguish whether an image is real (from the ground-truth dataset) or fake (from either $G_1$ or $G_2$). Both networks are able to optimize themselves in the training process. If an optimized network $D$ can hardly distinguish fake images from real images, we will say that generators $G_1$ and $G_2$ can fool discriminator $D$ which is the goal of GAN. By the design, the network $D$ also helps to improve the texture of the final image and prevent over-smoothed issue from occurring. Different from the vanilla generative adversarial network (GAN) [@goodfellow_generative_2014], Wasserstein GAN (WGAN) replaces the logarithm terms in GAN loss function with the Wasserstein distance, improving the training stability during the training process. In the WGAN framework, the 1-Lipschitez function is assumed with weight clipping. However, Ref [@gulrajani_improved_2017-1] points out that the weight clipping may be problematic in WGAN and suggests to replace it with a gradient penalty term, which is implemented in our proposed framework. Hence, the objective function of the proposed WGAN framework is expressed as follows: $$\min_{\theta_{G_1},\theta_{G_2}}\max_{\theta_D}\bigg\{\mathbb{E}_{S_{SV}}\big[D(G_1(S_{SV}))\big]-\mathbb{E}_{I_{FV}}\big[D(I_{FV})\big]-\mathbb{E}_{S_{SV}}\big[D(G_2(I_{SV}))\big]-\mathbb{E}_{I_{FV}}\big[D(I_{FV})\big]+\lambda\mathbb{E}_{\bar{I}}\big[(\|\nabla(\bar{I})\|_2-1)^2\big]\bigg\} \label{equ:wgan}$$ where $S_{SV}$, $I_{SV}=G_1(S_{SV})$, $I_{FV}$ represent a sparse-view sinogram, an image reconstructed by $G_1$ from a sparse-view sinogram and the ground-truth image reconstructed from the full-vew projection data respectively. $\mathbb{E}_a[b]$ denotes the expectation of $b$ as a function of $a$. $\theta_{G_1}$ ,$\theta_{G_2}$ and $\theta_{D}$ represent the trainable parameters of $G_1$, $G_2$ and $D$ respectively. $\bar{I}$ represents images between fake (from either $G_1$ or $G_2$) and real (from the ground-truth dataset) images. $\nabla(\bar{I})$ denotes the gradient of $D$ with respect to $\bar{I}$. The parameter $\lambda$ balances the Wasserstein distance terms and gradient penalty terms. As suggested in Refs [@arjovsky_wasserstein_2017-1; @goodfellow_generative_2014-1; @gulrajani_improved_2017-1], $G_1$, $G_2$ and $D$ are updated iteratively. The objective function for optimizing the generator networks involves the mean square error (MSE) [@chen_low-dose_2017-1; @wolterink_generative_2017], structural similarity index (SSIM) [@zhou_wang_image_2004; @you_structurally-sensitive_2018] and adversarial loss [@wu_cascaded_2017; @yang_low-dose_2018]. MSE is a popular choice for denoising applications [@wang_mean_2009], which effectively suppresses the background noise but could result in over-smoothed images [@zhao_loss_2017]. Moreover, MSE is insensitive to image texture since it assumes background noise is white gaussian noise and is independent of local image features. The formula of MSE loss is expressed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_2=\frac{1}{N_b\cdot W \cdot H}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\|Y_i-X_i\|^2_2$$ where $N_b$, $W$ and $H$ denote the number of batches, image width and image height respectively. $Y_i$ and $X_i$ represent ground-truth image and image reconstructed by generator networks (either $G_1$ or $G_2$) respectively. To compensate for the disadvantages of MSE and acquire visually better images, SSIM is introduced in the objective function. The SSIM formula is expressed as follows: $$SSIM(Y,X)=\frac{(2\mu_Y\mu_X+C_1)(2\sigma_{YX}+C_2)}{({\mu_Y}^2+{\mu_X}^2+C_1)({\sigma_Y}^2+{\sigma_X}^2+C_2)}$$ where $C_1=(K_1\cdot R)^2$ and $C_2=(K_2\cdot R)^2$ are constants used to stabilize the formula if the denominator is small. $R$ stands for the dynamic range of pixel values and $K_1=0.01$, $K_2=0.03$. $\mu_Y$, $\mu_X$, ${\sigma_Y}^2$, ${\sigma_X}^2$ and $\sigma_{XY}$ are the mean of $Y$ and $X$, variance of $Y$ and $X$ and the covariance between $Y$ and $X$ respectively. Then, the structural loss is expressed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{sl}=1-SSIM(Y,X)$$ Furthermore, the adversarial loss aims to assist the generators, producing sharp images that are indistinguishable by the discriminator network. Refer to equation \[equ:wgan\], adversarial loss for $G_1$ is expressed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}^{(1)}_{al}=-\mathbb{E}_{S_{SV}}[D(G_1(S_{SV}))]$$ and adversarial loss for $G_2$ is expressed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}^{(2)}_{al}=-\mathbb{E}_{S_{SV}}\big[D(G_2(I_{SV}))\big]$$ As mentioned early, solving the few-view CT problem is similar to solving a set of linear equations when the number of equations is not sufficient to perfectly resolve all the unknowns. The intuition of DNA is trying to estimate those unknown as close as possible by combining the information from the existing equations and the knowledge hidden in the big data. The recovered unknowns should satisfy the equations we have. Therefore, MSE between the original sinogram and the synthesized sinogram from a reconstructed image (either $G_1$ or $G_2$) is also included as part of the objective function, which is expressed as follows: $$\mathcal{L}_{2}^{sino}=\frac{1}{N_b\cdot V \cdot H}\sum_{i=1}^{N_b}\|Y_{i}^{sino}-X_{i}^{sino}\|^2_2$$ where $N_b$, $V,H$ denote the number of batches, number of views and sinogram height respectively. $Y_{i}^{sino}$ represents original sinogram and $X_{i}^{sino}$ represents sinogram from a reconstructed image (either $G_1$ or $G_2$). Both generator networks are updated at the same time. The overall objective function of 2 generators is expressed as follows: $$\min_{\theta_{G_1},\theta_{G_2}} [\lambda_Q\cdot (\mathcal{L}^{(1)}_{al} + \mathcal{L}^{(2)}_{al}) +\lambda_P\cdot(\mathcal{L}^{(1)}_{sl}+\mathcal{L}^{(2)}_{sl}) +\lambda_R\cdot (\mathcal{L}_{2}^{sino(1)}+\mathcal{L}_{2}^{sino(2)}) +\mathcal{L}^{(2)}_2+\mathcal{L}^{(1)}_2]$$ where the superscripts $^{(1)}$ and $^{(2)}$ indicate that the term is for measurements between ground-truth images and results reconstructed by $G_1$ and $G_2$ respectively. $\lambda_Q$, $\lambda_P$ and $\lambda_R$ are hyper-parameters used to balance different loss functions. \[htbp\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:Network\_structure\] Workflow of the proposed method. Images are example outputs from a 49-view sinogram. The display window is \[-160, 240\] HU](Network_structure.eps "fig:"){width="96.00000%"} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discriminator network --------------------- The discriminator network of proposed method takes input from $G_1$, $G_2$, and the ground-truth dataset, trying to distinguish whether the input is real. In DNA, the discriminator network has 6 convolutional layers with 64, 64, 128, 128, 256, 256 filters and followed by 2 fully-connected layers with number of neurons 1,024 and 1 respectively. The leaky ReLU activation function is used after each layer with a slope of 0.2 in the negative part. $3\times 3$ kernel and zero-padding are used for all convolutional layers, with stride equals 1 for odd layers and 2 for even layers. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS ======================= Experimental design ------------------- The clinical patient dataset was generated and authorized by Mayo Clinic for “*the 2016 NIH-AAPM-Mayo Clinic Low Dose CT Grand Challenge*” [@noauthor_low_nodate]. The dataset contains a total of 5,936 abdominal CT images selected by Mayo Clinic with 1 mm slice thickness. Pixel values of patient images were normalized between 0 and 1. In this dataset, 9 patients (5,410 images) are selected for training/validation while 1 patient (526 images) is selected for testing. As mentioned early, DNA was first pre-trained using natural images from ImageNet. During the pre-training segment, a total of 120,000 images were randomly selected from ImageNet, among which 114,000 images were used for training/validation and the remaining 6,000 images were used for testing. Pixel values of ImageNet images were also normalized between 0 and 1. All the pixel values outside a prescribed circle were set to 0. All images were resized into $256\times 256$. The Radon transform was used to simulate few-view projection measurements. 39-view and 49-view sinograms were respectively synthesized from angles equally distributed over a full scan range. A batch size of 10 was selected for training. All experimental code was implemented in the TensorFlow framework [@abadi_tensorflow:_nodate] on an NVIDIA Titan Xp GPU. The Adam optimizer [@kingma_adam:_2014] was used to optimize the parameters. We compared DNA with 3 state-of-the-art deep learning methods, including LEARN [@chen_learn:_2018], sinogram-synthesis U-net [@lee_deep-neural-network-based_2019], and iCT-Net [@li_learning_2019]. To our best knowledge, the network settings are the same as the default settings described in the original papers. For the LEARN network, the number of iterations $\lambda^t$ was set as 50; the number of filters for all three layers was set to 48, 48, and 1 respectively; the convolutional kernel was set as $5\times 5$; the initial input to the network was the FBP result; the same preprocessed Mayo dataset described above was used to train the LEARN network. Please note that the amount of data we used to train the LEARN network was much larger than that in the original LEARN paper. For the sinogram-synthesis U-net, 720-view sinograms were simulated using the Radon transform. Then, the simulated sinograms were cropped into $50\times 50$ patches with a stride 10 for training. The FBP method was applied to the reconstructed sinograms for generating final images. The training process of iCT-Net is divided into two stages. In the first stage, the first 9 layers were pre-trained with projection data. In the second stage, the pre-trained iCT-Net performed end to end training using the patient data. In the original iCT-Net paper, iCT-Net used a total of 58 CT examinations acquired under the same condition for stage 2 training. However, since we do not have their dataset, limited Mayo images might have caused overfitting in stage 2 training when we made efforts to replicate their results. Therefore, for a fair comparison, testing images were included in the training stages. Please note that iCT-Net was handled by 2 NVIDIA Titan Xp GPUs. Visual and quantitative assessment ---------------------------------- To visualize the performance of different methods, a few representative slices were selected from the testing dataset. Figure \[fig:Mayo\_testing\] shows results reconstructed using different methods from 49-view real patient sinograms. Table \[tab:Num\_parameters\] shows the number of parameters used for these methods. [|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & LEARN & Sino-synthesis U-net & iCT-Net & DNA (49-views) & DNA (39-views)\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. of parameters & 3,004,900 & 47,118,017 & 16,933,929 & 1,962,101 & 1,844,341\ \[htbp\] [c]{} Three metrics, PSNR, SSIM, and root-mean-square-error (RMSE), are selected for quantitative assessment. Table \[tab:quan\_different\_methods\] shows quantitative measurements for different methods, acquired by averaging the metrics over the testing dataset, for both 39-view and 49-view results. [|c|c|c|c|c|]{} & LEARN & Sino-syn U-net & iCT-Net & DNA\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSIM (49-views) & $0.900\pm 0.026$ & $0.814 \pm 0.029$ & $0.784 \pm 0.020$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PSNR (49-views) & $28.966 \pm 1.262$ & $24.858 \pm 0.777$ & $27.062 \pm 0.904$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RMSE (49-views) & $0.036 \pm 0.006$ & $0.057 \pm 0.005$ & $0.045 \pm 0.005$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSIM (39-views) & $0.882 \pm 0.029$ & $0.781 \pm 0.029$ & N/A &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PSNR (39-views) & $27.994 \pm 1.211$ & $24.040 \pm 0.753$ & N/A &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RMSE (39-views) & $0.040 \pm 0.006$ & $0.063 \pm 0.006$ & N/A &\ Examination of intermediate results ----------------------------------- To demonstrate the effectiveness of two generators in DNA, another $G_2$ network was trained using solely the FBP results as the input. Figure \[fig:intermidiate\_test\] shows typical results reconstructed from 49-view sinograms using various methods. \[htbp\] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:intermidiate\_test\] Representative outputs using different methods. (a) The ground-truth, (b) FBP, (c) $G_2$ trained using only FBP results as the input, (d) $G_1$, and (e) DNA. The display window is \[-160, 240\] HU for patient images.](intermidiate_test.eps "fig:"){width="96.00000%"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As shown in the first row in Figure \[fig:intermidiate\_test\], streak artifacts cannot be perfectly eliminated by $G_2$ when the network is trained using only the FBP results. $G_1$, on the other hand, eliminates these artifacts through learning from projection data (first row, red arrows). Moreover, as mentioned early, by the design $G_1$ intends to assist $G_2$ for producing better results. This effect can be observed in the second row of Figure \[fig:intermidiate\_test\]. $G_1$ removes artifacts that cannot be removed using $G_2$ (second row, red arrow), but it introduces new artifacts (second row, orange arrow). These artifacts can then be removed by $G_2$. In summary, $G_1$ helps remove artifacts that could not be removed by processing FBP results. Even though it brings up new artifacts, the newly introduced artifacts can be removed by the second generator network. Put differently, the proposed method, DNA, combines the best of two worlds. Quantitative measurements on the outputs reconstructed by various components in DNA are listed in Table \[tab:quan\_intermidiate\_DNA\]. [|c|c|c|c|]{} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & $G_1$ & $G_2$(trained using only FBP results) & DNA\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSIM (49-views) & $0.899\pm 0.025$ & $0.908\pm 0.023$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PSNR (49-views) & $28.015\pm 1.111$ & $28.789\pm 1.167$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RMSE (49-views) & $0.040\pm 0.005$ & $0.037\pm 0.005$ &\ Generalizability analysis ------------------------- To demonstrate that the proposed method truly learns the backprojection process and can be generalized to other datasets, DNA and LEARN (second best method) were tested directly on female breast CT datasets acquired on a breast CT scanner (Koning corporation). 4,968 CT images, scanned at 49 peak kilovoltage (kVp), were acquired from 12 patients. There is a total of 3 sets of images per patient, reconstructing from 300, 150, 100 projections respectively. Koning images are reconstructed using commercial FBP with additional post-processing. Figure \[fig:Koning\_test\] shows representative images reconstructed using different methods. Table \[tab:quan\_koning\] gives the corresponding quantitative measurements. Completely dark images in the dataset were excluded, resulting in a total of 4,635 CT images. DNA demonstrates outstanding performance in terms of generalizability, as shown in Figure \[fig:Koning\_test\]. Specifically, images reconstructed using LEARN appear over-smoothed and lose some details. On the other hand, DNA not only reserves more details than LEARN does, but also suppresses streak artifacts effectively (relative to 150-view and 100-view results). Moreover, images reconstructed by DNA from 49-view sinograms are better than 100-view images in terms of SSIM and RMSE. \[ht\] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:Koning\_test\] Representative outputs using different methods on Koning breast CT datasets. (a) Koning scanner (300-view), (b) Koning scanner (150-view), and (c) Koning scanner (100-view) (d) LEARN (49-view) and (e) DNA (49-view). The display window is \[-300, 300\] HU.](Koning_test.eps "fig:"){width="96.00000%"} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [|c|c|c|c|c|]{} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & Koning commercial FBP & Koning commercial FBP & LEARN (49-view) & DNA (49-view)\ & (150-view) & (100-view) & &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSIM & & $0.953\pm 0.062$ & $0.922\pm 0.076$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PSNR & & & $34.588\pm 3.658$ & $37.415\pm 4.259$\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RMSE & & $0.018\pm 0.015$ & $0.021\pm 0.011$ &\ Also, we validated DNA and LEARN on the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) dataset [@yang_big_2015]. MGH dataset contains 40 cadaver scans acquired with representative protocols. Each cadaver was scanned on a GE Discovery HD 750 scanner at 4 different dose levels. Only 10*NI* (Noise Index) images were used for testing. *NI* refers to the standard deviation of CT numbers within a region of interest in a water phantom of a specific size [@mccollough_ct_2006]. Typical images are shown in Figure \[fig:MGH\_test\]. The corresponding quantitative measurements are shown in Table \[tab:quan\_MGH\]. \[ht\] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ![ \[fig:MGH\_test\] Representative outputs using different methods for the MGH dataset from 49-view sinograms. (a) and (d) Ground-truth, (b) and (e) LEARN, (c) and (f) DNA. The display window is \[-300, 300\] HU.](MGH_test.eps "fig:"){width="96.00000%"} ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [|c|c|c|]{} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ & LEARN (49-view) & DNA (49-view)\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SSIM & $0.849\pm 0.039$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PSNR & $26.193\pm 1.131$ &\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RMSE & $0.049\pm 0.007$ &\ CONCLUSION ========== Although the field of deep imaging is still at its early stage, remarkable results have been achieved over the past several years. We envision that deep learning will play an important role in the field of tomographic imaging [@wang_machine_2017]. In this direction, we have developed this novel DNA network for reconstructing CT images directly from sinograms. In this paper, even though the proposed method has only been tested for the few-view CT problem, we believe that it can be applied/adapted to solve various other CT problems, including image de-noising, limited-angle CT, and so on. This paper is not the first work for reconstructing images directly from raw data, but previously proposed methods require a significantly greater amount of GPU memory for training. It is underlined that our proposed method solves the memory issue by learning the reconstruction process with the point-wise fully-connected layer and other proper network ingredients. Also, by passing only a single point into the fully-connected layer, the proposed method can truly learn the backprojection process. In our study, the DNA network demonstrates superior performance and generalizability. In the future works, we will validate the proposed method on images up to dimension $512\times 512$ or even $1024\times 1024$.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In fast wind or when the local Coulomb collision frequency is low, observations show that solar wind minor ions and ion sub-populations flow with different bulk velocities. Measurements indicate that the drift speed of both alpha particles and proton beams with respect to the bulk or core protons rarely exceeds the local Alfvén speed, suggesting that a magnetic instability or other wave-particle process limits their maximum drift. We compare simultaneous alpha particle, proton beam, and proton core observations from instruments on the *Wind* spacecraft spanning over 20 years. In nearly collisionless solar wind, we find that the normalized alpha particle drift speed is slower than the normalized proton beam speed; no correlation between fluctuations in both species’ drifts about their means; and a strong anti-correlation between collisional age and alpha-proton differential flow, but no such correlation with proton beam-core differential flow. Controlling for the collisional dependence, both species’ normalized drifts exhibit similar statistical distributions. In the asymptotic, zero Coulomb collision limit, the youngest measured differential flows most strongly correlate with an approximation of the Alfvén speed that includes proton pressure anisotropy. In this limit and with this most precise representation, alpha particles drift at 67% and proton beam drift is approximately 105% of the local Alfvén speed. We posit that one of two physical explanations is possible. Either (1) Alfvénic process preferentially accelerates or sustains proton beams and not alphas or (2) alpha particles are more susceptible to either an instability or Coulomb drag than proton beams.' bibliography: - 'Alterman2018.bib' title: A comparison of Alpha Particle and Proton Beam Differential flow in Collisionally Young Solar Wind --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Simple models of solar wind acceleration (e.g. @Parker1958a) are unable to explain the solar wind’s acceleration to high speeds. Wave-particle interactions are likely necessary to explain these observations. Differential flow is the velocity difference between two ion species. It is a useful indicator of such interactions and related acceleration. Ionized hydrogen (protons) is the most common ion in the solar wind, usually constituting over 95% by number density. Within a few thermal widths of their mean speed, solar wind protons are well described by a single bi-Maxwellian velocity distribution function (VDF). However, an asymmetric velocity space shoulder has also been observed in the proton distribution. It can be described by a second, differentially flowing Maxwellian. We refer to the primary proton component as the proton core ($p_1$) and the secondary component as the proton beam ($p_2$). Proton beams are most easily measured in fast solar wind and when the local Coulomb collision frequency is small in comparison to the local expansion time. Fully ionized helium (alpha particles, $\alpha$) are the second most common species and constitute $\sim 4\%$ of the solar wind by number density. Differential flow is the velocity difference between two ion species or populations. It has been measured in the solar wind plasma at many solar distances starting in the corona and, when the local collision rate is smaller than the expansion time, extending out to and beyond 1 AU.[@Landi2009; @Marsch1982b; @Marsch1982c; @Steinberg1996; @Neugebauer1976; @Kasper2008; @Feldman1974; @Asbridge1976; @Goldstein1995] showed that $\alpha$ differential flow is aligned with the magnetic field $\BB$ to within several degrees as long as it is larger than $\sim 1\%$ of the measured solar wind speed, consistent with any apparent non-parallel flow being measurement error. It should not be surprising that differential flow is field aligned because any finite differential flow perpendicular to $\BB$ would immediately experience a Lorentz force until the plasma was again gyrotropic on a timescale comparable to the ion gyroperiod. We denote the differential flow as $\Delta v_{b,c} = \left(\Bv_b - \Bv_c\right) \cdot \bhat$, where ion species $b$ differentially streams with respect to core population $c$ and $\bhat$ is the magnetic field unit vector. Positive differential flow is parallel to local $\BB$ and negative differential flow is antiparallel to it. Simultaneous measurements of $\alpha$-particles and protons indicate that $\dv{{\alpha,p1}}$ is typically $\lesssim 70\%$ of the local Alfvén speed, $C_A$.[@Kasper2017; @Kasper2008; @Neugebauer1976; @Asbridge1976; @Feldman1974] While measurements of heavier ions (e.g. iron, oxygen, carbon) show similar behavior [@Berger2011], proton beam-core differential flow ($\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$) has been reported at approximately the local Alfvén speed or larger [@Marsch1982c]. Given that the local Alfvén speed in the solar wind is generally a decreasing function of distance from the sun, this apparent Alfvén speed limit implies that there is effectively a local wave-mitigated limit on $\dv{{p2,p1}}$, for which several instability processes have been hypothesized. [@Daughton1998; @*Daughton1999; @*Goldstein2000] Simulations by @Maneva2015 showed that a nonlinear streaming instability limits alpha particle drift to a maximum of $0.5 \, C_A$. Raw data from the Wind/SWE Faraday cups are now archived at the NASA Space Physics Data Facility (SPDF) and available online at CDAweb. We have developed a new fitting algorithm that returns simultaneous parameters for three solar wind ion populations ($\alpha$, $p_1$, and $p_2$) and have processed over 20 years for Faraday cup solar wind measurements. For this project, we have restricted the analysis to measurements with clear differential flow signatures for both the alpha particle and proton beam components. We find that $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}/C_A$ and $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}/C_A$ are indeed clustered around characteristic values that are consistent with previous results, but with considerable spreads in the respective distributions. We investigate possible contributions to the spreads; the apparent impact of Coulomb collisions in the weakly-collisional regime; and the limitations of calculating the Alfvén speed under the commonly assumed frameworks of ideal and anisotropic MHD. We report that in collisionless solar wind: 1. $\alpha$ particle and $p_2$ differential flow speeds exhibit distinctly different trends with the locally-measured Coulomb collision rate; 2. Coulomb collisions account for the dominant contribution to the spread in $\dv{}/C_A$; 3. and an accounting for the proton pressure anisotropy in the local Alfvén speed, as under anisotropic MHD, significantly reduces the spread in $\dv{}/C_A$. For the most nearly collisionless solar wind measured at 1 AU and using the more precise, anisotropic approximation of the Alfvén speed we report that: 1. $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ is $106\%\pm 15\%$ of the local Alfvén speed; 2. $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$ is $62\%\pm 13\%$ of the local Alfvén speed; 3. and $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}\approx 1.7 \times \dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$. Finally, we extrapolate to the perfectly collisionless limit, and estimate that: 1. $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ is $\sim 105\% \pm 15\%$ of the Alfvén speed and 2. $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$ is $67\% \pm 9\%$ of the Alfvén speed. Data Sources & Selection {#sec:data} ======================== The *Wind* spacecraft launched in fall 1994. Its twin Faraday cup instruments have collected over 6.1 million proton and alpha particle direction-dependent energy spectra, the majority of which are in the solar wind.[@Ogilvie1995a] Available on CDAweb, these raw spectra consist of measured charge flux as a function of angel and energy-per-charge for each cup. With these spectra, we reconstruct 3D velocity distribution functions (VDFs) for each ion species and extract the bulk plasma properties: number density, velocity, and thermal speed. Over more than 20 years, refinements in the data processing algorithms have yielded new information from these distributions including precise $\alpha$ particle abundances [@Aellig2001; @Kasper2007; @Kasper2012], perpendicular to parallel proton temperature ratios [@Kasper2002b; @Kasper2008], and relative alpha to proton temperature ratios [@Kasper2008; @Maruca2013]. provide a thorough description of the Solar Wind Experiment (SWE). In summary, the SWE Faraday cups measure a single energy window approximately every $3\mathrm{s}$ and a full spectrum combines multiple energy windows measured over $\sim 92\mathrm{s}$. Our fitting algorithm utilizes magnetic field measurements from the *Wind* Magnetic Field Investigation (MFI) [@Koval2013a; @Lepping1995] to determine each VDF’s orientation relative to the local magnetic field and it assumes that the extracted parameters are approximately constant over the measurement time. In spectra for which this is not the case, automatically processed bulk properties can be unreliable. This new fitting algorithm returns 15 simultaneous parameters for three solar wind ion-populations: alpha particles ($\alpha$), proton cores ($p_1$) and proton beams ($p_2$). describes the six parameter $\alpha$ fitting routines. The protons are jointly fit by a nine-parameter set: six to $p_1$ (number density, vector velocity, and parallel & perpendicular temperature) and three to $p_2$ (number density, differential flow, and isotropic thermal speed). Previous work with this data includes studies by @Chen2016 [@*Gary2016]. Figure\[fig:thetaBn\] shows example energy-per-charge measurements made in four representative look directions. These directions are identified by the angle between the magnetic field and the direction normal to the Faraday cup’s aperture. Figure\[fig:exVDFs\] provides the corresponding proton (top) and $\alpha$ (bottom) VDFs. The proton beam is the extension of the proton VDF to large $v_\parallel > 0$. Our alpha particle and proton core quality requirements nominally follow @Kasper2002b [@Kasper2007; @Kasper2008]. Because this study focuses on measurements with a clear differential flow signature, we allow an additional class of fits for which the alpha particle temperature has been fixed to the proton core temperature so long as the alphas are well separated from the proton beam. To ensure that the magnetic field is suitably constant over the measurement time, we follow @Kasper2002b and we reject spectra for which the RMS fluctuation of the local magnetic field direction is larger than $20^o$. In addition to the reported impact on alpha particle measurements, we find that excluding these spectra also improves the overall quality of reported proton beams. To ensure that the beam is well constrained, we only include spectra for which the beam phase space density is larger than the core phase space density at the beam’s bulk velocity, i.e. $f_{p_2}/f_{p_1}\left(\Bv_{p_2}\right) \ge 1$. The vertical dashed lines in Figure\[fig:thetaBn\] indicate where this ratio is evaluated in each look direction. The look directions that are most aligned with the magnetic field direction give the clearest view of the beam. Fast Wind Differential Flow {#sec:fsw} =========================== Fig.\[fig:dvca-fsw\] shows the distributions of simultaneously-measured differential flows in the fast wind ($v_{\text{sw}} \geq 400 \; \mathrm{km \, s^{-1}}$) under conditions where the alphas and protons are both roughly collisionless ($10^{-2} \lesssim A_c \lesssim 10^{-1}$).[^1] The dashed lines are alpha-proton core differential flow ($\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}/C_A$) and the solid lines are proton beam-core differential flow ($\dv{{p_2,p_1}}/C_A$). Here, we normalize to the ideal MHD Alfvén speed following Eq. and consider only the proton beam and core densities.[^2] The gray lines are histograms of all data. In order to extract representative values and spreads thereof, we fit the green regions corresponding to $30\%$ of the peak with a Gaussian. In selecting this portion of the histogram, we implicitly exclude an allowed class of proton VDF fits in which dominant non-Maxwellian features appear as large tails or a halo in the proton distribution instead of a secondary peak or shoulder-like fit because the uncertainty on the drift velocity is large. We leave these core-halo distributions for a later study. For the $\alpha$-particle case, there is a distinct population with small drifts resulting from a combination of noise and poor quality fits. Requiring $\Delta v_{\alpha,p1}/C_A \geq 0.27$ addresses this issue. The best fit Gaussians are shown in orange. Similar to previous results (e.g. @Kasper2008 [@*Kasper2017; @*Marsch1982b; @*Reisenfeld2001]), $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}} = 67\%\pm26\%$ and $\dvca{{p_2,p_1}} = 108\%\pm16\%$, where the ranges quoted are the one-sigma widths of these fits. The widths of the Gaussians, which we will heretofore denote $\sigma_{\alpha, p_1}$ and $\sigma_{p_2,p_1}$, are attributed to a combination of (1) the range of measured solar wind conditions that support a non-zero differential flow and (2) applicable measurement errors. In the following sections, we hypothesize and test some potential contributions to each. Uncorrelated Fluctuations {#sec:fluctuations} ========================= Differential flow is strongest in solar wind with large Alfvénic fluctuations and therefore thought to be a signature of local wave-particle interactions, e.g. cyclotron-resonance-induced phase space diffusion for the case of proton beaming [@Tu2004]. If differential flow is in general a product of local wave-particle interactions, the difference in widths observed in the histograms of Fig.\[fig:dvca-fsw\] may follow from a resonance condition or aspect of the wave-particle coupling that depends on ion species characteristics, such as charge-to-mass ratio. To test this, we compare the magnitudes of correlated $\alpha$ and $p_2$ streaming fluctuations about their mean. Figure\[fig:ddv-ddv\] is a 2D histogram of proton beam differential flow fluctuations ($\delta \dv{{p_2,p_1}}$) and alpha differential flow fluctuations ($\delta \dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$), each about their mean. Comparing fluctuations in $\dv{}$ removes other sources of variation in the magnitude of $\dv{}$, such as large scale variations in the Alfvén speed or the bulk speed of the solar wind. Fluctuations are calculated by subtracting a running 14 minute mean from each $\dv{}$ time series, and requiring spectra for $\sim 50\%$ of the time period. Because the fitting algorithms returns the parallel component of the beam differential flow, comparing any other component would incorporate additional information about the magnetic field. An ellipse is fit to the 2D histogram and contours of the fit are shown. The insert gives the function and fit parameters. The ellipse is a circle centered at the origin, indicating that the variations in $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$ and $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ are uncorrelated on these scales. We conclude that the difference in $\dv{}$ distribution widths, i.e. $\sigma_{\alpha,p_1} \ne \sigma_{p_2,p_1}$, described in the previous section is not due to any species-specific difference in response to large scale, local fluctuations. We repeated this calculation for running means calculated over various time intervals ranging from 5 minutes to more than 20 minutes and multiple requirements for the minimum number of spectra per window. The result is not sensitive to either parameter. Trends with Collisional Age {#sec:Ac} =========================== In a hot and tenuous plasma – even in the absence of classical hard collisions – the cumulative effect of small angle Coulomb collisions acts like a simple drag force that gradually slows differentially flowing particles . showed that collisions with bulk protons are the dominant source of Coulomb drag on all other ions in the solar wind. have demonstrated that $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}}$ is a strong, exponentially decaying function of the Coulomb collisional age, the ratio of the local collision rate to the local expansion rate. The differential equation describing Coulomb drag is $\der{\dv{}}{t} = - \nu_c \dv{}$, where $\nu_c$ is the effective collision rate. In integral form, this becomes $\dv{} = \Delta v_0 \exp\!\left[- \int_0^{t_0} \nu_c \dd{t}\right]$. Under the highly-simplified assumption that $\nu_c$ and the solar wind speed ($v_{\text{sw}}$) are constant over the , the integral is commonly estimated as $\int_0^{t_0} \nu_c\dd{t} = \nu_c r/v_{\text{sw}}$. We follow @Kasper2008 and refer to this empirical proxy for the total number of collisions experienced over the expansion history as the collisional age ($A_c$) of the solar wind. $$\label{eq:Ac} A_c = \nu_c \times \frac{r}{v_\mathrm{sw}}$$ refer to the same quantity as the Coulomb Number ($N_c$). As we show below, the exponential decay of $\dv{}$ with collisional age implies that $\dvca{}$ histogram widths $\sigma_{\alpha,p_1}$ and $\sigma_{p_2,p_1}$ is highly sensitive to the range of $A_c$ in the sample. Based on the work of @Tracy2016a, we neglect collisions amongst the minor populations themselves and only consider collisions of $\alpha$ or $p_2$ ions with proton core ions ($p_1$). Based on the work of @Kasper2008 [@Kasper2017], we limit our analysis of the collisional age dependence to collisionless and weakly collisional regimes that constitute the range $10^{-2} \lesssim A_c \lesssim 10^{-1}$. This is the range in which $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}}$ is empirically non-zero. Because the proton beam can have a non-negligible density in comparison to the proton core, we calculate the collision frequency between two species following @Hernandez1985 [Eq. (23)] in a self-consistent manner by integrating over test and field particles from both components. Our treatment of the Coulomb logarithm follows @Fundamenski2007 [Eq. (18)]. We assume that $r$ is the distance traveled from a solar source surface to the spacecraft’s radial location, $\approx$ 1 AU, and we take the solar wind velocity to be $v_{\text{sw}} \approx v_{p_1}$. Measurements of $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}}$ and $\dvca{{p_2,p_1}}$ are binned by collisional age and histogrammed in Figure\[fig:dvca-Ac\] across the aforementioned range. Each column has been normalized by its maximum value in order to emphasize the trends with $A_c$. Only bins with at least $30\%$ of the column maximum are shown. To characterize the collisionally “youngest” solar wind spectra that have been measured, we define a sufficiently large and statistically significant subset that reflects the limiting behavior. We have chosen this “youngest” range to be ($10^{-2} \le A_c \le 1.2 \times 10^{-2}$). The rightmost limit of this subset is marked with a blue line on the figure. In the case of $\alpha$ particles, the decrease from the mean value in the reference or youngest region of $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}} \sim 0.8$ down to $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}}\sim 0.4$ over the range shown would appear to account for a significant fraction of $\sigma_{\alpha,p_1}$, up to a $\sim$ 40% spread. In contrast, the proton analogue exhibits a far weaker apparent decay with increasing collisions,showing a decrease of at most approximately one-tenth the slope of the alpha particle trend. In other words, $\dvca{{p_2,p_1}}$ is nearly independent of the collisional age. We would also like to derive the general and limiting cases for the differential flow speed ratios $\dv{{p2,p1}}/\dv{{\alpha,p1}}$ in spectra where the two are observed simultaneously. In Fig.\[fig:dvrat\], we compare $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$ to $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ directly in the full low-collision regime and in the very young reference regime. The ratios $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}/\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ are histogrammed, with the dashed line indicating the full low-collision sample $10^{-2} \le A_c \le 10^{-1}$ and the solid line indicating the reference or youngest subsample ($10^{-2} \le A_c \le 1.2 \times 10^{-2}$). The selection of data that contributes to Fig.\[fig:dvrat\] is slightly different and more restrictive than in the previous section, because here we require that both the alpha-core and proton beam-core collision rates simultaneously fall in the target range. As before, we characterize these distributions in Fig.\[fig:dvrat\] in a manner insensitive to the tails by fitting a Gaussian to bins with a count of at least $30\%$ of the most populated bin. Similar to Fig.\[fig:dvca-fsw\], all binned data are shown in gray; the regions fit are green; and the fits are orange. The text inserts give the functional form and fit parameters up to the fit uncertainty. As there are fewer counts in the youngest $A_c$ range, the histograms have been normalized by their maximum values in order to emphasize the difference in the respective means ($\mu$) and widths ($\sigma$) of the distributions. Over the low-collision range, $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ is approximately $1.6\times$ faster than $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$. Over the youngest range, that reduces to $1.4\times$. The width or characteristic spread in $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}/\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ is $1.37\times$ larger over the broader, low-collision range than the youngest range. Having demonstrated that $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$ and $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ are uncorrelated in these ranges and that the mean value of $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}}$ changes by about $0.4$ over the full range, we attribute most of the spread in the ratio $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}/\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ to the observed decay of $\dv{{\alpha,p_1}}$ with increasing Coulomb collisions. Corrections to the Alfvén Speed {#sec:Ca} =============================== Alfvén waves are parallel propagating, transverse, non-compressive fluctuations in MHD plasmas.[@Alfven1942] Under ideal MHD and considering only a single, simple fluid, the phase speed of these waves (the Alfvén speed) is given by the ratio of the magnetic field magnitude ($B$) to the square root of the mass density ($\rho$): $$\label{eq:Ca} C_A = \frac{B}{\sqrt{\mu_0 \rho}}.$$ derived an approximation to the phase speed of the Alfvén wave under anisotropic MHD that accounts for pressure anisotropy and differential flow of multiple ion species: $$\label{eq:CaAni} C_{A}^{\text{Ani}} = C_A \left[1 + \frac{\mu_0}{B^2}\left(p_\perp - p_\parallel\right) - \frac{\mu_0}{B^2}p_{\tilde{v}}\right]^{1/2}.$$. Here, $C_A$ is the ideal MHD Alfvén speed from Eq.. The second term in the brackets gives the correction due to the thermal anisotropy of the plasma. Total thermal pressure perpendicular and parallel to the local magnetic field are $p_i = \sum_s n_s k_b T_{s,i} = \frac{\rho_{p_1}}{2}\sum_s\frac{\rho_s}{\rho_{p_1}}w_{s;i}^2$ for components $i = \perp,\parallel$. The third term in the brackets gives the correction due to the dynamic pressure from differential streaming in the plasma frame which is $p_{\tilde{v}} = \sum_s \rho_s \left(\Bv_s - \Bu\right)^2 = \rho_{p_1} \sum_s \frac{\rho_s}{\rho_{p_1}} \left(\Bv_s - \Bu\right)^2$. Here, $\Bu$ is the plasma’s center-of-mass velocity; a given species’ mass density is $\rho_s$; and its velocity is $\Bv_s$. All species $s$ are summed over. Pressure terms have been written in terms of mass density ratios to emphasize the significance of correction factors discussed in the following paragraphs and cataloged in Table\[tbl:mu-sigma\]. When the plasma is isotropic and there is either vanishingly slow differential flow or a vanishingly small differentially flowing population, the term in brackets is equal to unity and Eq. reduces to Eq.. This anisotropic, multi-component formalism of @Barnes1971 ought to be a more appropriate and higher fidelity description of the solar wind plasma than the commonly-evoked ideal single-fluid approximation. Nevertheless, it is instructive to give a rough illustration of the magnitude of each correction term under typical conditions. We note first that the proton core in the solar wind is often anisotropic, with core pressure ratios falling primarily in the range $0.1 \lesssim p_{\perp}/p_{\parallel} \lesssim 10$. The absolute correction to the Alfvén speed, via the second bracketed term in Eq., that follows from this anisotropy alone is $\sim$6%-7% for the median case and can be as high as $\sim$50%. With regards to the third bracketed term, we note that a typical proton beam carrying $10\%$ of the total protons at a speed of roughly $C_A$ relative to the core would carry a $\sim$5% self-consistent correction to the Alfvén speed, owing to proton beam-core dynamic pressure. Our goal in this section is to relax the ideal MHD approximation by considering these next-order approximations for the speed of the predominant parallel-propagating wave in the solar wind. We explore whether the spreads in normalized differential flow, i.e. the widths of the 1D distributions of $\dvca{}$, are further minimized when the contributions of anisotropic and dynamic pressure are considered. In order to disentangle this element from the Coulomb collision effect described in the previous section, we limit our analysis in this section to the “youngest” plasma, i.e. measurements drawn from the youngest-measured reference regime to the left of the blue line in Fig.\[fig:dvca-Ac\]. Figure\[fig:ex-dvca-yAc-fits\] plots distributions and fits in the now-familiar style, together with the fit residuals, for one possible renormalization of $\dvca{{\alpha,p_1}}$ and $\dvca{{p_2,p_1}}$. The color selection for the various components in the top panel follows the convention from the previous figures and again only bins with counts at least $30\%$ of the maximum are used in the fit. Residuals are shown for the bins in the fit, and the fit parameters are shown in the inserts. The amplitudes $A$ are omitted because they are of no consequence. In this particular case, the $\alpha$ and $p_2$ differential flow are normalized by the Alfvén speeds with proton core pressure anisotropy taken into account. For reasons discussed below, the normalization in the proton beam-core example (Right) also accounts for the beam contribution to the proton mass density. We consider a family of similar approximations to the Alfvén speed, each accounting for corrections associated with the measured anisotropies and multiple component terms in Eq.. As these contributions rely on higher-order moments of the spectrum fit[^3], they can carry relatively large uncertainties. If the uncertainties are significant in the aggregate, they are expected to contribute to broadening of the $\dvca{}$ distributions. However, terms that are well-measured in the aggregate, will improve the precision of the Alfvén speed when accounted for and thus reduce the width of $\dvca{}$ if the true differential flows are Alfvénic in nature. In the following, we examine all possible combinations in order to ascertain whether a well-measured high order correction exists that further minimizes the width of the normalized differential flow distributions. Table\[tbl:mu-sigma\] contains fit parameters for each 1D distribution of $\dvca{}$, for both the alpha-proton and proton beam-core differential flows, using the various formulations of the Alfvén speed. Overall, we find that the widths of both $\dvca{}$ distributions increase substantially when the dynamic pressure term is included, indicating that either (1) the differential flows are *less* strongly correlated with generalized Alfvén speed, or (2) that the additional measurement uncertainty introduced along with a given term is in the aggregate comparable to the correction itself. However, when only the proton core temperature anisotropy correction is factored in, the distribution width is indeed reduced relative to the isotropic case. Because the core anisotropy correction term in Eq. is usually (but not always) positive, it tends to increase the Alfvén speed estimate relative to the ideal MHD approximation. Thus, the corrected mean values $\dvca{}$ are generally lower. Figure\[fig:mu-sigma\] is a plot of the $\mathrm{width}$ vs. $\mathrm{mean}$ for select 1D fits that were performed in the style of Figure\[fig:ex-dvca-yAc-fits\], illustrating these observations. In the cases shown, each Alfvén speed includes both proton densities. The cases accounting for proton core pressure anisotropy correction factor $(p_\perp - p_\parallel)$ are indicated with the square. Cases that additionally account for the proton core dynamic pressure correction factor ($p_\perp - p_\parallel - p_{\tilde{v}}$) are indicated by stars. Trends in $A_c$ {#sec:trends-Ac} =============== Using the Alfvén speed approximation that minimizes the spread in normalized differential flow for alphas and beams, we examine the behavior of $\dvca{}$ as a function of $A_c$ and in the asymptotic limit of zero collisions. We applied the same methodology used to examine 1D distributions in the youngest $A_c$ data to binned $\alpha,p_1$ and $p_2,p_1$ differential flow spanning the low-collision range. Figure\[fig:trends-Ac\] plots these trends. Alpha particles are shown in blue and proton beams in yellow. Mean values to 1D fits are indicated as pluses and the 1D widths are given as error bars. Fits to each trend are given as black dotted lines. Four clear features are apparent pertaining to the mean values of both normalized differential flows and to their collisional trends. First, if we consider the asymptotic limit of zero Coulomb collisions and we account for the widths reported in Table\[tbl:mu-sigma\], the alpha particles differentially stream at $67\%$ of the local Alfvén speed and the proton beams stream at approximately the Alfvén speed. Second, that the fit constant $c$ governing $\alpha,p_1$ decay is greater than 1 indicates that our collisional age calculation over-simplifies our $A_c$ by either under-estimating $r$, under-estimating $\nu_c$, over-estimating $v_\mathrm{sw}$, or some combination of these. @Kasper2017 examined detailed scalings and more accurate versions of $A_c$ that may correct for some of these issues and can be a subject for future study. Third, even using the formulation of the Alfvén speed that yields the highest precision, the spread in alpha particle differential flow due to the change in mean value over the collisionless range is still $\sim 0.3$, which is the largest single contribution to the spread in $\dvca{}$. Fourth, in the asymptotic absence of collisions, the proton beams differentially flow at very nearly ($105\%$ of) the Alfvén speed. Given the widths of the error bars in Fig.\[fig:trends-Ac\], the difference between the youngest resolved $\dv{{p_2,p_1}}$ and the asymptotic value could be due to the spread in our measurements. Conclusions {#sec:cncl} =========== In fast ($> 400 \; \mathrm{km \; s^{-1}}$) and collisionless ($A_c \le 10^{-1}$) solar wind, $\alpha,p1$ differential flow is approximately $62\%$ as fast as $p2,p1$ differential flow when measured by the *Wind* spacecraft’s Faraday cups. The spread in $\alpha,p1$ differential flow is approximately $1.7\times$ larger than $p2,p1$ differential flow. We ruled out large-scale, in-phase wave-particle interactions by examining the correlation between fluctuations in both species parallel differential flows over multiple time scales ranging from 5 minutes to more than 20 minutes. Minimizing the spread in normalized differential flow due to the method used to approximate the Alfvén speed, we found that the difference in $\dvca{}$ width for both species is predominantly due to the decay of $\dvca{{\alpha,p1}}$ with increasing Coulomb collisions. At the youngest resolved collisional age, when the impact of Coulomb collisions has been minimized, we find that proton core pressure anisotropy has the largest impact on minimizing the spread in normalized differential flow and that the increase in spread when including dynamic pressure in the anisotropic Alfvén speed is beyond what would be expected from random fluctuations. In the asymptotic absence of Coulomb collisions, $\alpha$-particles differentially flow at approximately $67\%$ of the local Alfvén speed and proton beams differentially flow at approximately $105\%$ of it. This upper limit on $\dvca{{\alpha,p1}}$ is close to the upper limit found by @Maneva2014 and worth further investigation. We also found that, unlike the known [@Neugebauer1976; @Kasper2008; @Kasper2017] $\alpha,p1$ decay with $A_c$, proton beam differential flow minimally decays and is approximately constant with collisional age. Given the results of @Tracy2016a showing that solar wind ions collisionally couple most dominantly to protons, it is unsurprising that the widths of both $\dvca{{\alpha,p1}}$ and $\dvca{{p2,p1}}$ are smallest when the Alfvén speed accounts for the proton core. That the proton core temperature anisotropy is also significant supports the conclusion of @Chen2013 that solar wind helicities are closer to unity when normalzing by the anisotropic Alvén speed. That the beam differential flow width is smaller when it is normalized by an Alfvén speed including the beam density may indicate some coupling between the beams and local Alfvén waves, as predicted by @Voitenko2015. That the dynamic pressure term causes a larger spread in both species normalized differential flow is either a result of measurement uncertainty or some underlying physical mechanism that is beyond the scope of this paper to test. The authors thank K. G. Klein, D. Verscharen, and P. Whittlesey for useful discussions. B. L. Alterman and J. C. Kasper are supported by NASA grant NNX14AR78G. M. L. Stevens is supported by NASA grant NNX14AT26G. Both grants support *Wind* operations and data analysis. [^1]: See Section \[sec:Ac\] for a discussion of collisional age. [^2]: See Section \[sec:Ca\] for a discussion of the Alfvén speed. [^3]: See Section \[sec:data\].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the influence of the rate of the attainment of herd immunity (HI), in the absence of an approved vaccine, on the vulnerable population. We essentially ask the question: *how hard the evolution towards the desired herd immunity could be on the life of the vulnerables*? We employ mathematical modelling (chemical network theory) and cellular automata based computer simulations to study the human cost of an epidemic spread and an effective strategy to introduce HI. Implementation of different strategies to counter the spread of the disease requires a certain degree of quantitative understanding of the time dependence of the outcome. In this paper, our main objective is to gather understanding of the dependence of outcome on the rate of progress of HI. We generalize the celebrated SIR model (Susceptible-Infected-Removed) by compartmentalizing the susceptible population into two categories- (i) vulnerables and (ii) resilients, and study dynamical evolution of the disease progression. *We achieve such a classification by employing different rates of recovery of vulnerables vis-a-vis resilients*. We obtain the relative fatality of these two sub-categories as a function of the percentages of the vulnerable and resilient population, and the complex dependence on the rate of attainment of herd immunity. Our results quantify the adverse effects on the recovery rates of vulnerables in the course of attaining the herd immunity. *We find the important result that a slower attainment of the HI is relatively less fatal*. However, a slower progress towards HI could be complicated by many intervening factors.' author: - Sayantan Mondal - Saumyak Mukherjee - Biman Bagchi bibliography: - 'ref.bib' title: 'Attainment of Herd Immunity: Mathematical Modelling of Survival Rate' --- Introducntion ============= The present COVID-19 pandemic is a dynamic and volatile process with often unpredictable ups and downs in the infected populations that make it difficult to predict its future course. In the absence of any vaccine or definitive drug in the immediate future [@Chen2020] the fight against COVID-19 is a hard and long drawn bitter battle, with two strategies being put forward. The first is the widely enforced lockdown, quarantine, and social distancing where the spread of the disease is contained at its inception and only a limited fraction of population is allowed to be infected.[@Prem2020] This model appears to be successful in South Korea and China, and some other Asian countries.[@Shen2020] The other model is to allow the virus to have a relatively unconstrained transmission so that a large fraction of the people develops the immunity.[@Kamikubo2020] This is called the herd immunity (HI) that is favoured by Sweden, and was initially discussed by Germany and England, but largely discarded later. HI can be achieved by two ways- (i) by vaccination, and (ii) by infection. The HI approach is based on the understanding that one can obtain the herd immunity in the society if 60-70% of the population gets immunized. Needless to say this herd immunity is preferable through vaccination as happened in small pox and measles. Implementation of both the models has difficulties. Implementation of lockdown and social distancing requires enormous effort, backed up by resources. On the other hand, the HI model could have adverse consequence on the vulnerable citizens, a subject not adequately discussed. In fact, experiences in Italy and Spain show that the demography can be altered in some regions if HI is given an unconstrained run. Herd immunity ensures an indirect protection from COVID-19 (or any other infectious disease) when a large fraction of the population becomes immunized to the disease.[@Fine1993; @Anderson1985; @John2000] Herd immunity drastically decreases the probability of the presence of an uninfected individual in the vicinity of a presently infected individual. That is, the infected person is effectively quarantined by the surrounding immunized population. Hence, the chain of propagation breaks. In Fig. \[fig1\] we pictorially explain the phenomenon of herd immunity. ![A pictorial representation of the herd immunity phenomenon. In the left we have a region with the susceptible population and one infected person. The total susceptibles are further divided into vulnerables and resilients. The infection propagates in an unconstrained manner and after a certain period the region possesses a large fraction of immunized population (right). After this immunisation any further infection cannot propagate and indirectly protects the susceptibles. In addition to that, multiple infected persons cannot do further harm. The colour codes are maintained throughout this paper.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figures/fig1.jpg){width="3.2in"} This can happen by providing the population with a vaccine or by getting cured after being infected. In the case of COVID-19 pandemic, as of now, we are unsure regarding the success of a vaccine and the latter is the only option to attain HI. However, the herd immunity threshold (HIT), that is the minimum fraction of population needs to get immunized in order to eradicate the disease, is different for different infectious diseases.[@Georgette2009; @McBryde2009] For example, HIT for measles is  92-95% and for that of SARS-1 it is in the range of 50-80%. Researchers around the world are exploring mainly two aspects of this disease- (i) the microscopic and clinical aspects which would eventually lead to drug discovery and vaccine preparation,[@Chen2020; @Wrapp2020] (ii) the demographic aspects which lead to policy making and timeline prediction.[@Prem2020; @Shen2020; @Singh2020; @Mukherjee2020] The latter requires effective mathematical modelling and crowd simulations. However, these models fail to predict the real scenario because of some inherent assumptions and limitations. Although a lot of interesting new studies are emerging in both categories in the context of the recent coronavirus pandemic, the issue of herd immunity and its fatality are not studied. There are several mathematical models which have been employed in the context of epidemic modelling, for example, the famous Kermack-McKendrick (KM) model which has been used extensively to study the spread of infectious diseases like measles, small pox etc.[@Daley2001; @Kermack1927] At the core of this model lies a system of three coupled differential equations for susceptible (S), infected (I) and removed (R) (cured and dead) populations, that is, the famous SIR model (Eq. \[eq1\]).[@Skvortsov2007; @Jones2009; @Anderson1979] At the onset of an epidemic S becomes I and I eventually becomes R, but R can never become S or I because of acquired immunity. $$\begin{split} \frac{dS}{dt}& =-k_{S\rightarrow I}SI\\ \frac{dI}{dt}& =k_{S\rightarrow I}SI-k_{I\rightarrow R}I\\ \frac{dR}{dt}& =k_{I\rightarrow R}I \end{split} \label{eq1}$$ Eq. \[eq1\] describes the three coupled non-linear differential equations of the KM model where $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ is the rate of infection and $k_{I\rightarrow R}$ is the rate of removal (recovery and death). In the conventional SIR model $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ and $k_{I\rightarrow R}$ are written as $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively. In principle the rate constants should be time and space dependent, that is, non-local in nature. But it is difficult to predict the functional form of the rate constants with time- it could be periodic, decaying or stochastic in nature. The applicability of this model is for a homogeneous population distribution and mass transmission at a large scale.[@Daley2001] An important quantity is the basic reproduction number ($R_0$) which is an estimate of the number of secondary infection from one primary infection.[@Dietz1993] The value of $R_0$ is intimately connected with the herd immunity threshold ($H_t$) discussed above.[@McBryde2009; @Diekmann1995] (Eq. \[eq2\]) Hence a correct determination of the basic reproduction parameter, $R_0$, is important. $$H_t=\left(1-\frac{1}{R_0}\right)\times 100 \% \label{eq2}$$ It is clear from Eq. \[eq2\] that a higher value of $R_0$ increases the herd immunity threshold. For SARS-Cov2 the value of $R_0$ shows a large dispersion and as a consequence we cannot predict the value of $H_t$. For COVID-19 the average value of $R_0$ is estimated to be in the range of $\sim$2.0-3.0 but it can possess spatial heterogeneity and time dependence in reality.[@Zhang2020; @Tang2020] If one considers $R_0$ to be in the range of 2.0-3.0 the value of $H_t$ would be in between 50%-66%. In the light of SIR model \[Eq.(1)\] $R_0$ can be defined as $$R_0=\frac{k_{S\rightarrow I}}{k_{I\rightarrow R}} S \label{eq3}$$ Eq. \[eq3\] provides a different definition of $R_0$ and can be understood as follows. If we assume that (the S the fraction of susceptible population) is near 1.0 at the beginning (as there are very few infections compared to a huge population), then $R_0$ could be equal to unity if the two rate constants are equal. This means that the number of infection and recovery are same at any time. In this situation the disease remains under control. $R_0 > 1$ causes an epidemic as it challenges the capacity of the healthcare facilities. However, for different region the value of $R_0$ could be different depending on the intensity of region wise preventive and healthcare measures. In this work we ask the following questions- (i) what are the relative magnitude of the fatality to the vulnerable and resilient populations if we attempt to achieve HI without a vaccine? (ii) What is the dependence of the fraction of survival on the rate of the attainment of HI? These two issues are widely discussed all over the world. Here we seek answers to these two important questions by employing a modified Susceptible-Infected-Removed (SIR) model and cellular automata (CA) simulations. The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In section \[sec2\] we describe the mathematical model and the CA simulation protocols. Section \[sec3\] consists of the results from numerical solutions of the modified SIR model and simulations, accompanied by detailed discussions. This section is further divided into several sub sections. In section IV we summarize and conclude our study. Theoretical Formalism {#sec2} ===================== Mathematical Modelling ---------------------- We modify the celebrated SIR (Susceptible-Infected-Removed) model by dividing the entire susceptible population into two parts, namely vulnerable (Vul) and resilient (Res). In the context of the corona virus disease, the vulnerable category consists of persons who are above 60 years of age or have pre-existing medical conditions like diabetes, heart and kidney disease, and lung conditions.[@Yang2020] The rest of the population is termed as resilient who have a greater chance of getting cured. We achieve such classification by employing different rate constants associated with their recovery. This is based on the available data on the coronavirus disease. The scheme of this classification is described in Fig. \[fig2\]. ![Schematic representation of the modified SIR network model. Here the susceptible (S) population is divided into $S_V$ and $S_R$ that represent elderly and younger people respectively. A part of the fraction $S_V$ gets infected and creates $I_O$ fraction of infected population. A part of the remaining fraction of the population, that is, $S_R$ gets infected and creates $I_R$ fraction of the infected population. Both $I_V$ and $I_R$ get either cured (C) or dead (D). Naturally the rate of recovery for the younger fraction of the population is more than that of the older infected population. On the other hand, the rate of death for the older population is more than that of the younger invectives.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figures/fig2.jpg){width="3in"} We follow the scheme described in Fig. \[fig2\] and formulate a system of eight coupled non-linear differential equations \[Eqs. \[eq4\] - \[eq11\]\]. $$\frac{dS_{Vul}(t)}{dt} = -k_{S_{Vul}\rightarrow I_{Vul}}(t)S_{Vul}(t)I(t) \label{eq4}$$ $$\frac{dS_{Res}(t)}{dt} = -k_{S_{Res}\rightarrow I_{Res}}(t)S_{Res}(t)I(t) \label{eq5}$$ $$\begin{split} \frac{dI_{Vul}(t)}{dt} = k_{S_{Vul}\rightarrow I_{Vul}}(t)S_{Vul}(t)I(t)\\ -(k_{I_{Vul}\rightarrow C_{Vul}}(t)+k_{I_{Vul}\rightarrow D_{Vul}}(t))I_{Vul}(t) \end{split} \label{eq6}$$ $$\begin{split} \frac{dI_{Res}(t)}{dt} = k_{S_{Res}\rightarrow I_{Res}}(t)S_{Res}(t)I(t)\\ -(k_{I_{Res}\rightarrow C_{Res}}(t)+k_{I_{Res}\rightarrow D_{Res}}(t))I_{Res}(t) \end{split} \label{eq7}$$ $$\frac{dC_{Vul}(t)}{dt} = k_{I_{Vul}\rightarrow C_{Vul}}(t)I_{Vul}(t) \label{eq8}$$ $$\frac{dC_{Res}(t)}{dt} = k_{I_{Res}\rightarrow C_{Res}}(t)I_{Res}(t) \label{eq9}$$ $$\frac{dD_{Vul}(t)}{dt} = k_{I_{Vul}\rightarrow D_{Vul}}(t)I_{Vul}(t) \label{eq10}$$ $$\frac{dD_{Res}(t)}{dt} = k_{I_{Res}\rightarrow D_{Res}}(t)I_{Res}(t) \label{eq11}$$ In the following, we explain the complex set of equations. Here I(t) is the number of total infectives at any time t, that is $I(t)=I_{Vul}(t)+I_{Res}(t)$. This is the variable that couples the two population sub-categories. $k(t)$ are the rate constants associated with processes that are described in the subscript with an arrow. We would like to point out that the rates in above equations of motion are all assumed to be time dependent. These rate constants contain all the basic information and also connected with $R_0$. In our earlier study, we employed a time dependent rate to produce certain features observed in the time dependence of new cases such a double peaked population structure.[@Mukherjee2020] The time dependence of rate can be employed to include certain dynamical features like crossover from local contact to community transmission. It is worth stressing that the modelling of these time dependent rate constants plays a pivotal role in the SIR scheme. We propagate these equations numerically to obtain the respective temporal evolution of each kind of population fraction. From the temporal profiles we can extract several important quantities after a long time (that is, the end of the spread), for example, (i) the peak height of the active infected cases, (ii) the fraction of cured population, (iii) the fraction of dead population, (iv) the fraction of uninfected population, (v) time required to reach the immunity threshold etc. We can regard these equations together to form a system of reacting species, as in a system of chemical reactions. We solve these equations with two different sets of the rate constant values and aim to understand the relative damages to the vulnerable and resilient population. The values of rate constants are provided in Table \[tab1\]. We keep $k_{S_{Vul}\rightarrow I_{Vul}}$ and $k_{S_{Res}\rightarrow I_{Res}}$ the same which depicts the same probability of getting infected for both the sub-categories. However, the rate constants associated with recovery and death differs in orders of magnitude between Vul and Res. We now discuss the procedure we follow to assign different rate constants to the vulnerables and resilients. In a previous study we estimated the values of $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ and $k_{I\rightarrow R}$ by fitting the infected/cured/death vs. time data for India (source: www.covid19india.org).[@Mukherjee2020] We plot the rate of change of the cured ($dC/dt$) and dead ($dD/dt$) population against the infected population to find the slope that gives the rate. This procedure provides us with required estimates of $k_{I\rightarrow C}$ and $k_{I\rightarrow D}$. For India, till $27^{th}$ May, the estimated values are $k_{I\rightarrow C} = 0.026 \:day^{-1}$ and $k_{I\rightarrow D} = 0.0013 \:day^{-1}$. That is, $k_{I\rightarrow C}$ is approximately 20 times of $k_{I\rightarrow D}$. However, for countries like Italy, Spain, and USA $k_{I\rightarrow D}$ was significantly higher. This comparison however takes no cognition of the relative time scales, and therefore should be taken with care. These values are mean field in nature and contain enormous spatial heterogeneity. If we see the state wise (or district wise) statistics we find a large dispersion. On the other hand, the determination of $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ is not that straight forward as the equations containing $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ are non-linear in nature in the SIR model. Hence one needs to obtain a good estimate of $R_0$ and calculate $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ from Eq. \[eq3\]. As mentioned above, $R_0$ also exhibits spatiotemporal heterogeneity which makes the problem of estimating the rate constants even more challenging. For example, in Italy $R_0$ has been estimated to be $\sim$3.0-6.0 and in the Hunan province of China it is $\sim$1.73-5.25.[@Wangping2020] In a recent study on Wuhan, the transmission rate ($k_{S\rightarrow I}$) is assumed to vary from 0.59 to $1.68 \:day^{-1}$.[@Lin2020] However, the data required to extract the rate constants associated with the two individual sub-categories, namely, vulnerable and resilient, are not available separately. As the values of the rate constants are connected to the basic reproduction number ($R_0$), we choose the inputs, by preserving the basic features, such that the average value of $R_0$ yields an acceptable number, in light of acquired information. Next we tune the parameters such that the maximum of the active cases falls in the range of $\sim$60-90 days, as observed for most countries. We note that we consider these values only to study the trends and do not strictly correspond to any particular region in reality. Rate Const. Set-1 Set-2 ---------------------------------- ------- ------- $k_{S_{Vul}\rightarrow I_{Vul}}$ 0.50 0.78 $k_{I_{Vul}\rightarrow C_{Vul}}$ 0.05 0.05 $k_{I_{Vul}\rightarrow D_{Vul}}$ 0.10 0.10 $k_{S_{Res}\rightarrow I_{Res}}$ 0.50 0.78 $k_{I_{Res}\rightarrow C_{Res}}$ 0.50 0.50 $k_{I_{Res}\rightarrow D_{Res}}$ 0.05 0.05 : The values of rate constants used to solve the system of coupled differential equations \[Eq.\[eq4\] - \[eq11\]\]. The unit of the rate constants is $day^{-1}$. \[tab1\] We invoke two different values of $R_0$ for the two different sub-categories. For set-1 $R_0^{Vul} = 3.33$ and $R_0^{Res} = 3.33$. The larger value of $R_0$ for vulnerables arise from slower rate of recovery, Eq. \[eq3\]. On the other hand, for set-2 $R_0^{Vul} = 5.20$ and $R_0^{Res} = 1.42$. We obtain these values by considering each of the population to be individually normalised (that is  100%). In such a situation the effective $R_0$ can be calculated as follows (Eq. \[eq12\]). $$R_0^{eff} = \frac{R_0^{Vul}N_{Vul}+R_0^{Res}N_{Res}}{N_{Vul}+N_{Res}} \label{eq12}$$ Here $N_{Vul}$ and $N_{Res}$ represent the number of people in the vulnerable and resilient category respectively. In all our calculations we start with total infected fraction as 0.001 and vary the percentage of vulnerable populations from 5%-40%. By using Eq. \[eq12\] we calculate the effective $R_0$ values for different ratio of vulnerable to resilient population. We find $R_0$ varies from 1.03 to 1.88 for set-1 and 1.61 to 2.93 for set-2. In a way, set-1 represents a more controlled situation compared to set-2 (Table \[tab2\]). ----------- ----------- ------- ------- % % vulnerble resilient Set-1 Set-2 5 95 1.031 1.609 10 90 1.152 1.798 15 85 1.273 1.987 20 80 1.394 2.176 25 75 1.515 2.365 30 70 1.636 2.554 35 65 1.757 2.743 40 60 1.878 2.932 ----------- ----------- ------- ------- : The basic reproduction number ($R_0$) for the parameters described in Table \[tab1\] (set-1 and set-2) for various ratios of vulnerable to resilient population. \[tab2\] Stochastic Cellular Automata Simulation --------------------------------------- Stochastic cellular automata (CA) simulations give a microscopic and nonlocal picture of the problem at hand. Such simulations are often used to model several physical phenomena.[@Hollingsworth2004; @Seybold1998; @Wolfram1983; @Bartolozzi2004; @Soares-Filho2002; @Goltsev2010; @Almeida2011] Unlike the mathematical model, CA simulations can directly establish a physical map of the disease-spread. Moreover, we incorporate several region specific and disease specific parameters in our CA simulations that give a general outlook to our investigations. A detailed list of the parameters and associated symbols can be found in our previous work.[@Mukherjee2020] The spread of COVID-19 is strongly inhomogeneous. So, a homogeneous model fails to capture many aspects. In a real-world scenario, the non-local description may often become important in determining the fate of a pandemic in a given geographical region. In such a case, the population parameters are space-dependent. Moreover, the rate constants also have a spatial distribution. Hence, solutions of these equations are highly non-trivial and a large scale cellular automata simulation may capture these inherent spatiotemporal heterogeneities. In this work, we neglect the effects of social distancing and quarantine, since we aim at establishing a relation between the percentage of mortality and immunization by an unhindered transmission of the disease within the whole population. Calculation of the rates of transmission and recovery/death can often be difficult due to several reasons like unavailability of data, political or demographic complications etc. This becomes particularly nontrivial when we consider the process with respect to a given population distribution of vulnerable and resilient individuals. The probabilistic approach employed in our simulations makes it easier to study the process, since obtaining an average probability for each of the processes is much more practical. We use the Moore definition [@Fu2003; @White2007; @Sirakoulis2000] to denote the neighbourhood of a given person. The salient features of our simulation are detailed in our previous work.[@Mukherjee2020] Here, we summarize our CA simulation methodology. We start we a land randomly occupied by susceptibles and infectives. The population distribution is such that 5% and 0.05% of the total available land is covered by susceptibles and infectives respectively. We divide the population into vulnerable and resilient individuals with respect to their probabilities of recovery ($P_R^{Vul}$ and $P_R^{Res}$). Vulnerables primarily include people above the age of 60. This also includes people with serious health issues, who are more prone to get deceased if infected.[@Remuzzi2020; @Ruan2020; @Wu2020] The resilients, on the other hand, are the young fraction of the society with no severe health conditions. When an infective comes in the neighbourhood of a susceptible, the latter is converted to an infective with a given probability of transmission which is considered to be equal and time independent (constant) for both vulnerables and resilients. The time period of infection is determined by probability of recovery and the probability of remaining infected in a given simulation step. In this work, we consider the latter to be 0.99.[@Mukherjee2020] An individual, once cured from infection, becomes immune to the disease. We run our simulations for a given number of steps ($N$). It should be noted that the time unit is not well-defined for this simulations. To get an estimate of time, the results need to be compared with our theoretical model. Results and Discussion {#sec3} ====================== Numerical solutions of the SIR model {#sec3A} ------------------------------------ ![Population disease progression as obtained from the solution of the system of eight coupled non-linear differential equations presented in Eqs. \[eq4\] - \[eq11\] as function of time for two different situations described in Table \[tab1\]. Plots show the increase in the total immunity (blue) with the decrease in the populations of vulnerable population (maroon) and resilient population (green) for (a) Set-1 and (b) Set-2. In these two calculations we start with $V:R=1:4$. In both the two cases the percentage demise in the vulnerable population is significantly higher.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Figures/fig3.jpg){width="3.4in"} Here we present the results from the numerical solutions of Eqs. \[eq4\] - \[eq11\] in Fig. \[fig3\]. We choose two sets of rate constants, set-1 (Fig. \[fig3\]a) and set-2 (Fig. \[fig3\]b) and obtain the changes in the population of vulnerables and resilients. With our choice of parameters (Table \[tab1\]) for set-1 we observe 40.8% increase in the immuned population. In order to achieve the 40.8% immunity a region loses 4.7% of its resilient population and 34.3% vulnerable population. On the other hand, for set-2 a region loses 7.9% of its resilient population and 57.1% of its vulnerable population in order to achieve $\sim$68% immunity (that could be the HIT for COVID-19). Hence, it is clear that for both the two cases the vulnerables are significantly affected. We note that with an increased infection rate the timescale of the saturation of the temporal profiles are drastically reduced. The graphs that are presented in Fig. \[fig3\] are obtained for 20% initial vulnerable population. In Fig. \[fig4\]a, we show the time evolution of the total immunity percentage. In order to study the effect of fast (early) vs slow (late) achievement of the immunity saturation, we plot the percentage survival of the total population against the time required to attain the immunity threshold ($t_{Im}$) for different values of $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ (Fig. \[fig4\]b). We find that the percentage of survival increases linearly with increasing $t_{Im}$. This indicates that a quick achievement of immunity saturation could lead to fatal consequences. *If a society opts for herd immunity, it has to be a slow process*. ![The effect of different rates of attaining herd immunity on the total population. (a) Plot of the time evolution of the percentage of total immunized population for different values of susceptible to infected rate-constants. With increasing $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ we see an increase in the percentage immunity and decrease the time required to reach saturation ($t_{Im}$). (b) Percentage survival (uninfected and cured population) of the total population against $t_{Im}$. The two quantities show linear dependence. That is, the percentage survival increases as we take more time to reach immunity saturation. Note that both the X and the Y axes are the outcome of the numerical solution and not provided as inputs. The calculations are done using a fixed Vul:Res=1:4 and the rate constants associated with recovery/death are also kept same as given in Table \[tab1\].[]{data-label="fig4"}](Figures/fig4.jpg){width="3.2in"} To make the immunity gaining process slow (which leads to relatively less casualty), the rate of infection ($k_{S\rightarrow I}$) needs to be brought down. On the other hand, the rate of removal (recovery and death), $k_{I\rightarrow R}$, depends primarily on the disease and partly on the presently available healthcare facilities. $k_{S\rightarrow I}$ can be controlled by employing effective strategies like lockdown, quarantine, and social distancing. ![The effect of the change in the initial percentage of the vulnerable population on the relative infection and recovery for the sub-categories, namely, vulnerables and resilients. Plots show the dependence of infection peak, percentage cured and dead population for vulnerable (maroon) and resilient (green) population with the initial fraction of vulnerable population as obtained from the solution of the modified SIR model described in Eqs. \[eq4\] - \[eq11\]. For figures (a)-(c) set-1 and for (d)-(f) set-2. The quantities show a non-linear dependence and enhanced fatality for the vurnerables.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Figures/fig5.jpg){width="3.2in"} Next we vary the % of initial vulnerable population from 5% to 40% and obtain the % of highest active cases (that is the maxima in the temporal variation of $I_V(t)$ or $I_R(t)$), % of cured population and % of death. The range is chosen in order to represent different regions/countries. For example, in India only $\sim8\%$ of the entire population is above 60 years whereas, in countries like Italy and Germany the number is over 20%. We obtain Fig. \[fig5\]a - \[fig5\]c for set-1 and Fig. \[fig5\]d - \[fig5\]f for set-2. In both the cases the variation of the infected peak maxima with % vulnerable shows nearly linear increase with a higher slope for the vulnerables (Fig. \[fig5\]a and \[fig5\]d). Interestingly the % cured (Fig. \[fig5\]b and \[fig5\]e) and % dead (Fig. \[fig5\]c and \[fig5\]f) shows a nonlinear dependence on % vulnerable. It clearly shows that the damage is huge to the vulnerable population when the % of vulnerables increases. We plot (Fig. \[fig6\]) the percentage of deaths for both the subcategories against the herd immunity threshold for a given Vul:Res composition (1:4). This is to show the increasing damage with respect to Ht. We find that the trend is linear for both the sets of parameters and the relative fatality is substantially higher for the vulnerables. ![Percentage outcome of different herd immunity thresholds ($H_t$) on the vulberable and resilient population. Plot of percentage deaths against $H_t$ calculated from Eq. \[eq2\] for (a) set-1, and (b) set-2. In both the two cases the dependence is linear with substantially more damage to the vulnerable population. The values on the Y axes are individually normalised.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Figures/fig6.jpg){width="3.2in"} (Stochastic Cellular Automata Simulations {#sec3B} ----------------------------------------- ### Dependence on the initial population distribution Here, we keep the probability of transmission of disease time-independent and equal for both resilients and vulnerables. We change the initial fraction of the vulnerable section of the total population from 5% to 40%. In Fig. \[fig7\] we plot the % of cured individuals (resilients and vulnerables) against % of total immunization when the temporal progression of the population reaches saturation. As discussed earlier, herd immunity is obtained when a major section of the population becomes immune, post infection. However, apart from gaining immunity, this process involves the death of many infected individuals according to their survival probability. The probability of recovery of the resilients is higher than that of the vulnerables. Here, these two probabilities are taken as 0.95 and 0.8 respectively.[@Verity2020; @Ruan2020] In Fig. \[fig7\] the abscissa is the percentage of the total population that becomes immune after recovering from the infection. The ordinate quantifies the percentage of cured resilients and vulnerables with respect to the total initial population. *With increase in the immunity attained in the society, a significant decrease in the percentage of cured vulnerable individuals is observed*. This implies that higher the percentage of immunization in the total population, greater is the probability of death of the vulnerable section. Hence herd immunity results in the death of a major fraction of the vulnerable population. This stratum of the society includes mainly the old people (age greater than years) and people with serious health conditions or comorbidity.[@Fang2020; @Yang2020] The geographical regions with demographic distributions having higher fraction of the people of age above $\sim$60 years are among the worst affected. For example, Italy suffered the loss of many aged people as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.[@Livingston2020; @Onder2020] ![Percentage of cured resilient and vulnerables in the population on the course of attaining herd immunity. The percentage of cured individuals is shown as a function of the percentage of total population immunized after getting infected. This is obtained by averaging over 100 CA simulations. Green shows the percentage of death for the resilient fraction of the society and maroon denotes the same for the vulnerable people.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Figures/fig7.jpg){width="2.5in"} In Fig. \[fig8\]a , we show the time evolution of the fraction of vulnerables and resilients in the total population for different % of initial number of vulnerables. The fractions are calculated with respect to the total initial population. We see that with increase in the initial % of vulnerables, the number of resilients dying show a slight decrease, whereas the number of dead vulnerables increases significantly. This observation is clarified in Fig. \[fig8\]b. Here we plot the absolute change in the fraction of resilients and vulnerables as functions of the initial % of vulnerables. Both show linear dependence. The gradient (slope) is negative for resilients and positive for vulnerables. However, we find that the absolute value of the slope for the latter is $\sim$5 times higher than that of the former. This denotes that countries with higher population of elderly and vulnerable people in the society incur a greater loss in the number of vulnerable individuals. ![(a) Population dynamics represented as the temporal evolution of the fraction of resilient and vulnerable sections of the population are shown with varying initial distribution of resilients and vulnerables. The colour bar on the right hand side shows the initial % of vulnerables in the total population. (b) The absolute decrease in the resilient (green) and vulnerable (maroon) fractions of the total population as functions of the initial percentage of vulnerables.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Figures/fig8.jpg){width="3.4in"} ### Dependence on the probability of recovery Now, we keep the initial population distribution fixed at 20% vulnerable and 80% resilient individuals. We change the probability of recovery of these two categories ($P_R^{Vul}$ and $P_R^{Res}$) with the constraint $P_R^{Vul} \leq P_R^{Res}$. Accordingly, we change these two probabilities from 0.6 to 0.8 and 0.8 to 0.95 respectively. We choose these values according to reported case fatality ratios for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.[@Verity2020; @Ruan2020] ![Interdependence of different fractions of the population as the immunity evolves. Percentage of immunized (colour coded) represented as a function of the percentage of survival for vulnerables and resilients. The proportions are with respect to the total initial population. The primary variables are the probabilities of recovery of the vulnerables and the resilients. The results are obtained after averaging over 100 simulations.[]{data-label="fig9"}](Figures/fig9.png){width="3in"} For every pair of $P_R^{Vul}$ and $P_R^{Res}$ we get a value of percentage of vulnerables and resilients who survive and a fraction of the population that gets immunized. In Figure 9 we plot the survival % of vulnerables and resilients in the two perpendicular axes and represent the % immunized as colour codes according to the colour gradation bar on the right hand side. In this contour representation, red denotes low immunity and blue denotes higher immunity. The survival % of the vulnerables is lower than that of the resilients. The percentage of immunized population is higher (blue) for maximum survival of the resilients as compared to that of the vulnerables. This means that to attain higher immunity in the population, greater number of old and vulnerable people suffer death as compared to resilients. Hence, attainment of herd immunity comes with the cost of a higher mortality of the vulnerable section of the society. Summary and Conclusion ====================== Any epidemic is a dynamic process where time dependence plays a crucial role in the control of the spread and the damage, that is, the outcome. COVID-19 is a pandemic which is currently under intense scrutiny by all and sundry, and many aspects are yet to be understood. Every move by the government, and the population in general, is of crucial importance. Each pandemic comes with unique characteristics that deserve special treatments, not just medical and clinical but also sociological. In each such epidemic, immunity plays a critical role. Spanish Flu mainly attacked the age group between 20 and 30 years of age. This is the age group with maximum immunity. In the case of COVID-19, again we face the sad reality that certain section of the society is substantially more vulnerable than other sections. The vulnerable section consists of age groups which are above 60-65 years of age, and people with comorbidity. There is yet to further classification, although it is conceivable that as we understand the disease better and more precisely, better perception of danger would emerge. An epidemic often starts by a process of nucleation which is an important phenomenon often studied in physics and chemistry. The process of nucleation is initiated by a sudden appearance of a group of infected individuals in a region. This may be triggered a laboratory accident, or infection from eating wild animals like bats, pangolin etc. or by arrival of infected tourists and so on. The process may be dependent on the nature of the geography and demography of the country or region. The initial period of the process is often slow. After the initial nucleation, the disease spreads by a diffusion process into the susceptible population. Hence, it is a percolation with a temporal evolution. In order to address the issue of vulnerability of the population and the outcome with the progression of the epidemic, we carry out a theoretical analysis with the objective to analyze the consequences of aiming for herd immunity without vaccine, or a good drug, in the context of the present COVID-19 pandemic. We develop and solve a modified SIR model numerically and by employing cellular automata simulations. We particularly probed the following question: what is dependence of mortality on the rate of herd immunity? One of the key results of the present study is the dependence of the percentage survival on the rate of attainment of the immunity threshold. We find that a late attainment of the immunity saturation leads to relatively lesser fatality. We show that approximately 50-60% of the vulnerables might lose their lives in order to attain  70% total immunized population. On the contrary the mortality of the resilient fraction of population is relatively low, may be just about 10%. We find a non-linear trend in the dependence of the cured and dead population on the initial population of the vulnerables. This is because as the number of vulnerables increases, the immunity by infection from a larger fraction of population which cannot protect the vulnerables unless deliberate efforts are made that requires intervention. While we discuss herd immunity by infection in this work, the other, more sustainable option is herd immunity by vaccination. For example, diseases like small pox, polio etc. have been wiped off the face of earth by vaccination. This is particularly crucial for diseases with high mortality rates. However, for any novel disease, preparation of a vaccine can take years. In case of the present COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, extensive research is going on globally in search of a vaccine.[@Chen2020] However, no promising result has been obtained in almost five months and researchers believe it may take more than a year to prepare the vaccine. We thank Prof. Sarika Bhattacharyya (NCL, Pune) and Prof. Suman Chakrabarty (SNCNCBS, Kolkata) for several fruitful discussions and comments. The authors thank the Department of Science and Technology (DST), India for financial support. BB thanks sir J. C. Bose fellowship for partial financial support. S. Mo. thanks Universities Grants Commission (UGC), India for research fellowship. S. Mu. thanks DST-INSPIRE programme for providing research fellowship.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study simple models of the world-sheet CFTs describing non-geometric backgrounds based on the topological interfaces, the ‘gluing condition’ of which imposes T-duality- or analogous twists. To be more specific, we start with the torus partition function on a target space $S^1 [\mbox{base}] \times (S^1\times S^1 ) [\mbox{fiber}]$ with rather general values of radii. The fiber CFT is defined by inserting the twist operators consisting of the topological interfaces which lie along the cycles of the world-sheet torus according to the winding numbers of the base circle. We construct the partition functions involving such duality twists. The modular invariance is achieved straightforwardly, whereas ‘unitarization’ is generically necessary to maintain the unitarity. We demonstrate it in the case of the equal fiber radii. The resultant models are closely related to the CFTs with the discrete torsion. The unitarization is also physically interpreted as [*multiple*]{} insertions of the twist/interface operators along various directions.' --- =cmcsc10 scaled1 [ ]{} **Non-geometric Backgrounds Based on Topological Interfaces** 1.2cm [ Yuji Satoh]{}[^1]\ [*Institute of Physics, University of Tsukuba,\ Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan*]{} [ Yuji Sugawara]{}[^2]\ [*Department of Physical Sciences, College of Science and Engineering,\ Ritsumeikan University, Shiga 525-8577, Japan*]{} Introduction ============ String theory admits the backgrounds which are non-geometric. They are rather ubiquitous, and constitute key ingredients in understanding intrinsic nature of quantum strings, such as string vacua and dualities. Of particular interest among them are the backgrounds whose transition functions involve duality transformations [@Dabholkar:2002sy; @Hellerman:2002ax; @Flournoy:2004vn]. Since the dualities relate different backgrounds, the notion of the Riemannian geometry is generally lost. In the case of T-duality, they thus result in ‘T-folds’ [@Hull:2004in]. One may also consider the backgrounds with the fluxes which are not obtained by a geometric compactification from a higher dimensional theory, namely, non-geometric fluxes. These are often related to the geometric ones by dualities, but are not in general [@Shelton:2005cf; @Shelton:2006fd; @Dabholkar:2005ve]. Beyond the classical level, the non-geometric backgrounds should be described by the world-sheet conformal field theory (CFT). The asymmetric orbifold CFTs [@Narain:1986qm] provide an important class, where the left- and right-movers of the string feel different geometries. The non-geometric backgrounds involving the duality twist generally lie at the fixed points of moduli, and the CFT description there is expected to be given by certain asymmetric orbifolds [@Dabholkar:2002sy]. Along this line, the T-folds with or without non-geometric fluxes have been studied by means of the world-sheet approaches, [*e.g.*]{}, in [@Flournoy:2005xe; @Hellerman:2006tx; @Kawai:2007qd; @Condeescu:2012sp; @Condeescu:2013yma]. In this paper, we take a step forward to study the non-geometric backgrounds and string vacua from the point of view of the exact world-sheet CFT. In particular, we discuss them based on the world-sheet [*conformal interfaces*]{} [@Wong:1994np; @Petkova:2000ip; @Bachas:2001vj]. The conformal interfaces are defined as the one-dimensional defects which preserve the world-sheet conformal symmetry. When one side of the interface is empty, it becomes a conformal boundary. In this sense, the conformal interfaces are regarded as a generalization of the conformal boundaries, which describe the D-branes in string theory. In addition, when the left and right energy momentum tensors are separately continuous across the interfaces, they are called [*topological*]{} [@Petkova:2000ip; @Bachas:2004sy], since they can be deformed freely on the world-sheet. The conformal interfaces possess interesting properties. For example, the topological interfaces implement the symmetries and dualities of the CFT, including T-duality [@Frohlich:2004ef; @Frohlich:2006ch]. They thus glue the CFTs which are related to each other by such symmetries or dualities. From the target-space point of view, they may be interpreted as submanifolds in a doubled target-space (bi-brane) [@Fuchs:2007fw]. They also induce transformations of D-branes or boundary renormalization group (RG) flows [@Graham:2003nc; @Bachas:2004sy]. Bulk RG flows can be described by the non-topological interfaces [@Brunner:2007ur; @Gaiotto:2012np]. The fusion of the conformal interfaces is expected to give a solution-generating algebra in string theory, similarly to the Ehlers-Geroch transformation in general relativity [@Bachas:2007td]. Since the conformal invariance is a guiding principle of the world-sheet description of string theory, the conformal interface should also be a fundamental object, though its role in string theory is yet to be uncovered. As an attempt in this direction, we shall investigate the modular invariants involving the conformal interfaces. Our discussion below is based on an observation that the topological interfaces induce the twists associated with the symmetries and dualities, which may yield an exact CFT description of T-folds and analogous non-geometric backgrounds. We shall see that this is indeed the case by explicitly constructing a novel type of the modular invariants describing such non-geometric CFT models. For the discussions on the world-sheet conformal interfaces in the context of string theory, see for instance [@Bachas:2001vj; @Bachas:2007td; @Satoh:2011an; @Bachas:2012bj; @Elitzur:2013ut]. More specifically, we shall focus on the CFT models defined on the background, $$S^1 [\mbox{base}] \times (S^1\times S^1) [\mbox{fiber}],$$ in which the topological interfaces act on the ‘fiber CFT’ when the world-sheet torus wraps around the base circle. In other words, we begin with the background, $${\Bbb R}[\mbox{base}] \times \left( S^1 \times S^1 \right) [\mbox{fiber}],$$ and perform the ‘twisted compactification’ implemented by the operator given by $${{\cal T}}_{2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \otimes {{\cal I}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}.$$ Here, ${{\cal T}}_{2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}}$ denotes the translation along the base-direction, ${{\cal T}}_{2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} : X \, \mapsto \, X + 2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}$, whereas ${{\cal I}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}$ expresses a certain ‘twist’ operator acting on the fiber sector, which is made up of the topological interfaces. Such a twist combined with the shift in the base of course follows the spirit of the Scherk-Schwarz compactification [@SS1; @SS2]. However, the operator ${{\cal I}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}$ here does not necessarily correspond to a symmetry of the original CFT. This means that the conformal systems we propose do not always reduce to ordinary orbifold CFTs. In this sense, our present study would shed light on a possibility to construct a novel type of string vacua, and would illustrate a role of the world-sheet conformal interfaces in string theory.   This paper is organized as follows: After providing the necessary notation and making a brief review on the topological interfaces in section 2, we shall start our construction of the conformal models and partition functions describing non-geometric backgrounds in section 3. We define the relevant models by using the twisted compactification mentioned above. Even though the construction would be natural and the modular invariance is achieved, an issue of unitarity remains except for the simplest case of the T-fold. Therefore, in section 4, we discuss a ‘unitarization’ of the models of our interest. The proposed models are closely related to the orbifold CFTs with the [*discrete torsion*]{} [@dtorsion], and we explicitly demonstrate that they are indeed unitary for the equal fiber-radii. We further discuss how our unitarization is physically interpreted as the [*multiple*]{} insertions of the twist operators consisting of the topological interfaces. In section 5, we present a summary and discussion.   Preliminaries ============= Before presenting our main analysis, we first set up the necessary notation. Through this paper we shall use the ${\alpha}'=1$ convention. We set ${\Lambda}\equiv {\Bbb Z}\tau+ {\Bbb Z}$, where $\tau \in {{\Bbb H}}$ (upper half plane) is the modulus of the world-sheet torus parametrized as $\tau = \tau_1 + i \tau_2$ $(\tau_1 \in {\Bbb R}, \ \tau_2 >0)$.   Partition Functions of Compact Bosons ------------------------------------- The partition function of a free boson compactified on the circle with radius $R$ should be $$\begin{aligned} Z_{R} (\tau) & = & \sum_{\nu \in {\Lambda}}\, Z_R(\tau \,|\, \nu), \label{Z R} \\ Z_{R}(\tau \,|\, \nu) &: =& \frac{R}{\sqrt{\tau_2}\,| \, \eta(\tau)|^2} e^{-\frac{\pi R^2}{\tau_2}|\nu|^2}, \label{Z nu}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{R}(\tau \,|\, \nu)$ represents a contribution from the winding sector specified by $\nu$. Its modular property is expressed as $$Z_{R}(\tau+ 1 \,|\, \nu) = Z_{R}(\tau \, | \, \nu), \hspace{1cm} Z_{R}\left( \left. - \frac{1}{\tau} \, \right| \, \frac{\nu}{\tau} \right) = Z_{R}(\tau \, | \, \nu). \label{modular Z nu}$$ When the radius $R$ can be written as $R = \sqrt{k}$, $(k\in {\Bbb Z}_{>0})$, the partition function $Z_R(\tau)$ is rewritten in terms of theta functions, $$Z_R(\tau) = \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2}\, \sum_{m \in {\Bbb Z}_{2k}}\, \left|{\Theta_{m,k}}(\tau) \right|^2.$$ More generally, if $R= \sqrt{\frac{L}{K}}$, $(K,L \in {\Bbb Z}_{>0})$ holds (the rational CFT cases), we obtain $$Z_R(\tau) = \sum_{\stackrel{r \in {\Bbb Z}_{2L}}{s \in {\Bbb Z}_{K}}}\, Z^{(KL)}[Kr, Ls] (\tau), \label{ZRtheta}$$ with the notation, $$\begin{aligned} && Z^{(k)}[u,v](\tau) : = \frac{1}{\left| \eta(\tau) \right|^2}\, {\Theta_{u+v,k}}(\tau) \overline{{\Theta_{-u+v,k}}(\tau)}. \label{Zuv}\end{aligned}$$   Orbifolding ----------- We introduce the operators corresponding to the following two types of orbifolding: (i) ${\Bbb Z}_N$-action of translation : : First, we define $\tau^{(N), R}_{\gamma}$ as the operator linearly acting on the function [(\[Z nu\])]{} as $$\tau^{(N), R}_{\gamma} \cdot \left[ \sum_{i} \, c_i \, Z_R \left(\tau | \, \nu_i \right) \right] := \sum_i \, c_i \, Z_R \left(\tau \left| \nu_i + \frac{\gamma}{N} \right.\right), \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}\gamma \in {\Lambda}), \label{Z_N orb}$$ with arbitrary $c_i$, $\nu_i$. Acting on $Z_R(\tau)$, the operator $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \tau^{(N), R}_j$ implements the projection restricting the Kaluza-Klein (KK) momentum to $n \in N {\Bbb Z}$ after the Poisson resummation. By the modular completion, we then have an identity, $$Z_{R/N} (\tau) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\gamma \in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}}\, \tau^{(N), R}_{\gamma} \cdot Z_R(\tau).$$ When $R = \sqrt{\frac{N}{L}}$, one can express $Z_R(\tau)$ by theta functions through [(\[ZRtheta\])]{}, where $\tau^{(N),R}_{\gamma}$ act as $$\tau^{(N),R}_{L(a\tau+b)} \cdot Z^{(NL)}[u,v](\tau) = e^{2\pi i \frac{b}{N}u}\, Z^{(NL)}[u,v+La] (\tau). \label{tau N Zuv}$$ We set above $\gamma = L(a\tau+b) \in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}$ with $a,b \in {\Bbb Z}_N$ by assuming $N,L$ are coprime. This form of the action turns out to be useful for our later analysis. (ii) ${\Bbb Z}_N$-action of ‘dual translation’ : : We define ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N),R}_{\gamma}$ as the operator linearly acting on the function [(\[Z nu\])]{} as $${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N),R}_{\gamma} \cdot \left[ \sum_i c_i \, Z_R \left(\tau | \, \nu_i \right) \right] := \sum_i \, c_i Z_R \left(\tau \, | \, \nu_i \right)\, e^{2\pi i \frac{1}{N} \langle \nu_i, \gamma \rangle}, \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}\gamma \in {\Lambda}), \label{N-fold cover}$$ where we introduced the symbol, $$\langle \nu, \gamma \rangle := \frac{1}{\tau_2} {\mbox{Im}}(\nu \bar{\gamma}). \label{<>}$$ This time, the operator $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N),R}_j$ acts on $Z_R(\tau)$ as the projection onto the states with the winding $w \in N {\Bbb Z}$. We then have an identity, $$Z_{N R} (\tau) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\gamma \in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}}\, {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N), R}_{\gamma} \cdot Z_R(\tau) .$$ When $R = \sqrt{\frac{L}{N}}$ with $L,N$ being coprime, one can express $Z_R(\tau)$ by theta functions. There, ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N),R}_{\gamma}$ ($\gamma = L({\tilde{a}}\tau + {\tilde{b}}) \in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}; \ {\tilde{a}}, {\tilde{b}}\in {\Bbb Z}_N$) act as $${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N),R}_{L({\tilde{a}}\tau+{\tilde{b}})} \cdot Z^{(NL)}[u,v](\tau) = e^{2\pi i \frac{{\tilde{b}}}{N}v}\, Z^{(NL)}[u+L{\tilde{a}},v] (\tau), \label{ttau N Zuv}$$ similarly to $\tau^{(N),R}_{\gamma}$. We also note a schematic equivalence, $$\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\gamma \in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}} {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N),R}_{\gamma} = T \, {{\scriptstyle \circ}}\, \frac{1}{N}\sum_{\gamma \in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}} \tau^{(N), 1/R}_{\gamma} \, {{\scriptstyle \circ}}\, T,$$ where $T$ denotes the T-duality transformation, ${\displaystyle}R \, \rightarrow \, \frac{1}{R}$. We shall later use the abbreviations $\tau^{(N)}_{\gamma} \equiv \tau^{(N), R}_{\gamma}$, ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N)}_{\gamma} \equiv {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(N), R}_{\gamma}$, as long as there is no fear of confusion.   Topological Interfaces {#TopInt} ---------------------- Consider two CFTs with central charge $c=1$, which are denoted by ‘$\mbox{CFT}_1$’ and ‘$\mbox{CFT}_2$’, and described by free bosons $X_1, X_2$ compactified on the circle with radius $R_1$, $R_2$, respectively. We assume that there exist two positive integers $k_1$, $k_2 $ such that $$\frac{k_2 R_1 R_2}{k_1} = 1. \label{cond I-}$$ We denote the oscillators of the free bosons $X_i$ as ${\alpha}^i_n$, ${\tilde{{\alpha}}}^i_n$, and the Fock vacua as ${{\left|n, w ; (i)\right\rangle}}$, ${{\left\langlen,w; (i)\right|}}$ whose left and right momenta are given by $$p^{(i)}_L = \frac{n}{R_i} + w R_i , ~~~ p^{(i)}_R = \frac{n}{R_i} - w R_i, \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}n, w \in {\Bbb Z}).$$ Then, one has the topological interface operator $I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$ that glues the world-sheet of $\mbox{CFT}_2$ with that of $\mbox{CFT}_1$ [@Bachas:2001vj; @Bachas:2007td],[^3] $$\begin{aligned} I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} & := & G^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} \, \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\, e^{\frac{1}{n} \left({\alpha}^1_{-n} {\alpha}^2_n - {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^1_{-n} {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^2_n \right)}, \label{def I-} \\ G^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} & := & \sqrt{k_1 k_2} \, \sum_{r,s\in {\Bbb Z}}\, {{\left|k_1 s, k_2 r; (1)\right\rangle}} \, {{\left\langlek_1 r, k_2 s ; (2)\right|}}. \label{def G-}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the zero-mode part $G^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$ in [(\[def G-\])]{} imposes the ‘gluing conditions’, $$p_L^{(1)} = p_L^{(2)}, \hspace{1cm} p_R^{(1)} = - p_R^{(2)}, \label{gluing G-}$$ whereas those on the oscillator part are $${\alpha}^1_{n} \, I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} = I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} \, {\alpha}^2_{n}, \hspace{1cm} {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^1_{n} \, I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} = - I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} \, {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^2_{n}. \label{gluing I-}$$ Namely, $I^{(-)}$ glues two theories related by T-duality. We also note that when $k_1 > 1$ or $k_2 >1$, the image of $I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$ is strictly smaller than the whole Hilbert space of $\mbox{CFT}_1$. In other words, $ I^{(-)}_{21; (k_2,k_1)} \cdot I^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} $ is not equal to the identity of $\mbox{CFT}_2$, but is rather identified with the projection operator whose image is the invariant subspace satisfying (\[gluing G-\]).   There is another type of the topological interface operator $I^{(+)}$ gluing two free boson theories. It is given by taking the T-duality of the $\mbox{CFT}_1$ in the above construction, $$S^1_{R_1} \, \rightarrow \, S^1_{\tilde{R}_1}, \hspace{1cm} (\tilde{R}_1 \equiv 1/R_1), \label{Tdual}$$ where $S^1_R$ denotes the circle with radius $R$. The condition [(\[cond I-\])]{} is then replaced with $$\frac{k_2 R_2}{k_1 R_1} = 1, \label{cond I+}$$ and its explicit form is given by $$\begin{aligned} I^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} & := & G^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} \, \prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\, e^{\frac{1}{n} \left({\alpha}^1_{-n} {\alpha}^2_n + {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^1_{-n} {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^2_n \right)}, \label{def I+} \\ G^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} & := & \sqrt{k_1 k_2} \, \sum_{r,s\in {\Bbb Z}}\, {{\left|k_2 r, k_1 s; (1)\right\rangle}} \, {{\left\langlek_1 r, k_2 s ; (2)\right|}}. \label{def G+}\end{aligned}$$ The gluing conditions for $I^{(+)}$ are written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{glueI+} && p_L^{(1)} = p_L^{(2)}, \hspace{1cm} p_R^{(1)} = p_R^{(2)}, \label{gluing G+} \\ && {\alpha}^1_{n} \, I^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} = I^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} \, {\alpha}^2_{n}, \hspace{1cm} {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^1_{n} \, I^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} = I^{(+)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)} \, {\tilde{{\alpha}}}^2_{n}. \label{gluing I+}\end{aligned}$$   From the above gluing conditions, one readily finds that the left and right energy-momentum tensors are separately preserved across the interface operators. Thus, $I^{(\pm)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$ indeed represent topological interfaces [@Petkova:2000ip; @Bachas:2004sy], which can be deformed freely on the world-sheet. These are special cases of more general $\widehat{u}(1)$-preserving conformal interfaces [@Bachas:2001vj; @Bachas:2007td]. The general gluing conditions are concisely written by $O(1,1)$ matrices. The superscripts $(\pm)$ stand for the connected components of $O(1,1)$. The topological interfaces which do not preserve the $\widehat{u}(1)$-symmetries have also been discussed in [@Fuchs:2007tx]. Generally, there are two important subclasses of the topological interfaces [@Frohlich:2004ef; @Frohlich:2006ch]. One is named the [*group-like defect*]{}. This class of the interfaces implements the symmetries of the CFT. The other, which includes the former, is the [*duality defect*]{}. This class implements the order-disorder dualities or orbifold equivalences. In our case, $I^{(\pm)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$ with $k_1k_2 = 1$ is group-like and generates the T-dual symmetry. All other $I^{(\pm)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$ are duality defects [@Fuchs:2007tx; @Bachas:2012bj]. Accordingly, our topological interfaces result in two different classes of the ‘duality’ twists.   Construction of the Models {#section:ConstructionModel} ========================== Now, let us start the construction of the models describing non-geometric backgrounds based on the topological interfaces.   Basic Set Up {#BasicSetUp} ------------ We start with a conformal system consisting of free bosons whose target space is given by $$[\mbox{`base'}~ {\Bbb R}] \times [\mbox{`fiber'} ~ S^1_{R_{1}} \times S^1_{R_{2}}],$$ where it is assumed that $$R_1 R_2 = \frac{N}{M} , ~~ (N, M \in {\Bbb Z}_{>0}, ~ \gcd \{N, M\} =1). \label{assumption R1R2}$$ Then, the condition [(\[cond I-\])]{} is satisfied when setting $$k_1 = N, ~~~ k_2 = M.$$ We would like to make a ‘twisted’ compactification of this system implemented by the operator, $${{\cal T}}_{2\pi R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}} \otimes {{\cal I}}^{(-)} . \label{def twisting}$$ Here, ${{\cal T}}_{2\pi R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}$ denotes the shift operator acting on the base space as $ X \, \longmapsto \, X + 2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}$. The fiber part ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ is defined in terms of the topological interface operator $I^{(-)}$ by $${{\cal I}}^{(-)} := {{\cal P}}\left[ I^{(-)}_{12} \otimes I^{(-)}_{21} \right]. \label{def cI}$$ The permutation operator ${{\cal P}}$ in the above acts as $${{\cal P}}\left[{{\left|{\alpha}\right\rangle}}_1 \otimes {{\left|\beta\right\rangle}}_2 \right] = {{\left|\beta\right\rangle}}_2 \otimes {{\left|{\alpha}\right\rangle}}_1 ,$$ where ${{\left|{\alpha}\right\rangle}}_1$, ${{\left|\beta\right\rangle}}_2$ express arbitrary states of $\mbox{CFT}_1$ and $\mbox{CFT}_2$, respectively. We note that ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ is regarded as a ‘self-interface’ of the fiber CFT on $S^1_{R_1} \times S^1_{R_2} $, and thus any product $\left({{\cal I}}^{(-)}\right)^m$ is well-defined on its Hilbert space. More explicitly, the zero-mode part of ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ is given as $$\begin{aligned} {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{(0)} \propto \sum_{r,s\in {\Bbb Z}}\, \sum_{r',s' \in {\Bbb Z}}\, \left[{{\left|Nr', Ms' \,;\, (1) \right\rangle}} \otimes {{\left|Ns, Mr \, ; \, (2)\right\rangle}} \right] \, \left[{{\left\langleNr, Ms \,;\, (1)\right|}} \otimes {{\left\langleN s', M r' \, ;\, (2)\right|}} \right]. \label{cI-0}\end{aligned}$$ As mentioned above, the topological interface $I^{(-)}$ induces the duality transformations. Especially, ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{(0)}$ glues the zero-mode parts so as to interchange the KK momentum (winding) of the $S^1_{R_1}$-theory with winding (KK momentum) of the $S^1_{R_2}$-theory. In this way, we observe [*non-geometric*]{} nature due to the duality twist by [(\[def cI\])]{}.[^4] Now, our ansatz of the partition function twisted by [(\[def twisting\])]{} is expressed in the form, $$\begin{aligned} Z(\tau) & = & \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}\left( \equiv {\Bbb Z}\tau + {\Bbb Z}\right)}\, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) {\nonumber\\}& \equiv & \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}}\, Z_{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}(\tau\, | \, {\lambda}) \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau). \label{Z general 0}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the base part is expanded by the contribution from each winding sector specified by $\lambda$, and the fiber part is correlated according to this base winding $\lambda$. Adopting this winding basis, the twist operator [(\[def twisting\])]{} induces a shift of the winding due to ${{\cal T}}_{2\pi R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}$ as well as the duality twist caused by ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$. Every time the string wraps around the base cycle, the fiber part thus receives an additional duality twist by ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$. Consequently, the contribution from the fiber sector with the winding ${\lambda}= m \in {\Bbb Z}$ (temporal winding) is given by $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau) \equiv {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}=m}(\tau) := {{\cal N}}_{\lambda}\, {\mbox{Tr}}_{{{\cal H}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}} \left[\left({{\cal I}}^{(-)}\right)^{|m|} \, q^{L_0-\frac{2}{24}} \bar{q}^{{\tilde{L}}_0-\frac{2}{24}}\right], \label{def Zf 0m}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}$ is a normalization constant. The torus partition functions with multiple insertions of the general $\widehat{u}(1)$-preserving conformal interfaces have been evaluated in [@Sakai-Satoh]. The evaluation of [(\[def Zf 0m\])]{} is much simpler and, once it is obtained explicitly, we can uniquely determine the fiber partition function with general winding $ {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(w,m)}(\tau) \equiv {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}=w\tau+ m}(\tau) $ so that the total partition function [(\[Z general 0\])]{} becomes modular invariant. This means that ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau)$ should possess the modular properties, $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau+1) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau), \hspace{1cm} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}/\tau} \left(-\frac{1}{\tau} \right) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau). \label{Zf modular covariance}$$ Here, we should note that ${\lambda}$ and $\tau$ are treated as independent variables. One may rephrase [(\[Zf modular covariance\])]{} in terms of the alternative notation ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(w,m)}(\tau)$ as $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(w,m)}(\tau+1) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(w, w+m)}(\tau), \hspace{1cm} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(w,m)} \left(-\frac{1}{\tau} \right) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(m,-w)}(\tau). \label{Zf modular covariance 2}$$ Based on these relations, one can readily generate the general building blocks ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(w,m)}(\tau)$ from ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau)$. We shall also assume the ‘parity invariance’, $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{-{\lambda}} (\tau) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau),$$ which seems physically natural and in accord with the twist operator [(\[def twisting\])]{}. In particular, the normalization constants should satisfy $${{\cal N}}_{w\tau+m} = {{\cal N}}_{w\tau+(w+m)}={{\cal N}}_{m\tau-w}={{\cal N}}_{-(w\tau+m)}.$$ We later choose these constants suitably.   From now on, let us analyze concrete examples. $N=M=1$ case {#N=M=1} ------------ We first focus on the simplest case of $N=M=1$. This case also serves as a guide for the general cases that we discuss later. It turns out that it suffices to set ${{\cal N}}_{\lambda}= 1$ in this case. We also set $R_1 = 1/R_2 = R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}$. We then evaluate ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}$ in [(\[def Zf 0m\])]{} for $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$ and $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}- \{0\}$, separately.   We first consider the $m=1$ case. For the zero-mode part, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,1), {\mbox{\scriptsize zero-mode}}} (\tau) & = & \sum_{r,s\in {\Bbb Z}}\, \sum_{r',s'\in {\Bbb Z}}\, \delta_{r,r'} \delta_{s,s'}\, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{r}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} + {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{r}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} - {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{r'}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} + {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s' \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{r'}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} - {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s' \right)^2} {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{r,s \in {\Bbb Z}} \, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2 r}{\sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} + \sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2 r}{\sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} - \sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2}. \label{N=1 zero-modes}\end{aligned}$$ In this calculation, only the ‘diagonal part’ of $\mbox{CFT}_1 \otimes \mbox{CFT}_2$ with $$p_L^{(1)} = p_L^{(2)}= \frac{r}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} + s {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}, \hspace{1cm} p_R^{(1)} = - p_R^{(2)}= \frac{r}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} - s {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}$$ survives in the trace under the insertion of ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$. This eventually leads to the zero-mode spectrum of a compact boson of radius $\sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}$, where the KK momenta are restricted to even numbers, that is, $r' = 2r \in 2{\Bbb Z}$. The oscillator part also only includes the diagonal part of $\mbox{CFT}_1 \otimes \mbox{CFT}_2$, namely, $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,1), {\mbox{\scriptsize oscillator}}} (\tau) & = & q^{\frac{2}{24}} \bar{q}^{\frac{2}{24}} \, \prod_{n, \tilde{n} =1} \, \frac{1}{1-q^{2n}} \, \frac{1}{1-\bar{q}^{2\tilde{n}}} {\nonumber\\}& = & \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right| \, \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2}. \label{N=1 osc}\end{aligned}$$ Combining [(\[N=1 zero-modes\])]{} and [(\[N=1 osc\])]{}, we obtain $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,1)}(\tau) &=& \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right| \, \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2} \, \sum_{r,s \in {\Bbb Z}} \, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2 r}{\sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} + \sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2 r}{\sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} - \sqrt{2} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} {\nonumber\\}& = & \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right|\, \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\nu \in {\Bbb Z}\tau+ \frac{1}{2}{\Bbb Z}}\, Z_{\sqrt{2}{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} (\tau \, | \, \nu). \label{N=1 Zf 01}\end{aligned}$$ In the second line we made use of the Poisson resummation. It is easy to confirm that we reach the same result for any $m\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$: $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau) &=& \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right|\, \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\nu \in {\Bbb Z}\tau+ \frac{1}{2}{\Bbb Z}}\, Z_{\sqrt{2}{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} (\tau \, | \, \nu), \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1). \label{N=1 Zf 0 odd}\end{aligned}$$ The interpretation of the odd sectors as the diagonal part becomes important in the later discussions.   The even sectors are easy to compute, since we have $\left( {{\cal I}}^{(-)}\right)^2 = 1$ for the $N=M=1$ case. We then obtain $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau) & =& \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^4}\, \left[ \sum_{r,s \in {\Bbb Z}} \, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{r}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} + {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{r}{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} - {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}s \right)^2} \right]^2 {\nonumber\\}& = & \left[\sum_{\nu \in {\Lambda}} \, Z_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau \, | \, \nu)\right]^2 \equiv {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,0)}(\tau). \label{N=1 Zf 0 even}\end{aligned}$$   We finally determine all the winding sectors that are compatible with the modular invariance. Let ${\lambda}\equiv w\tau +m \in {\Lambda}$ be the winding of the base circle. Then, it turns out that the partition functions in question are given by - ${\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}$ : $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) &=& \left[\sum_{\nu \in {\Lambda}} \, Z_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau \, | \, \nu)\right]^2.\end{aligned}$$ - ${\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}+1$ : $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) &=& \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right|\, \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j \in {\Bbb Z}_2}\, \sum_{\nu \in {\Lambda}+ \frac{j}{2} }\, Z_{\sqrt{2}{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} (\tau \, | \, \nu).\end{aligned}$$ - ${\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}+ \tau$ : $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) &=& \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_4(\tau)}\right|\, \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j \in {\Bbb Z}_2}\, \sum_{\nu \in {\Lambda}+ \frac{j}{2}\tau }\, Z_{\sqrt{2}{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} (\tau \, | \, \nu).\end{aligned}$$ - ${\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}+ \tau+1 $ : $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) &=& \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_3(\tau)}\right|\, \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j \in {\Bbb Z}_2}\, \sum_{\nu \in {\Lambda}+ \frac{j}{2}(\tau+1) }\, Z_{\sqrt{2}{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} (\tau \, | \, \nu).\end{aligned}$$ The total partition function is obtained by substituting these results into [(\[Z general 0\])]{}. Note that the present model would be identified with an example of the T-folds, that is, the non-geometric backgrounds based on the T-duality twists. We emphasize that this model includes a continuous modulus ${R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}$, while most examples in the literature, of which torus partition functions are precisely calculable, are well-defined only at special points of the moduli space (say, the self-dual radius of the circle). Generally, the T-folds lie at the fixed points of the moduli space under the T-duality twists [@Dabholkar:2002sy]. In our setting, this is translated into the fact that the twist operator ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$, which is composed of the topological interface operators, is a ‘self-interface’ acting within one Hilbert space. Indeed, the Kähler modulus of the $T^2$ compactification is fixed under the twist induced by ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$, though the complex structure modulus is not.   General $N$, $M$ {#NM>1} ---------------- We next consider more general cases of $$R_1 R_2 = \frac{N}{M} , ~~~ (N, M\in {\Bbb Z}_{>0}), \hspace{1cm} k_1 = N, ~~ k_2 =M. \label{cond general N M}$$ It seems again the simplest to first consider the sectors with the base winding $(0,m)$. Relevant calculations are similar to those in the $N=M=1$ case, but we have a few differences: - For the $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$ sectors, we find the zero-mode spectrum of radius $\sqrt{2 } R_1$ with the restriction that $\mbox{(KK momentum)} \in 2 N {\Bbb Z}$ and $\mbox{(winding)} \in M {\Bbb Z}$, which means $$p_L= \frac{2N r}{\sqrt{2} R_1} + \sqrt{2} M s R_1, ~~~ p_R= \frac{2N r}{\sqrt{2} R_1} - \sqrt{2} M s R_1, ~~~ (r,s \in {\Bbb Z}).$$ - For the $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}- \{0\}$ sectors, we obtain the square of the partition function of a compact boson of radius $ R_1$ with the restriction that $\mbox{(KK momentum)} \in N {\Bbb Z}$ and $\mbox{(winding)} \in M {\Bbb Z}$, which means $$\hspace{-5mm} p_L= \frac{N r}{R_1} + M R_1 s \left( \equiv M R_2 r + \frac{N s}{R_2}\right), ~~~ p_R= \frac{N r}{R_1} - M R_1 s \left( \equiv M R_2 r - \frac{N s}{R_2}\right), ~~~ (r,s \in {\Bbb Z}).$$ Note that $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau) \neq {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,0)}(\tau), \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}m \in 2{\Bbb Z}- \{0\}),$$ contrary to the $N=M=1$ case. This is because $\left({{\cal I}}^{(-)}\right)^2$ acts as a projection operator when $k_1 >1$ or $k_2 > 1$. The restrictions of the zero mode spectra given above are suitably achieved by inserting the orbifolding operators $\tau^{(*)}_j\equiv \tau^{(*), R_i}_j$, ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(*)}_j \equiv {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(*), R_i}_j$ defined in [(\[Z\_N orb\])]{}, [(\[N-fold cover\])]{}. Namely, we obtain the fiber partition functions for the temporal winding sectors as: $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau) & =& {{\cal N}}_m\, \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right| \, \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2} \, \sum_{r,s \in {\Bbb Z}} \, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2 N r}{\sqrt{2} R_1} + \sqrt{2} M s R_1 \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2 N r}{\sqrt{2} R_1} - \sqrt{2} M s R_1 \right)^2} {\nonumber\\}& = & {{\cal N}}_m\, \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right|\, \frac{1}{2NM} \sum_{j \in {\Bbb Z}_{2N}} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \tau_j^{(2N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{j}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{\sqrt{2} R_i} (\tau) {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{8cm} ({{}^{\forall}}m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1). \label{N M Zf 0 odd} \\ {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,m)}(\tau) & =& {{\cal N}}_m\, \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^4}\, \left[ \sum_{r,s \in {\Bbb Z}} \, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{N r}{R_1} + M s R_1 \right)^2} \bar{q}^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{N r}{ R_1} - M s R_1 \right)^2} \right]^2 {\nonumber\\}& =& {{\cal N}}_m\, \left[\frac{1}{N M } \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_{N}} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \tau_j^{(N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{j}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{R_i} (\tau ) \right]^2 {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{8cm} ({{}^{\forall}}m \in 2{\Bbb Z}-\{0\}). \label{N M Zf 0 even}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $i =$ 1 or 2. Both expressions are the same due to the relation [(\[cond general N M\])]{}. This also implies that the result in [(\[N M Zf 0 even\])]{} is rewritten in a symmetric form with respect to $R_1$ and $R_2$. Moreover, we should note that the normalization constants of the interface operators appearing in [(\[def G-\])]{} have been absorbed into the redefinition of ${{\cal N}}_{m}$ in these expressions [(\[N M Zf 0 odd\])]{}, [(\[N M Zf 0 even\])]{}. For the special case of $m=0$, we of course obtain $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{(0,0)} (\tau) = {{\cal N}}_0\, Z_{R_1}(\tau) Z_{R_2}(\tau). \label{N M Zf 00}$$ The total partition function is now determined by the modular invariance. For notational convenience, we introduce, $$g_{{\lambda}}(\tau) := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \vspace{2mm} \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)}\right|, & ~~ ({\lambda}\equiv 1 ~ {\mbox{mod}}\ 2{\Lambda}), \\ \vspace{2mm} \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_4(\tau)}\right|, & ~~ ({\lambda}\equiv \tau ~ {\mbox{mod}}\ 2{\Lambda}), \\ \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_3(\tau)}\right|, & ~~ ({\lambda}\equiv \tau+ 1 ~ {\mbox{mod}}\ 2{\Lambda}), \end{array} \right. \label{def g la}$$ for ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$. We also define the following set $S^{(K)}[{\lambda}] \subset {\Lambda}/K {\Lambda}$ for ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$, ${{}^{\forall}}K \in {\Bbb Z}_{>0}$ by $$S^{(K)}[{\lambda}] := \{ \nu \in {\Lambda}\,;\, \langle {\lambda}, \nu \rangle =0 \}/K {\Lambda}, \label{SK la}$$ where the symbol $\langle ~ , ~ \rangle $ is defined in [(\[&lt;&gt;\])]{}. With these preparations, we can write down the partition functions of the fiber CFT in general winding sectors as follows: : $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) &=& {{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}\, \left[\frac{1}{NM} \sum_{{\alpha}\in S^{(N)}[{\lambda}]}\, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in S^{(M)}[{\lambda}] } \, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{ R_i} (\tau ) \right]^2. \label{N M Zf even}\end{aligned}$$ : $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) &=& {{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}\, g_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \, \frac{1}{2NM} \sum_{{\alpha}\in S^{(2N)}[{\lambda}]}\, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in S^{(M)}[{\lambda}]} \, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(2N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{\sqrt{2} R_i} (\tau). \label{N M Zf odd}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $i = 1$ or $2$. For ${\lambda}=0$, the fiber partition function is given by [(\[N M Zf 00\])]{}. Note that $$S^{(N)}[{\lambda}] = \{\nu = 0\tau+j\,;\, j\in {\Bbb Z}\}/N{\Lambda}\cong {\Bbb Z}_N,$$ for the temporal winding sectors ${\lambda}= m \, (\neq 0) \in {\Bbb Z}$, and thus [(\[N M Zf even\])]{}, [(\[N M Zf odd\])]{} reduce to the previous ones [(\[N M Zf 0 even\])]{}, [(\[N M Zf 0 odd\])]{}. Due to the $SL(2; {\Bbb Z})$-invariance of $\langle ~, ~ \rangle$ in [(\[&lt;&gt;\])]{}, they also possess the expected modularity [(\[Zf modular covariance\])]{} or [(\[Zf modular covariance 2\])]{}. The commutativity of $\tau_{{\alpha}}^{(2N)} $ and ${\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)}$ for general ${\lambda}$ follows from that for ${\lambda}= m$. We next determine the normalization factors ${{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}$ for ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$. We shall choose these constants to be the smallest positive numbers such that the $q$-expansion of ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau)$ is written in the form, $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) = \sum_{\ell, {\tilde{\ell}}}\, \sum_{n, \tilde{n} \in {\Bbb Z}} \, a (\ell,{\tilde{\ell}}, n, \tilde{n} ; {\lambda}) \, q^{\varDelta(\ell)+n}\, \overline{q^{\widetilde{\varDelta}({\tilde{\ell}}) + \tilde{n}}}, \hspace{1cm} \left|a (\ell,{\tilde{\ell}}, n, \tilde{n} ; {\lambda})\right| \in {\Bbb Z}_{\geq 0}, \label{wanted q-exp}$$ for every ${\lambda}$. We note, for instance, the following $q$-expansion of the function $({{}^{\forall}}\ell \in {\Bbb Z}- \{ 0\})$, $$\frac{1}{NM} \sum_{{\alpha}\in S^{(N)}[\ell \tau]}\, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in S^{(M)}[\ell \tau] } \, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{ R_1} (\tau ) \equiv \frac{1}{NM} \sum_{j \in {\Bbb Z}_N }\, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M } \, \tau_{j \tau}^{(N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{j}}\tau}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{ R_1} (\tau) ,$$ always includes fractional coefficients taking the values in $\frac{1}{NM} {\Bbb Z}$ up to some phase factors. We thus simply set $${{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}} := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (NM)^2 & ~~ {\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}, \\ NM & ~~ {\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}. \end{array} \right. \label{cN la}$$ It is easy to confirm that, with this choice of ${{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}$, the fiber partition function ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ is actually written in the form [(\[wanted q-exp\])]{}. We later discuss the validity of these normalization constants [(\[cN la\])]{}, after introducing the ‘unitarized model’ in section 4. The above choice is also regarded as specifying the weights of the summation over the winding sectors, which is equivalent to that over the interfaces along various cycles, as discussed shortly in the next subsection. The total partition function is obtained by substituting these results [(\[N M Zf even\])]{}, [(\[N M Zf odd\])]{} and [(\[cN la\])]{} into [(\[Z general 0\])]{}.   Let us finally comment on a useful rewriting of the relevant partition functions. If recalling the analysis for the simplest case $N=M=1$, the partition functions for the odd sectors are expected to be interpreted as the ‘diagonal parts’ of the even sectors. We here demonstrate this is indeed the case. Set $$\begin{aligned} Z^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & := & \sum_{{\alpha}\in S^{(N)}[{\lambda}]}\, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in S^{(M)}[{\lambda}] } \, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{ R_1} (\tau ), \label{Z(0)}\end{aligned}$$ for ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$. In terms of this, $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) = Z^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)^2, \label{Zfeven}$$ for the even sector ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}-\{0\}$. Moreover, the partition function [(\[N M Zf 0 odd\])]{} for the sector ${\lambda}= m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$ with [(\[cN la\])]{} is rewritten as $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{m} (\tau) = {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[m]} \cdot \left[ Z^{(0)}_{2 m}(\tau)^2 \right] \equiv Z^{(0)}_{2m} (2\tau), \label{rel Zf m bD}$$ where ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ denotes the operator extracting the diagonal part defined in [(\[def bDwm\])]{} or [(\[def bDwm 2\])]{} ($[{\lambda}] \equiv {\lambda}~ {\mbox{mod}}\, 2{\Lambda}$). It is a straightforward task to define the ‘diagonal part operator’ ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ (${\lambda}\in {\Lambda}-2{\Lambda}$) to preserve the modular covariance, as is illustrated in Appendix B. Thus, by the modular transformation, [(\[rel Zf m bD\])]{} extends to the case with general ${\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2 {\Lambda}$: $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) = {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ Z^{(0)}_{2 {\lambda}}(\tau)^2 \right]. \label{rel Zf la bD}$$ In this way we can write down the total partition function in a compact form[^5] $$\begin{aligned} Z(\tau) & = & (NM)^2\, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{0}(\tau) \, Z_{R_1}(\tau) Z_{R_2}(\tau) + \sum_{{\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}-\{0\}}\, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \, Z^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)^2 {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{2cm} + \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}} \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \, {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ Z^{(0)}_{2 {\lambda}}(\tau)^2 \right]. \label{Ztot N M}\end{aligned}$$ It is also easy to confirm that [(\[Ztot N M\])]{} actually reduces to the total partition function given in section \[N=M=1\], when setting $N=M=1$.   Interface Operator ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ along Various Cycles {#various} ---------------------------------------------------------- In our argument so far, ${\lambda}= w \tau + m \in {\Lambda}$ has represented the winding along the base circle.[^6] From the point of view of the fiber sector, which is correlated to the base sector according to ${\lambda}$, one may also regard it as specifying the homology cycles of the world-sheet torus along which the interface lies. This would become evident, once we take the standard parameterization of the homology cycles so that they are labeled by $\gamma \in {\Lambda}(\equiv {\Bbb Z}\tau + {\Bbb Z})$ and the ‘basic spatial (temporal) cycle’ is associated with $\gamma = 1$ $(\gamma= \tau)$. To be more specific, let us consider the interface along the cycle $\gamma \in {\Lambda}$ created by the operator ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ in [(\[def cI\])]{}. We denote the corresponding fiber partition function with this interface inserted by ‘${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma}] (\tau)$’. It is quite natural to interpret ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ given in [(\[N M Zf even\])]{} and [(\[N M Zf odd\])]{} to be this partition function for $\ \gamma = {\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$ up to the normalization factor ${{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}$; namely, $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \equiv {{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}} \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{{\lambda}}] (\tau). \label{def ZcI}$$ Indeed, for $\lambda = m \in {\Bbb Z}$, the left side reduces to [(\[def Zf 0m\])]{}, which represents the $m$-fold insertion of the interface operator along the basic spatial cycle. By the modular transformation, such a picture extends to the case of general $\lambda$. We take [(\[def ZcI\])]{} to define the homology cycles for the interfaces in the following discussion. With additional notation, the fiber partition function ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{{\lambda}}] (\tau)$ is written in a concise form. To this end, let us first introduce the subset ${\Lambda}_0 \subset {\Lambda}$ defined by $${\Lambda}_0 := \left\{ 1, \tau\right\} \cup \left\{ n_1 \tau + n_2\, ; \, n_1 \in {\Bbb Z}_{>0}, ~ n_2 \in {\Bbb Z}-\{0\}, ~ \gcd \{n_1, |n_2| \} =1 \right\}. \label{La0}$$ Then, ${{}^{\forall}}\gamma \in {\Lambda}$ can be uniquely expressible as $\gamma = n_{\gamma} \gamma_0$, $n_{\gamma} \in {\Bbb Z}$, $\gamma_0 \in {\Lambda}_0$. We also introduce the ‘polarized projection operators’, $${\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}} := \frac{1}{N} \sum_{{\alpha}\in S^{(N)}[{\lambda}]} \, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(N)}, \hspace{1cm} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{{\lambda}} := \frac{1}{M} \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in S^{(M)}[{\lambda}]}\, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} , \label{P la}$$ where $S^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ is defined in [(\[SK la\])]{}. Note that we can rewrite [(\[P la\])]{} as $${\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{{\alpha}\in S^{(N)}[{\lambda}]} \, \tau_{M {\alpha}}^{(N)}, \hspace{1cm} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{{\lambda}} = \frac{1}{M} \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in S^{(M)}[{\lambda}]}\, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{N {\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} ,$$ since $N$ and $M$ are coprime. This fact implies that the operators ${\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}} $, ${\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{{\lambda}'} $ commute with each other for ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}, {\lambda}' \in {\Lambda}$, which follows from the definitions of $ \tau_{\gamma}^{(N)}$, $ {\widetilde{\tau}}_{\gamma}^{(N)}$ in [(\[Z\_N orb\])]{}, [(\[N-fold cover\])]{}. The following identities are also obvious by definition, $${\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{n {\lambda}} = {\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}}, \hspace{1cm} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(N)}_{n {\lambda}} = {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}}, \label{Pnla}$$ for ${{}^{\forall}}n \in {\Bbb Z}$. In terms of these polarized projection operators, [(\[N M Zf even\])]{}, [(\[N M Zf odd\])]{} and [(\[rel Zf la bD\])]{} are rephrased as follows: : $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma}] (\tau) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2 \gamma_0}] (\tau) \equiv \left[{\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{\gamma_0} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{\gamma_0} \cdot Z_{R_1} (\tau) \right]^2. \label{Zf cI even}$$ : $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma}] (\tau) = {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma_0}] (\tau) \equiv {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[\gamma]} \cdot {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{ 2 \gamma} ] (\tau). \label{Zf cI odd}$$ As in the case of ${\lambda}= m \in {\Bbb Z}$, the relevant cycles reduce down to $2\gamma_0$ or $\gamma_0$, even when $\gamma$ is a multiple of them. By the definition [(\[def ZcI\])]{}, ‘${{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2\gamma_0}$’ is also equivalent to the two-fold insertion of ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma_0}$ along the ‘short cycle’ $\gamma_0$. These expressions are generalized later in section \[multiple\].   Relation to the ‘$I^{(+)}$-twisted’ Models {#I+} ------------------------------------------ It would be a natural question what happens if we consider the models twisted by $I^{(+)}$ in place of $I^{(-)}$. As mentioned in section \[TopInt\], $I^{(+)}$ is obtained by taking the T-duality for the $\mbox{CFT}_1$ as in [(\[Tdual\])]{}. This means that $$\begin{aligned} && [\mbox{$I^{(+)}$-model for the $S^1_{\tilde{R}_1} \times S^1_{R_2}$-fiber}] \, \stackrel{{\mbox{\scriptsize T-duality}}}{\cong} \, [\mbox{$I^{(-)}$-model for the $S^1_{R_1} \times S^1_{R_2}$-fiber}],\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{R}_1 = 1/R_1$ and $k_1=N$, $k_2=M$. In the special case with $\tilde{R}_1 = 1/R_1 = R_2 $ and $k_1=k_2 = 1$, the interface operator ${{\cal I}}^{(+)}$ composed of $I^{(+)}$ becomes the permutation operator ${{\cal P}}$. Therefore, the $I^{(-)}$-model for the $S^1_{1/R_2} \times S^1_{R_2}$-fiber can be interpreted as the T-dual of the ‘permutation twisted model’, that is, the orbifold of $S^1_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \times \left[ S^1_{R_2} \times S^1_{R_2} \right]$ twisted by $${{\cal T}}_{2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \otimes {{\cal P}}. \label{twist cP}$$ Along the fiber direction, this indeed acts as the permutation $(X_1, X_2) \, \mapsto \, (X_2, X_1)$. Let us evaluate the partition function of this permutation orbifold. It is convenient to introduce the new coordinates, $$X_{\pm} := \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(X_1 \pm X_2 \right).$$ Then, the permutation ${{\cal P}}$ acts as $${{\cal P}}~: ~ X_{\pm} \, \longmapsto \, \pm X_{\pm}.$$ Namely, ${{\cal P}}$ acts as the ordinary reflection orbifold with respect to the $X_-$-direction. The insertion of ${{\cal P}}$ into the trace only leaves the Fock vacua with $$p_{-, \, L} \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(p_{1,\, L} - p_{2, \, L} \right) = 0, \hspace{1cm} p_{-, \, R} \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(p_{1,\, R} - p_{2, \, R} \right) = 0 . \label{cond p-}$$ On the other hand, the $X_+$-direction is compactified onto the circle with the radius $\sqrt{2} R_2$, but the zero-mode spectrum is constrained as $$\mbox{KK momentum} \in 2{\Bbb Z}, \hspace{1cm} \mbox{winding} \in {\Bbb Z},$$ due to the condition [(\[cond p-\])]{}. Thus, we eventually obtain the fiber partition function for the sector ${\lambda}\equiv m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$, $$\begin{aligned} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) & = & \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)} \right| \frac{1}{|\eta(\tau)|^2}\, \sum_{r,s\in {\Bbb Z}}\, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2r}{\sqrt{2} R_2} + \sqrt{2} R_2 s\right)^2} \overline{ q^{\frac{1}{4} \left(\frac{2r}{\sqrt{2} R_2} - \sqrt{2} R_2 s\right)^2}} {\nonumber\\}& \equiv & \left|\frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)} \right| \, \sum_{\nu \in {\Bbb Z}\tau + \frac{1}{2} {\Bbb Z}}\, Z_{\sqrt{2} R_2} (\tau\, | \, \nu).\end{aligned}$$ We also obtain $${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) = Z_{R_2}(\tau)^2,$$ for ${\lambda}= m \in 2{\Bbb Z}$, since ${{\cal P}}^2 = {\bf 1}$. Based on these results and the modular invariance, we can uniquely determine the fiber partition functions ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau)$ with ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$, which are equal to those of the $I^{(-)}$-model with $R_1 = 1/R_2$ and $N=M=1$, as is anticipated. In this way, we have seen that the simplest case $N=M=1$ reduces to a geometrically realized model, that is, the orbifold by [(\[twist cP\])]{}. A similar construction of the partition function involving the permutation is given in [@Flournoy:2005xe]. However, in generic cases $NM>1$, our models would be still non-geometric even in the $I^{(+)}$-picture, because the gluing condition [(\[gluing G+\])]{} non-trivially restricts both of the KK and the winding spectra.   Unitarized Models ================= Let us discuss the unitarity of the modular invariant models we constructed in the previous section. The $N=M=1$ model obviously leads to a unitary spectrum as in ordinary ${\Bbb Z}_2$-orbifolds. However, in the cases of $NM>1$, the spectrum gets non-unitary. For example, one can observe a non-unitary $q$-expansion in the sector with base winding $w=N$,[^7] that is, $${\lambda}= N \tau + m, ~~~ (m\in {\Bbb Z}),$$ except for the $N=1$ case. In fact, we find $S^{(N)}[N\tau] = {\Bbb Z}_N \tau$, while $S^{(N)}[N \tau +m] = {\Bbb Z}_N$ holds if $m\neq 0$ and $\gcd \{ |m|, N\} =1$. Thus, it is not difficult to see that, in this situation, we never achieve the $q$-expansion with positive coefficients for the $w=N$ sector, after making the Poisson resummation with respect to $m\in {\Bbb Z}$.   Definition of the Unitarized Model ---------------------------------- Therefore, we shall propose the ‘unitarized’ model for the $NM>1$ cases. Though the complete solution to the unitarization is an important future problem, one can find a simple and interesting solution which is interpreted in terms of the [*discrete torsion*]{} [@dtorsion] and [*multiple*]{} insertions of the interface operators. Indeed, it turns out that one can construct a simple unitary extension of the present model at least in the cases, $$R_1= R_2 = \sqrt{\frac{N}{M}} = : {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}, \hspace{1cm} \gcd\,\{ N, M \}=1, \label{R_i MN}$$ which satisfy the condition [(\[cond I-\])]{}. We would like to discuss more general cases with generic $R_1$ and $R_2$ satisfying [(\[cond I-\])]{} in the future work. Let us proceed with the assumption [(\[R\_i MN\])]{}. Our construction of the unitarized model is simple. All we have to do is to replace the set $S^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ defined in [(\[SK la\])]{} with $${\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}] := \{ \nu \in {\Lambda}\, ;\, \langle {\lambda}, \nu \rangle \in K {\Bbb Z}\}/K {\Lambda}, \label{hat SK la}$$ in [(\[Z(0)\])]{}, [(\[Zfeven\])]{} and [(\[rel Zf la bD\])]{}. Namely, we replace [(\[Z(0)\])]{} with $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & := & \sum_{{\alpha}\in {\widehat{S}}^{(N)}[{\lambda}]}\, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in {\widehat{S}}^{(M)}[{\lambda}] } \, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(N)} \, {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}} (\tau ), \label{hZ(0)}\end{aligned}$$ and the fiber partition functions ${Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ with the following:[^8] : $${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) = {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)^2. \label{N M Zf even u}$$ : $${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) = {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{2 {\lambda}}(\tau)^2\right]. \label{N M Zf odd u}$$ The ${\lambda}= 0$ case has been combined into [(\[N M Zf even u\])]{}, since ${\widehat{S}}^{(N)}[0] = {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}$, ${\widehat{S}}^{(M)}[0] = {\Lambda}/M{\Lambda}$ and thus $${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{0}(\tau) = (NM)^2 \, Z_{\frac{M}{N} {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau)^2 \equiv (NM)^2 \, Z_{1/{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau)^2 \equiv (NM)^2 \, Z_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau)^2.$$ Consequently, the total partition function of the unitarized model is defined by $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-5mm} {\widehat{Z}}(\tau) & : = & \sum_{{\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}}\, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \, {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)^2 + \sum_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}} \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) \, {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{2{\lambda}}(\tau) \right]^2. \label{hZtot N M}\end{aligned}$$ Again one can easily check that this function reduces to the total partition function given in section \[N=M=1\], when setting $N=M=1$. From the definition, it follows that $S^{(K)}[{\lambda}] \subset {\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ in general, and that $$\begin{aligned} && S^{(K)}[{\lambda}] = {\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}], ~~~ \mbox{iff} ~~ \gcd \{|w|, |m|, K\} =1, ~ ({\lambda}\equiv w \tau +m \in {\Lambda}), ~~ \mbox{or} ~ {\lambda}=0. \label{hat SK rel}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, new twisted sectors are created when $ \gcd \{|w|, |m|, K\} >1$. We note that ${\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ has a periodicity, $${\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}+ K {\lambda}' ] = {\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}], \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}' \in {\Lambda}).$$ As mentioned above and discussed below, the replacement by ${\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ is interpretable in terms of the discrete torsion in the theory of orbifolds, which is expected to preserve the unitarity. This fact also motivated us to define the unitarized model in such a way. Furthermore, we will discuss later how the new partition function ${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ is interpreted to be generated by multiple insertions of ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ along various cycles of the world-sheet torus.   Proof of Unitarity ------------------ We here demonstrate that the proposed model given by [(\[hZtot N M\])]{} is unitary. Namely, we show that the total partition function [(\[hZtot N M\])]{} is indeed $q$-expanded only with positive integral coefficients, after making the Poisson resummation with respect to $m\in {\Bbb Z}$ in ${\lambda}\equiv w\tau + m$. We proceed by three steps: First, since the total partition function looks quite intricate, we analyze a simpler part of the partition function in [(\[hZ(0)\])]{}. Second, using the result in the first step, we show that the sectors with even $w$ in $ {\lambda}= w\tau + m$ have a $q$-expansion with positive integral coefficients. Finally, we show a similar statement for the sectors with odd $w$.   We first examine the simpler partition function ${\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ defined in [(\[hZ(0)\])]{}. With this aim it is convenient to introduce the phase factor defined by $$\begin{aligned} && {\epsilon}^{(K)}_{j} ({\lambda}, \gamma ; \tau ) := e^{- 2\pi i \frac{j}{K} \langle {\lambda}, \gamma \rangle_{\tau}} \equiv e^{- 2\pi i \frac{j}{K} (w b-ma)}, {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{2cm} (j \in {\Bbb Z}_K , ~ {\lambda}\equiv w\tau+m \in {\Lambda}, ~ \gamma \equiv a\tau+b \in {\Lambda}), \label{ep j}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle ~, ~ \rangle_{\tau}$ is defined in [(\[&lt;&gt;\])]{} (see also Appendix A). By the subscript, we have made the $\tau$-dependence explicit to avoid confusion. Since $$\frac{1}{K} \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_K}\, {\epsilon}^{(K)}_{j} ({\lambda}, \gamma ; \tau ) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1 & ~~ \langle {\lambda}, \, \gamma \rangle_{\tau} \in K{\Bbb Z}, \\ 0 & ~~ \mbox{otherwise}, \end{array} \right.$$ we can rewrite ${\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ as $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) &=& \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N}\, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}, \, [j,{\tilde{j}}]} (\tau),\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-1cm} {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda},\, [j, {\tilde{j}}]}(\tau) &: =& \frac{1}{NM} \sum_{{\alpha}\in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}} \, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in {\Lambda}/M{\Lambda}}\, {\epsilon}_j^{(N)} ({\lambda}, {\alpha}; \tau) \, {\epsilon}_{{\tilde{j}}}^{(M)} ({\lambda}, {\tilde{{\alpha}}}; \tau)\, \tau_{{\alpha}}^{(N)} {\widetilde{\tau}}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau) {\nonumber\\}&\equiv & \frac{1}{NM} \sum_{{\alpha}\in {\Lambda}/N{\Lambda}} \, \sum_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in {\Lambda}/M{\Lambda}}\, {\epsilon}_j^{(N)} ({\lambda}, M {\alpha}; \tau) \, {\epsilon}_{{\tilde{j}}}^{(M)} ({\lambda}, N {\tilde{{\alpha}}}; \tau)\, \tau_{M {\alpha}}^{(N)} {\widetilde{\tau}}_{N {\tilde{{\alpha}}}}^{(M)} \cdot Z_{{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}(\tau). \label{def hZj}\end{aligned}$$ In the second line, we made use of the assumption $\gcd \{ N, M\} = 1$. Note here that $\tau^{(N)}_{M {\alpha}}$ and ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(M)}_{N {\tilde{{\alpha}}}}$ always commute with each other, while $\tau^{(N)}_{{\alpha}}$ and ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(M)}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}$ do not. The phase factor ${\epsilon}^{(N)}_{j} ({\lambda}, \gamma ; \tau) {\epsilon}^{(M)}_{{\tilde{j}}} ({\lambda}, \gamma ;\tau)$ is interpreted as the [*discrete torsion*]{} [@dtorsion], as we addressed before. Actually, it turns out that the sector of the partition function [(\[hZtot N M\])]{} with $w$ even or odd separately leads to a unitary $q$-expansion. To see this below, it is important to observe that [(\[def hZj\])]{} is explicitly evaluated as $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}= w\tau+m, \, [j,{\tilde{j}}]} (\tau) = \sum_{a \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{a}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, \sum_{r \in {\Bbb Z}_2} e^{ 2\pi i m \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M} \right)} \, Z^{(NM)}[M j w + N {\tilde{a}}+ NMr, \, N {\tilde{j}}w + M a ] (\tau). \label{eval hZj}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we set ${\alpha}= a\tau + b$, ${\tilde{{\alpha}}}= {\tilde{a}}\tau + {\tilde{b}}$, summed over $b \in {\Bbb Z}_N$, ${\tilde{b}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M$ and used the notation [(\[Zuv\])]{}. This expression is suited for making the Poisson resummation, since the temporal winding $m$ appears only in the phase factor $e^{2\pi i m \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M} \right)}$.   Now, we are ready to show the unitarity of the model or the partition function in question, that is, ${\widehat{Z}}(\tau)$ in [(\[hZtot N M\])]{}. We first focus on the case of ${\lambda}= w\tau+m$ with a fixed value $w\in 2{\Bbb Z}$, and consider the Poisson resummation with respect to $m$. For the cases of $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}$, the fiber partition function is equal to the square of [(\[hZ(0)\])]{}, that is, $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & = & \prod_{i=1,2}\, \sum_{j_i \in {\Bbb Z}_N}\, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}_i \in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}_{{\lambda}, \, [j_i, {\tilde{j}}_i]}(\tau). \label{eval hZf 1}\end{aligned}$$ Then, it is straightforward to make the Poisson resummation over $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}$ with the help of [(\[eval hZj\])]{}. Note that the phase factor appearing in [(\[eval hZj\])]{} just shifts the KK momentum along the base circle as $$\frac{n}{2 {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} ~ \longrightarrow ~ \frac{1}{2 {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left[ n + 2 \sum_{i=1,2}\, \left( \frac{j_i M a_i}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}_i N {\tilde{a}}_i }{M}\right) \right],$$ where $i=1,2$ labels the contributions from the two factors of ${\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$. We thus obtain $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace{-1cm} {\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize even}}, \, w}(\tau) \equiv \sum_{m \in 2{\Bbb Z}}\, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{w\tau+m}(\tau)\, {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{w\tau+m}(\tau) {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{5mm} = \sum_{j_i,a_i \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}_i,{\tilde{a}}_i \in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \sum_{r_i \in {\Bbb Z}_2}\, \sum_{n\in {\Bbb Z}}\, \left[ \prod_{i=1,2} \, Z^{(NM)}[M j_i w + N {\tilde{a}}_i + NMr_i, \, N {\tilde{j}}_i w + M a_i ] (\tau) \right] {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{5mm} \times \frac{1}{2} \, \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2}\, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left[\frac{1}{2{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left\{ n + 2 \sum_{i=1,2}\, \left( \frac{j_i M a_i}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}_i N {\tilde{a}}_i }{M}\right)\right\} + {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}w \right]^2}\, \overline{ q^{\frac{1}{4} \left[\frac{1}{2{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left\{ n + 2 \sum_{i=1,2}\, \left( \frac{j_i M a_i}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}_i N {\tilde{a}}_i }{M}\right)\right\} - {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}w \right]^2} }. {\nonumber\\}&& \label{PR hZ even w}\end{aligned}$$ It is not difficult to see that the sectors with ‘non-diagonal’ quantum numbers $(j_1, a_1 , \ldots) \neq (j_2, a_2, \ldots)$ are expanded in a $q$-series with positive integral coefficients. Note that the factor $\frac{1}{2}$ appearing in [(\[PR hZ even w\])]{} indeed cancels out due to the degeneracy of relevant contributions. Furthermore, the partition functions for the ‘diagonal’ sectors with $j_1 = j_2 \equiv j$, $a_1 = a_2 \equiv a$, and so on, are rewritten by using the product formula of theta function [(\[product\])]{} as $$\begin{aligned} && {\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize even}}, \, w}[j, {\tilde{j}}, a, {\tilde{a}}, r](\tau) = \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2} \,Z^{(2NM)}[2 M j w + 2 N {\tilde{a}}+ 2 NMr, \, 2 N {\tilde{j}}w +2 M a ] (\tau) {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{2cm} \times \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{n\in {\Bbb Z}} \, \frac{1}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2}\, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left[\frac{1}{2{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left\{ n + 4 \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M}\right)\right\} + {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}w \right]^2}\, \overline{ q^{\frac{1}{4} \left[\frac{1}{2{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left\{ n + 4 \, \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M}\right)\right\} - {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}w \right]^2} } {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{2cm} + \ [\mbox{residual terms}], \label{hZ even w diag 1}\end{aligned}$$ The ‘residual terms’ in the above denote some $q$-series with positive integral coefficients whose explicit form is not important here. On the other hand, by using the definition of ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ given in [(\[def bDwm 2\])]{}, we obtain for $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$, $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & = & {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ \prod_{i=1,2}\, \sum_{j_i \in {\Bbb Z}_N}\, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}_i \in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}_{2 {\lambda}, \, [j_i, {\tilde{j}}_i]}(\tau) \right] {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{2 {\lambda}, \, [j,{\tilde{j}}]}(2\tau) {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \sum_{a \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{a}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, \sum_{r \in {\Bbb Z}_2} e^{ 2 \pi i m \cdot 2 \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M} \right)} {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{1cm} \times Z^{(NM)}[M j w + N {\tilde{a}}+ NMr, \, N {\tilde{j}}w + M a ] (2 \tau) {\nonumber\\}&= & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \sum_{a \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{a}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, \sum_{r \in {\Bbb Z}_2} e^{ 2 \pi i m \cdot 2 \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M} \right)} {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{1cm} \times \left| \frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)} \right| \,Z^{(2 NM)}[2 M j w + 2 N {\tilde{a}}+ 2 NMr, \, 2N {\tilde{j}}w + 2 M a ] (\tau). \label{eval hZf 2}\end{aligned}$$ Note here that the operator ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ for this sector acts as $\tau\, \rightarrow \, 2\tau$, [*while keeping ${\lambda}\equiv w\tau+m$ intact.*]{} This implies that $$\begin{aligned} && {\epsilon}_j^{(N)} (2 {\lambda}, M \left\{ a (2\tau) +b\right\}; 2\tau) \, {\epsilon}_{{\tilde{j}}}^{(M)} (2 {\lambda}, N \{ {\tilde{a}}(2 \tau) +{\tilde{b}}\} ; 2\tau) {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{3cm} = e^{-2\pi i \frac{j M}{N} \langle w (2\tau)+2 m, \, a (2\tau) +b \rangle_{2 \tau}} \, e^{-2\pi i \frac{{\tilde{j}}N}{M} \langle w (2\tau)+ 2m, \, {\tilde{a}}(2\tau) +{\tilde{b}}\rangle_{2 \tau}} {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{3cm} = e^{-2\pi i \frac{j M}{N} \left(w b- 2 ma\right)} \, e^{-2\pi i \frac{{\tilde{j}}N}{M} \left(w {\tilde{b}}- 2 m{\tilde{a}}\right)},\end{aligned}$$ which explains the phase factor appearing in [(\[eval hZf 2\])]{}. As a consistency check, we can confirm the modular T-invariance of [(\[eval hZf 2\])]{}, $${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau+1) = {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau), \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\equiv w\tau+m, ~ w \in 2{\Bbb Z}, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1).$$ The expressions [(\[eval hZf 2\])]{} is again suitable for the Poisson resummation. Namely, the summation over $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$ is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize odd}}, \, w} (\tau) &\equiv& \sum_{m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1} \, {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{w\tau +m} (\tau) \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{w\tau+m}(\tau) {\nonumber\\}& \equiv & \sum_{j,a \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}, {\tilde{a}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, \sum_{r\in {\Bbb Z}_2}\, {\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize odd}}, w} [j, {\tilde{j}}, a, {\tilde{a}}, r](\tau) ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace{-1cm} {\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize odd}}, \, w} [j, {\tilde{j}}, a, {\tilde{a}}, r](\tau) = \left| \frac{2\eta(\tau)}{{{\theta}}_2(\tau)} \right|\, Z^{(2 NM)}[2M j w + 2 N {\tilde{a}}+ 2NMr, \, 2 N {\tilde{j}}w + 2 M a ] (\tau) {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{5mm} \times \sum_{n\in {\Bbb Z}} \, \frac{1}{2} \frac{(-1)^n}{\left|\eta(\tau)\right|^2}\, q^{\frac{1}{4} \left[\frac{1}{2{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left\{ n + 4 \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M}\right)\right\} + {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}w \right]^2}\, \overline{ q^{\frac{1}{4} \left[\frac{1}{2{R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}} \left\{ n + 4\left(\frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M}\right)\right\} - {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}w \right]^2} }. \label{PR hZ w odd}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing [(\[hZ even w diag 1\])]{} and [(\[PR hZ w odd\])]{}, it is now obvious that the summation $${\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize even}}, \, w} [j, {\tilde{j}}, a, {\tilde{a}}, r](\tau) + {\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize odd}}, \, w} [j, {\tilde{j}}, a, {\tilde{a}}, r](\tau) , \label{hZeven+hZodd w}$$ is written in a unitary $q$-series for each $j$, ${\tilde{j}}$, $a$, ${\tilde{a}}$, $r$.   Let us examine the remaining cases with $w\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$. By means of [(\[def bDwm 2\])]{}, we obtain the following: - For $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}$, $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-5mm} {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & = & {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ \prod_{i=1,2}\, \sum_{j_i \in {\Bbb Z}_N}\, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}_i \in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}_{2 {\lambda}, \, [j_i, {\tilde{j}}_i]}(\tau) \right] {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{ \frac{1}{2}(2{\lambda}) , \, [j,{\tilde{j}}]}\left(\frac{\tau}{2}\right) {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \sum_{a \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{a}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, \sum_{r \in {\Bbb Z}_2} e^{ 2 \pi i m \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M} \right)} {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{1cm} \times Z^{(NM)}\left[2 M j w + N {\tilde{a}}+ NMr, \, 2 N {\tilde{j}}w + M a \right] \left( \frac{\tau}{2} \right). \label{eval hZf 3}\end{aligned}$$ - For $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1 $, $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-5mm} {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & = & {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ \prod_{i=1,2}\, \sum_{j_i \in {\Bbb Z}_N}\, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}_i \in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}_{2 {\lambda}, \, [j_i, {\tilde{j}}_i]}(\tau) \right] {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, {\widehat{Z}}^{(0)}_{ \frac{1}{2}(2{\lambda}), \, [j,{\tilde{j}}]}\left(\frac{\tau+1}{2}\right) {\nonumber\\}& = & \sum_{j\in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{j}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M} \, \sum_{a \in {\Bbb Z}_N} \, \sum_{{\tilde{a}}\in {\Bbb Z}_M}\, \sum_{r \in {\Bbb Z}_2} e^{ 2 \pi i (m-w) \left( \frac{j M a}{N} + \frac{{\tilde{j}}N {\tilde{a}}}{M} \right)} {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{1cm} \times Z^{(NM)}\left[2 M j w + N {\tilde{a}}+ NMr, \, 2 N {\tilde{j}}w + M a \right] \left( \frac{\tau+1 }{2} \right). \label{eval hZf 4}\end{aligned}$$ In these evaluations, the phase factors were slightly non-trivial again. In [(\[eval hZf 3\])]{}, for example, we made the following evaluation, $$\begin{aligned} && {\epsilon}_j^{(N)} \left({\lambda}, M \{ a \frac{\tau}{2} +b\} ; \frac{\tau}{2} \right) \, {\epsilon}_{{\tilde{j}}}^{(M)} \left({\lambda}, N \{ {\tilde{a}}\frac{\tau}{2} +{\tilde{b}}\}; \frac{\tau}{2} \right) {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{4cm} = e^{-2\pi i \frac{j M}{N} \langle 2w\frac{\tau}{2} +m, \, a \frac{\tau}{2} +b \rangle_{\frac{\tau}{2}}} \, e^{-2\pi i \frac{{\tilde{j}}N}{M} \langle 2 w\frac{\tau}{2}+m, \, {\tilde{a}}\frac{\tau}{2}+{\tilde{b}}\rangle_{\frac{\tau}{2}}} {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{4cm} = e^{-2\pi i \frac{j M}{N} \left(2wb- m a\right)} \, e^{-2\pi i \frac{{\tilde{j}}N}{M} \left(2w{\tilde{b}}- m{\tilde{a}}\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ If only picking [(\[eval hZf 3\])]{} up, we are clearly led to a unitary $q$-series by Poisson resumming over $m\in 2{\Bbb Z}$, as in the case of ${\widehat{Z}}_{{\mbox{\scriptsize even}}, \, w}(\tau)$ in [(\[PR hZ even w\])]{}. Moreover, as expected, [(\[eval hZf 3\])]{} and [(\[eval hZf 4\])]{} are combined into a T-invariant form, since $${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau+1) = {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau), \hspace{1cm} ({\lambda}\equiv w\tau+m, ~ {{}^{\forall}}w\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1, ~ {{}^{\forall}}m \in {\Bbb Z}).$$ This means that the summation over $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$ is written in the same form of $q$-series as that for $m \in 2{\Bbb Z}$, but [*with an extra sign $\pm 1$ in each term*]{}. Therefore, the partition function $$\begin{aligned} && \sum_{m\in {\Bbb Z}}\, {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{w\tau+m} (\tau) \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{w\tau+m} (\tau) {\nonumber\\}& & \hspace{1cm} \equiv \sum_{m\in 2{\Bbb Z}}\,\left[ {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{w\tau+m} (\tau) \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{w\tau+m} (\tau) + {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{w(\tau+1)+m} (\tau+1) \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize base}}}}_{w(\tau+1)+m} (\tau+1) \right], \quad \end{aligned}$$ again produces a unitary $q$-series. Similarly to the twisted sectors of the familiar ${\Bbb Z}_2$-orbifolds, the negative terms due to the oscillator part cancel with the corresponding positive terms. In this way, we have succeeded in showing the unitarity of the proposed model [(\[hZtot N M\])]{}.   We add a few comments: - It is worthwhile to point out that there exists a [*unique*]{} vacuum with minimal conformal weights $h=\tilde{h}=0$ (the ‘identity state’) in the spectrum read off from the partition function [(\[hZeven+hZodd w\])]{} for the sector $w=j={\tilde{j}}=a={\tilde{a}}= r=0$. This fact would suggest that our choice of the normalization constants [(\[cN la\])]{} is reasonable. - As clarified in the above discussion, the even sectors with ${\lambda}\in 2 {\Lambda}$ are reinterpreted as the orbifold with the discrete torsion. Nevertheless, the total partition function [(\[hZtot N M\])]{} is not likely to be described by any model of orbifold in the precise sense, except for the simplest case $N=M=1$. This is because the operator ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ is hard to be explicitly realized in terms of an automorphism acting on the Hilbert space of CFT.   Interpretation of the Unitarized Model : Multiple Insertions of the Interface Operators {#multiple} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the last of this section we would like to discuss a possible physical interpretation of the unitarized model described by [(\[hZtot N M\])]{}, or the fiber partition functions ${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ given in [(\[N M Zf even u\])]{} and [(\[N M Zf odd u\])]{}. Let us start by extending the formulas [(\[Zf cI even\])]{}, [(\[Zf cI odd\])]{} to the cases of multiple insertions of the interface operator ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}$ along different cycles, $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace{-1.5cm} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma_1}, \ldots, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma_\ell}](\tau) := \left[ \left( \prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \, {\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{\gamma_j} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{\gamma_j} \right) \cdot Z_{\sqrt{\frac{N}{M}}} (\tau) \right]^2, ~~~ (\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_{\ell} \in 2{\Lambda}-\{0\}), \label{Zf cI multiple even} \\ && \hspace{-1.5cm} {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma}, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma_1}, \ldots, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{\gamma_\ell}](\tau) := {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[\gamma]} \cdot \left[ {\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{2\gamma} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{2\gamma} \left( \prod_{j=1}^{\ell} \, {\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{\gamma_j} {\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_{\gamma_j} \right) \cdot Z_{\sqrt{\frac{N}{M}}} (\tau) \right]^2, {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{7cm} (\gamma \in {\Lambda}-2 {\Lambda}, ~~\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_{\ell} \in 2{\Lambda}-\{0\}). \label{Zf cI multiple odd even}\end{aligned}$$ These expressions are well-defined because the operators ${\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_*$, ${\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_*$ commute with one another, as we already mentioned. One should keep it in mind that all the operators $\tau^{(N)}_*$, ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(M)}_*$ implicitly appearing in [(\[Zf cI multiple even\])]{}, [(\[Zf cI multiple odd even\])]{} have to be interpreted as $\tau^{(N), {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}_*$, ${\widetilde{\tau}}^{(M), {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize f}}}}}_*$ respectively. At present, we do not have a proper extension for any two insertions along different [*odd*]{} cycles; $ \gamma_i, \gamma_j \in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}, ~ \gamma_i \neq \gamma_j. $ Now, let us focus on the partition functions ${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ given in [(\[N M Zf even u\])]{}, [(\[N M Zf odd u\])]{}. We attempt to rewrite them in the forms of [(\[Zf cI multiple even\])]{} and [(\[Zf cI multiple odd even\])]{}. Recall that the partition function in the even sector [(\[N M Zf even u\])]{} is obtained by replacing the sets $S^{(*)}[{\lambda}]$ appearing in [(\[N M Zf even\])]{} with their ‘hatted’ counterparts [(\[hat SK la\])]{}, and in the odd sector by acting with the diagonal operator ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$. We again begin our analysis with the decomposition ${\lambda}= n_{{\lambda}} {\lambda}_0$ for ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- \{0\}$ with $ {\lambda}_0 \in {\Lambda}_0$, $n_{{\lambda}} \in {\Bbb Z}$. We also introduce the unique element ${\lambda}_1 \in {\Lambda}_0$ by requiring the condition $\langle {\lambda}_1, {\lambda}_0 \rangle =1$. Then, making use of the assumption $\gcd \{ N , \, M\} =1$, we find $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}] & = & {\Bbb Z}_K {\lambda}_0 + {\Bbb Z}_{n_{{\lambda}}^{(K)}} \frac{K}{n^{(K)}_{{\lambda}}} {\lambda}_1 {\nonumber\\}& = & S^{(K)}[{\lambda}] + S^{(K)}[{\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1] , \hspace{1cm} (K=N, ~ M), \label{rel wS S}\end{aligned}$$ where we set $$n_{\gamma}^{(K)} := \gcd \{ |n_{\gamma}|, K \}, \hspace{1cm} (K= N, M). \label{def n gamma}$$ For instance, in the case of ${\lambda}= m \in {\Bbb Z}-\{0\}$, it is easy to see $${\widehat{S}}^{(N)}[m] = {\Bbb Z}_N + {\Bbb Z}_{n_{m}^{(N)}} \frac{N}{n_{m}^{(N)}} \tau = S^{(N)}[m] + S^{(N)}[m + NM \tau],$$ and the equality for general case ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}-\{0\}$ follows from modular transformations. From the above relations, we obtain the following identity, $$\left( n_{{\lambda}}^{(N)} N\right) \, {\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}} {\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1} = \sum_{{\alpha}\in {\widehat{S}}^{(N)}[{\lambda}]}\,\tau^{(N)}_{{\alpha}}, \label{rel bP bhP}$$ and a similar relation for ${\widetilde{\mbox{\bf P}}}^{(M)}_*$. The equality [(\[rel bP bhP\])]{} implies that ${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ given in [(\[N M Zf even u\])]{} for the even sector ${\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}-\{0\}$ is identified with the partition function of the type [(\[Zf cI multiple even\])]{} with the insertions of ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{{\lambda}}$ and ${{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2({\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1)}$ up to a normalization constant. To be more precise, it is straightforward to show $$\begin{aligned} {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) &=& {{\cal N}}_{{\lambda}}' \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{{\lambda}}, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2({\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1)}] (\tau) {\nonumber\\}& \equiv & \left( n_{{\lambda}}^{(N)} n_{{\lambda}}^{(M)} NM\right)^2 \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{{\lambda}}, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2({\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1)}] (\tau), \hspace{0.7cm} ({{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in 2{\Lambda}-\{0\}). \label{hZf cI even}\end{aligned}$$ The factor $2$ of the subscript in the latter operator assures that the cycle is even, though the actual action is implemented also by ${\mbox{\bf P}}^{(N)}_{{\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1} $ due to [(\[Pnla\])]{}. Furthermore, the partition function for the odd sector [(\[N M Zf odd u\])]{} is rewritten in the form of [(\[Zf cI multiple odd even\])]{}, that is, $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-5mm} {\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau) & = & {{\cal N}}'_{{\lambda}} \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{{\lambda}}, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2(2{\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1)}] (\tau) {\nonumber\\}& \equiv & {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot \left[ {{\cal N}}_{2{\lambda}}' \, {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2{\lambda}}, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2(2{\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1)}] (\tau) \right] {\nonumber\\}& \equiv & \left( n_{2{\lambda}}^{(N)} n_{2{\lambda}}^{(M)} NM \right) \, {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}\cdot {Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}[{{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2 {\lambda}}, {{\cal I}}^{(-)}_{2(2{\lambda}+ NM {\lambda}_1)}] (\tau), \hspace{0.7cm} ({{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}). \label{hZf cI odd}\end{aligned}$$ These are the equalities we have looked for, and show that the fiber partition functions ${\widehat{Z^{{\mbox{\scriptsize fiber}}}}}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ are interpreted to be generated by multiple insertions of the interface operators along different cycles.   Summary and Discussion ====================== In this paper, we studied simple models of non-geometric backgrounds based on the world-sheet CFT equipped with the topological interfaces [@Petkova:2000ip; @Bachas:2004sy]. The topological interfaces there composed the twist operators similar to those in orbifold CFTs, and we performed the twisted compactification of the Scherk-Schwarz type [@SS1; @SS2]. When crossing the defect lines on the world-sheet created by the interface operators, the KK momenta and the winding modes are mixed, which embodies a ‘non-geometry’ (or the ‘stringy geometry’, possibly). Requiring the modular invariance, we needed to sum up all the winding sectors with respect to the Scherk-Schwarz circle, or the base space. The fiber CFT, on the other hand, was made up of the world-sheet with the interfaces aligned suitably, so as to correlate in a modular covariant manner to the winding numbers of the base circle. In our concrete studies, two types of the topological interfaces appeared. One is the group-like defect and the other, which includes the former, is the duality defect [@Frohlich:2004ef; @Frohlich:2006ch]. The group-like defect corresponds to the case of $N=M=1$ in section \[N=M=1\], and resulted in an example of the T-fold, that is, the Scherk-Schwarz compactification twisted by the T-duality. As we clarified in section \[I+\], this model is also T-dualized to the permutation orbifold, which manifestly yields a unitary theory. On the other hand, the cases of $NM>1$ given in section \[NM&gt;1\] are described in terms of the duality defects that do not implement symmetries in the strict sense. The obtained partition function [(\[Ztot N M\])]{} looks rather intricate and the unitarity is not realized as it stands. As mentioned in section \[TopInt\], the topological interfaces in these cases implement a projection that restricts the zero-mode spectrum, instead of an automorphism of the Hilbert space. In order to maintain the unitarity, or conserve the probability, one may thus need to complement this projection by supplying ‘twisted sectors’ which may differ from those in ordinary orbifold theories. Quite interestingly, a ‘unitarization’ was indeed possible at least for the cases of $R_1=R_2 = \sqrt{\frac{N}{M}}$, as demonstrated in section 4. Furthermore, the unitarized model is found to be described by the world-sheet with multiple insertions of the interfaces along different cycles. While the even sectors of this model might be identified with some orbifold with the discrete torsion [@dtorsion], the total partition function itself does not seem to correspond to any orbifold conformal theory.[^9] We organized the interface operators, as mentioned in section \[section:ConstructionModel\], so that they act consistently within one Hilbert space. This is in accord with the low-energy analysis that the T-folds lie at the fixed points of the moduli space. Taking also into account our motivation to discuss possible roles of the world-sheet interfaces for string theory, our models may be the simplest from our point of view. Compared with the preceding works [@Flournoy:2005xe; @Hellerman:2006tx; @Kawai:2007qd; @Condeescu:2012sp; @Condeescu:2013yma], where the exact CFT partition functions for T-folds are constructed by identifying some asymmetric twists with particular T-duality transformations, our construction takes a different route based on the interfaces. In the case of the group-like defect, our resultant model, however, fits into the same category of asymmetric orbifolds, except that our model has a continuous modulus in a fixed line instead of isolated fixed points. In the case of the duality defects, our construction would be a novel type other than ordinary asymmetric orbifolds. In both cases, our approach would provide a unified picture for the non-geometric backgrounds of T-fold type. Our approach may also be generalized to a large class of models, as long as the action of the interfaces is well-defined within one Hilbert space, which implies that the model is on the fixed submanifold in the moduli space. The analysis of non-geometric backgrounds typically involves compactification radii of or below the string scale. The advantage of the world-sheet CFT approach is that the results are $\alpha'$-exact and thus valid even at the string scale, where the notion of classical geometry may not be valid. When the string coupling for the genus expansion becomes large, the world-sheet approach here is not applicable, and should be superseded by non-perturbative approaches. For future work, if intending the applications to string compactifications, we would have several tasks to be done: - the construction of the unitarized models for general radii $R_1$, $R_2$ satisfying the condition [(\[assumption R1R2\])]{}; - the extension to the case of the fiber CFT on higher dimensional tori; - the supersymmetric extension by means of superconformal interfaces; - the target-space interpretation of the insertions of the interfaces and the resultant models. Especially, the topological interfaces in ${{\cal N}}=1$ SCFTs on higher dimensional tori have been elaborated in [@Bachas:2012bj]. It has been clarified there that the duality (or the ‘orbifold equivalence’) defects which do not preserve the charge lattice of string theory generically correspond to the $O(d,d ; {\Bbb Q})$-group for $d$-dimensional torus. It is an interesting question whether one can construct the unitary and modular invariant models based on such $O(d,d ; {\Bbb Q})$-interfaces as extensions of the unitarized model proposed in this paper. It would also be interesting to see, as mentioned in [@Bachas:2012bj], that an object representing the ‘quasi-symmetry’ survives even under the $\alpha'$ corrections and plays a definite role in string theory. Moreover, a natural direction of the future studies would be the extensions to non-trivial cases with ${{\cal N}}=2$ SCFTs, say, the Gepner models as the fiber CFT, in which one would handle the duality defects inducing the mirror transformations. Of course, one may imagine the models of Scherk-Schwarz compactifications with the [*self-dual*]{} mirror twisting acting on some ${{\cal N}}=4$ fiber SCFTs, similarly to [@Kawai:2007nb]. These cases may be described by the group-like defects and reduce to asymmetric orbifolds. However, more general duality defects made up of the ${{\cal N}}=2$ topological interfaces would be capable of producing a much broader class of superstring vacua, which would be fairly non-trivial and curious. Another interesting direction to be pursued would be the possibility of more general unitary models by multiple insertions of the interface operators. In section \[multiple\], we chose particular cycles along which the interfaces are aligned, in order to obtain the unitarized model [(\[hZtot N M\])]{}. However, it is not yet clear what the general principle is, in order for the configuration of the interfaces to realize sensible unitary models. In any case, we hope that this work would serve as a step to construct a novel type of string vacua based on the world-sheets equipped with the topological interfaces or the interface operators composed of them.   Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== We would like to thank K. Sakai for useful comments on the conformal interfaces. This work is supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 24540248 and 23540322 from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS).   Appendix A:   Conventions for Theta Functions and Some Useful Formulas {#appendix-a-conventions-for-theta-functions-and-some-useful-formulas .unnumbered} ====================================================================== $$\begin{aligned} & {\displaystyle}{{\theta}}_1(\tau,z)=i\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}(-1)^n q^{(n-1/2)^2/2} y^{n-1/2} \equiv 2 \sin(\pi z)q^{1/8}\prod_{m=1}^{\infty} (1-q^m)(1-yq^m)(1-y^{-1}q^m), {\nonumber\\}[-10pt] & \\[-5pt] & {\displaystyle}{{\theta}}_2(\tau,z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} q^{(n-1/2)^2/2} y^{n-1/2} \equiv 2 \cos(\pi z)q^{1/8}\prod_{m=1}^{\infty} (1-q^m)(1+yq^m)(1+y^{-1}q^m), \\ & {\displaystyle}{{\theta}}_3(\tau,z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} q^{n^2/2} y^{n} \equiv \prod_{m=1}^{\infty} (1-q^m)(1+yq^{m-1/2})(1+y^{-1}q^{m-1/2}), \\ & {\displaystyle}{{\theta}}_4(\tau,z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}(-1)^n q^{n^2/2} y^{n} \equiv \prod_{m=1}^{\infty} (1-q^m)(1-yq^{m-1/2})(1-y^{-1}q^{m-1/2}) . \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned} {\Theta_{m,k}}(\tau,z)&=&\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} q^{k(n+\frac{m}{2k})^2}y^{k(n+\frac{m}{2k})} , \\ \eta(\tau) &=& q^{1/24}\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n). \end{aligned}$$ Here, we have set $q:= e^{2\pi i \tau}$, $y:=e^{2\pi i z}$. We use abbreviations, ${{\theta}}_i (\tau) \equiv {{\theta}}_i(\tau, 0)$ (${{\theta}}_1(\tau)\equiv 0$), ${\Theta_{m,k}}(\tau) \equiv {\Theta_{m,k}}(\tau,0)$. We also set $$\begin{aligned} && Z^{(k)}[u,v](\tau) : = \frac{1}{\left| \eta(\tau) \right|^2}\, {\Theta_{u+v,k}}(\tau) \overline{{\Theta_{-u+v,k}}(\tau)}, \label{Zuv 2}\end{aligned}$$ which is often used in the main text.   $${\Theta_{m,k}}(\tau,z){\Theta_{m',k'}}(\tau,z') =\sum_{r\in{\Bbb Z}_{k+k'}}{\Theta_{mk'-m'k+2kk'r,kk'(k+k')}}(\tau,u) {\Theta_{m+m'+2kr,k+k'}}(\tau,v), \label{product}$$ where we set ${\displaystyle}u= \frac{z-z'}{k+k'}$, ${\displaystyle}v=\frac{kz+k'z'}{k+k'}$.   $$\begin{aligned} && \sum_{n\in{\Bbb Z}}\exp\left(-\pi {\alpha}(n+a)^2+2\pi i b (n+a)\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{{\alpha}}}\sum_{m\in{\Bbb Z}}\exp \left(-\frac{\pi(m-b)^2}{{\alpha}}+2\pi i m a\right), {\nonumber\\}&& \hspace{10cm} ({\alpha}>0 , ~ a,b \in {\Bbb R}). \label{PR formula}\end{aligned}$$   $$\langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\tau} := \frac{1}{\tau_2} {\mbox{Im}}({\alpha}\bar{\beta}). \label{<> 2}$$ For example, when ${\alpha}\equiv x_1 \tau + x_2, ~ \beta \equiv y_1 \tau + y_2$, one obtains $\langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\tau} = x_1 y_2- x_2 y_1$. The inner product $\langle ~ , ~ \rangle_{\tau}$ is modular invariant, that is, $$\langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\tau+1} = \langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\tau}, \hspace{1cm} \left\langle \frac{{\alpha}}{\tau}, \frac{\beta}{\tau} \right\rangle_{-\frac{1}{\tau}} = \langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\tau}.$$ We also note $$\langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\ell \tau} = \frac{1}{\ell} \langle {\alpha}, \beta \rangle_{\tau}, \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}\ell \neq 0).$$ We often use the abbreviation $\langle ~, ~ \rangle \equiv \langle ~, ~ \rangle_{\tau}$ in the cases with no fear of confusion.   Appendix B:   Diagonal Part Operator {#appendix-b-diagonal-part-operator .unnumbered} ====================================   In this appendix we present the definition of the ‘diagonal part operator’ ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ ($[{\lambda}] \in {\Lambda}/2{\Lambda}$, ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}$) repeatedly used in the main text. As a preliminary, we start with a general function $F_{(w,m)}(\tau)$ ($w,m \in {\Bbb Z}$) of the form such as $$F_{(w,m)} (\tau) = \sum_{\ell, {\tilde{\ell}}}\, \sum_{n, \tilde{n} \in {\Bbb Z}} \, c(\ell,{\tilde{\ell}}, n, \tilde{n} ; w,m) \, q^{\varDelta(\ell)+n}\, \overline{q^{\widetilde{\varDelta}({\tilde{\ell}}) + \tilde{n}}},$$ that possesses the following properties, $$\begin{aligned} && \hspace{-1cm} F_{(-w,-m)}(\tau) = F_{(w,m)}(\tau), \hspace{1cm} F_{(w,m)}(\tau+1) = F_{(w, w+m)}(\tau), \hspace{1cm} F_{(w,m)}\left(-\frac{1}{\tau}\right) = F_{(m,-w)}(\tau). {\nonumber\\}&& \label{assumption Fwm}\end{aligned}$$ We identify the ‘partition function’ whose diagonal part is of our interest as $${\mbox{\bf Z}}_{(w,m)}(\tau) \equiv F_{(w,m)}(\tau)^2, \label{def Zwm}$$ and regard the two factors $F_{(w,m)}(\tau)$ as the contributions from $\mbox{CFT}_1$ and $\mbox{CFT}_2$. [^10] Then, we define the ‘diagonal part operator’ ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]}$ (${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}- 2{\Lambda}$, $[{\lambda}] \in {\Lambda}/2{\Lambda}$ denotes the representative of ${\lambda}$) by $${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[w\tau+m] } \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{(w,m)}(\tau) := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} F_{(\frac{w}{2}, m)}(2\tau), & ~~ (w\in 2{\Bbb Z}, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1), \\ F_{(w, \frac{m}{2})}\left(\frac{\tau}{2} \right), & ~~ (w\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}), \\ F_{(w, \frac{m-w}{2})}\left(\frac{\tau+1}{2} \right), & ~~ (w\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1). \end{array} \right. \label{def bDwm}$$ Alternatively, if adopting the notation such as $F_{w\tau+m}(\tau) \equiv F_{(w,m)}(\tau)$, ${\mbox{\bf Z}}_{w\tau+m}(\tau) \equiv {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{(w,m)}(\tau)$, we can rewrite it as $${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[w\tau+m] } \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{w\tau+m}(\tau) := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} F_{\frac{w}{2}\cdot 2\tau+ m}(2\tau) \equiv F_{w\tau+m}(2\tau), & ~~ (w\in 2{\Bbb Z}, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1), \\ F_{w\frac{\tau}{2}+ \frac{m}{2}}\left(\frac{\tau}{2} \right) \equiv F_{\frac{1}{2}(w\tau+m)} \left(\frac{\tau}{2}\right), & ~~ (w\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}), \\ F_{w\frac{\tau+1}{2} + \frac{m-w}{2}} \left(\frac{\tau+1}{2} \right) \equiv F_{\frac{1}{2}(w\tau+m)} \left(\frac{\tau+1}{2} \right). & ~~ (w\in 2{\Bbb Z}+1, ~ m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1). \end{array} \right. \label{def bDwm 2}$$ For ${{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}= m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1$, ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[m]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{m} (\tau) $ is literally interpreted as the diagonal part of the partition function ${\mbox{\bf Z}}_{m} (\tau)$, which means $$\begin{aligned} && {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[m]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{m} (\tau) = F_{(0,m)}(2\tau) \equiv \sum_{\ell, {\tilde{\ell}}}\, \sum_{n, \tilde{n} \in {\Bbb Z}} \, c(\ell,{\tilde{\ell}}, n, \tilde{n} ; 0,m) \, q^{2(\varDelta(\ell)+n)}\, \overline{q^{2(\widetilde{\varDelta}({\tilde{\ell}}) + \tilde{n})}}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the function ${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau) $ possesses the expected modularity; namely, the identities, $${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau + 1) = {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau ), \hspace{1cm} {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}/\tau]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}/\tau} \left(-\frac{1}{\tau}\right) = {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau ), \label{modularity bD}$$ are satisfied. In fact, almost all of the identities are obvious from the definition [(\[def bDwm\])]{}, and it is only non-trivial to prove $${\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}/\tau]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}/\tau} \left(-\frac{1}{\tau}\right) = {\mbox{\bf D}}_{[{\lambda}]} \cdot {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{{\lambda}} (\tau ), \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}{\lambda}\in (2{\Bbb Z}+1) \tau + (2{\Bbb Z}+1)).$$ This is equivalent to the identity, $$F_{(w, \frac{m-w}{2})} \left(\frac{-\frac{1}{\tau} + 1}{2}\right) = F_{(m, -\frac{w+m}{2})} \left(\frac{\tau+1}{2} \right), \hspace{1cm} ({{}^{\forall}}w,m \in 2{\Bbb Z}+1),$$ which follows from [(\[assumption Fwm\])]{} as is easily checked.   [99]{} A. Dabholkar and C. Hull, JHEP [**0309**]{}, 054 (2003) \[hep-th/0210209\]. S. Hellerman, J. McGreevy and B. Williams, JHEP [**0401**]{}, 024 (2004) \[hep-th/0208174\]. A. Flournoy, B. Wecht and B. Williams, Nucl. Phys. B [**706**]{}, 127 (2005) \[hep-th/0404217\]. C. M. Hull, JHEP [**0510**]{}, 065 (2005) \[hep-th/0406102\]. J. Shelton, W. Taylor and B. Wecht, JHEP [**0510**]{}, 085 (2005) \[hep-th/0508133\]. J. Shelton, W. Taylor and B. Wecht, JHEP [**0702**]{}, 095 (2007) \[hep-th/0607015\]. A. Dabholkar and C. Hull, JHEP [**0605**]{}, 009 (2006) \[hep-th/0512005\]. K. S. Narain, M. H. Sarmadi and C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B [**288**]{}, 551 (1987). A. Flournoy and B. Williams, JHEP [**0601**]{}, 166 (2006) \[hep-th/0511126\]. S. Hellerman and J. Walcher, hep-th/0604191. S. Kawai and Y. Sugawara, JHEP [**0802**]{} (2008) 027 \[arXiv:0709.0257 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Condeescu, I. Florakis and D. Lüst, JHEP [**1204**]{} (2012) 121 \[arXiv:1202.6366 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Condeescu, I. Florakis, C. Kounnas and D. Lüst, JHEP [**1310**]{} (2013) 057 \[arXiv:1307.0999 \[hep-th\]\]. E. Wong and I. Affleck, Nucl. Phys. B [**417**]{}, 403 (1994). V. B. Petkova and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{} (2001) 157 \[hep-th/0011021\]. C. Bachas, J. de Boer, R. Dijkgraaf and H. Ooguri, JHEP [**0206**]{}, 027 (2002) \[hep-th/0111210\]. C. Bachas and M. Gaberdiel, JHEP [**0411**]{}, 065 (2004) \[hep-th/0411067\]. J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**93**]{}, 070601 (2004) \[cond-mat/0404051\]. J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, Nucl. Phys. B [**763**]{}, 354 (2007) \[hep-th/0607247\]. J. Fuchs, C. Schweigert and K. Waldorf, J. Geom. Phys.  [**58**]{}, 576 (2008) \[hep-th/0703145 \[HEP-TH\]\]. K. Graham and G. M. T. Watts, JHEP [**0404**]{}, 019 (2004) \[hep-th/0306167\]. I. Brunner and D. Roggenkamp, JHEP [**0804**]{}, 001 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.0188 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Gaiotto, JHEP [**1212**]{}, 103 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.0767 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Bachas and I. Brunner, JHEP [**0802**]{}, 085 (2008) \[arXiv:0712.0076 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. Satoh, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 072 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.5935 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Bachas, I. Brunner and D. Roggenkamp, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 039 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.4647 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Elitzur, B. Karni, E. Rabinovici and G. Sarkissian, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 088 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.6639 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Lett. B [**82**]{}, 60 (1979). J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B [**153**]{}, 61 (1979). C. Vafa, Nucl. Phys. B [**273**]{}, 592 (1986); C. Vafa and E. Witten, J. Geom. Phys.  [**15**]{}, 189 (1995) J. Fuchs, M. R. Gaberdiel, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, J. Phys. A [**40**]{}, 11403 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.3129 \[hep-th\]\]. K. Sakai and Y. Satoh, JHEP [**0812**]{}, 001 (2008) \[arXiv:0809.4548 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Frohlich, J. Fuchs, I. Runkel and C. Schweigert, arXiv:0909.5013 \[math-ph\]. N. Carqueville and I. Runkel, arXiv:1210.6363 \[math.QA\]. I. Brunner, N. Carqueville and D. Plencner, Commun. Math. Phys.  [**332**]{}, 669 (2014) \[arXiv:1307.3141 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Kawai and Y. Sugawara, JHEP [**0802**]{}, 065 (2008) \[arXiv:0711.1045 \[hep-th\]\]. [^1]: [email protected] [^2]: [email protected] [^3]: We simply set to zero the ‘moduli’ parameters of the topological interface operators through this paper. We also set to plus a possible sign which could appear in the oscillator part, since it is absorbed by exchanging the left and right movers. It is understood that the oscillators $\alpha_n^1, \tilde\alpha_n^1$ act on the left side of $G^{(-)}_{12; (k_1,k_2)}$, whereas $\alpha_n^2, \tilde\alpha_n^2$ on the right side. [^4]: It would be possible that the models constructed here are equivalent to the world-sheet CFT for some geometric orbifolds via T-duality transformations. In fact, as discussed later, this is the case for the simplest case with $N=M=1$, similarly to known examples of T-fold backgrounds. However, in generic cases with $NM>1$, it seems hard to reinterpret our models as CFTs realized geometrically. [^5]: Since $S^{(K)}[\ell {\lambda}] = S^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ (${{}^{\forall}}\ell\neq 0$), one may replace $Z^{(0)}_{2 {\lambda}}(\tau)$ in [(\[Ztot N M\])]{} with $Z^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$. The above notation, however, makes it clear that the fiber partition functions for the odd sectors are regarded as the diagonal part of the even sectors. The ‘unitarized model’ discussed in section 4 is defined through ${\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ in [(\[hat SK la\])]{}, instead of $S^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$, and $\widehat{Z}^{(0)}_{2 {\lambda}}(\tau)$ is distinguished from $\widehat{Z}^{(0)}_{{\lambda}}(\tau)$ since ${\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[2{\lambda}] \neq {\widehat{S}}^{(K)}[{\lambda}]$ generically. [^6]: When ${\lambda}= w \tau + m \in {\Lambda}$ represents the winding of the base circle, $w$ and $m$ are the spatial and the temporal windings, respectively. They are related to the boundary condition of the base boson as $ X(z+2\pi i \gamma, \bar{z}- 2\pi i \bar{\gamma}) = X(z,\bar{z}) + 2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}\langle {\lambda}, \gamma \rangle $ for any cycle $\gamma \in {\Lambda}$. [^7]: Since we are considering the twisted compactification due to [(\[def twisting\])]{}, which includes the shift operator ${{\cal T}}_{2\pi {R_{{\mbox{\scriptsize b}}}}}$, we should regard the sectors with $w\neq 0$ as the ‘twisted sectors’ in the context of orbifold theory, whereas the temporal winding $m$ has to be dualized into the KK momentum in order to read off the spectrum. [^8]: If we make the replacement [(\[hat SK la\])]{} in [(\[N M Zf odd\])]{}, instead of [(\[rel Zf la bD\])]{}, it is subtle if the resultant expression in general becomes equal to [(\[N M Zf odd u\])]{}: When $\gcd \{2N, M\} =2$, $\tau^{(2N)}_{{\alpha}} {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(M)}_{{\tilde{{\alpha}}}}$ may not necessarily be replaced with $\tau^{(2N)}_{M {\alpha}} {\widetilde{\tau}}^{(M)}_{2N {\tilde{{\alpha}}}}$ for ${\alpha}\in {\widehat{S}}^{(2N)}[{\lambda}]$, ${\tilde{{\alpha}}}\in {\widehat{S}}^{(M)}[{\lambda}]$, and hence not commute. Even in that case, the expression [(\[N M Zf odd u\])]{} is well-defined. [^9]: It would be worth mentioning that, in the papers [@Frohlich:2009gb; @Carqueville:2012dk; @Brunner:2013ota], the authors have been investigating the ‘generalized orbifolds’ that do not arise from any symmetry group, for example, in the context of the topological Landau-Ginzburg theories with defects. [^10]: Of course, a natural extension of the argument given here would be the diagonal part operator acting on a more general partition function such as $ {\mbox{\bf Z}}_{(w,m)}(\tau) \equiv F^{(1)}_{(w,m)}(\tau)\, F^{(2)}_{(w,m)}(\tau), \ F^{(1)}_{(w,m)}(\tau) \neq F^{(2)}_{(w,m)}(\tau). $ In this paper, however, it is sufficient to restrict to the simple case [(\[def Zwm\])]{}.

ArXiv

=17.8cm =11.8cm \#1[$\underline{{\vphantom{\hbox{#1}}}\smash{\hbox{#1}}}$]{} ‘@=11 cite\#1[\[\#1\]]{} refe\#1[\#1]{} biblabel\#1[[**[\#1]{}**]{}]{} citexr\[\#1\]\#2[@fileswauxout citearefe[forciteb:=\#2]{}[\#1]{}]{} ‘@=12 [**Irreversible Multilayer Adsorption** ]{} P. Nielaba, V. Privman$^1$, J.-S. Wang$^2$ Institut für Physik, Staudingerweg 7, Universität Mainz, 6500 Mainz, FRG 1\) Physics Department, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699-5820, USA 2\) Physics Department, Hong Kong Baptist College, 244 Waterloo Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong [**Abstract.**]{} Random sequential adsorption (RSA) models have been studied \[1\] due to their relevance to deposition processes on surfaces. The depositing particles are represented by hard-core extended objects; they are not allowed to overlap. Numerical Monte Carlo studies and analytical considerations are reported for 1D and 2D models of multilayer adsorption processes. Deposition without screening is investigated, in certain models the density may actually increase away from the substrate. Analytical studies of the late stage coverage behavior show the crossover from exponential time dependence for the lattice case to the power law behavior in the continuum deposition. 2D lattice and continuum simulations rule out some “exact” conjectures for the jamming coverage. For the deposition of dimers on a 1D lattice with diffusional relaxation we find that the limiting coverage $(100 \%)$ is approached according to the $\sim 1/\sqrt{t}$ power-law preceded, for fast diffusion, by the mean-field crossover regime with the intermediate $\sim 1/t$ behavior. In case of $k$-mer deposition ($k>3$) with diffusion the void fraction decreases according to the power-law $t^{-1/(k-1)}$. In the case of RSA of lattice hard squares in 2D with diffusional relaxation the approach to the full coverage is $\sim t^{-1/2}$. [**1. Kinetics of multilayer adsorption** ]{} In this section we study \[1\] the deposition of $k$-mers of length $k$ on the linear periodic 1D lattice of spacing $1$, and the deposition of square-shaped $(k \times k)$-mers on the periodic square lattice of unit spacing in 2D. The deposition site is chosen at random. The time scale, $t$, is fixed by having exactly $L$ deposition attempts per unit time. We studied systems of sizes up to $L=10^5$ in 1D and $L \times L =1000^2$ in 2D. Various Monte Carlo runs (for $k=2,3,4,5,10$ in 1D, and $k=2,4$ in 2D) went up to $t=150$. Our numerical values are consistent with exact results for layer $n=1$ in 1D \[2\]. We first report on a model with decreasing layer coverage. Only if [*all*]{} the lattice segments in the selected landing site are already covered by exactly $(n-1)$ layers, the arriving $k$-mer is deposited, increasing the coverage to $n\;$ ($n \geq 1$). For small $t$, the coverage (fraction of the total volume covered by depositing particles) increases according to $\theta_{n}(t) \propto t^{n}$, as expected from the mean-field theory. Our results suggest that for lattice models the fraction of the occupied area in the $n$th layer, $\theta_n (t)$, approaches the saturation value exponentially, $ \theta_n (t) \approx \theta_n (\infty ) + B_n {\exp}{(-t / \tau_n)}$. However, the jammed state in the higher layers [*in the deposition without overhangs*]{} contains more gaps the larger is the $n$ value. The growth in the higher layers proceeds more and more via uncorrelated “towers". We find that the jamming coverages vary according to a power law, with no length scale, reminiscent of critical phenomena, $$\theta_n ( \infty ) - \theta_\infty ( \infty ) \approx {A \over n^\phi } %\eqno(2) $$$$ Within the limits of the numerical accuracy the values of the exponent $\phi$ are universal for $k \geq 2 $. Based on numerical data analysis we find the estimates $ \phi({\rm 1D}) = 0.58 \pm 0.08$ and $ \phi({\rm 2D}) = 0.48 \pm 0.06$. These values are most likely exactly $1/2$ as suggested by analytical random-walk arguments \[3\]. Now we report on a model with decreasing layer coverage. For layers $n>1$ the deposition is successful only if no gaps of size $k$ or larger are covered. Thus, the deposition is always allowed if all the “supporting” $k$ sites in the $(n-1)$st layer are filled or have only small internal gaps. The coverage [*at short times*]{} decreases with layer number. However, for the particular deposition rule considered here the coverage in layer $n$ eventually exceeds that in layer $(n-1)$ at larger times. This unexpected behavior was found numerically for all layers $n \leq 55$ and for all $k$ ($k=2,3,4,5,10$) studied. We found clear evidence of the power-law behavior (eq.(1)), with $A<0$. We found the power $\phi$ to be universal for all $k$ studied, $ %\begin{equation} \phi = 0.3 \pm 0.15 $. When large enough covered (by $k$-mers or gaps of sizes up to $k-1$) regions have formed in layer $(n-1)$, then the deposition with overhangs beyond those regions will be delayed. Thus, there will be some preference for higher density in layer $n$ especially near the ends of the regions occupied in layer $(n-1)$. To test the above suggestion, we considered the following monolayer dimer-deposition model. We select randomly $\rho L/2$ dimers and make the $\rho L$ sites thus selected unavailable for deposition for times $0 \leq T \leq T_s$. A “sleeping time” $T_s$ for fraction $\rho$ of lattice sites (grouped in dimers) in monolayer deposition supposedly will model effect of disallowed overhangs over gaps of size larger than 1 in the lower layer on the multilayer deposition in layer $n$ provided we loosely identify $T_s \propto n$. Indeed, our multilayer data suggest that times needed to build up the $n$th layer coverage grow linearly with $n$. For instance times $T_{1/2}$ defined via $ \theta \left( T_{1/2} \right) = {1 \over 2} \theta_n (\infty )$, grow according to $ T_{1/2} \simeq \tau n $, where the coefficient $\tau$ is of order 1. After time $T_s$ all the blocked sites are released and can be occupied in subsequent deposition attempts. We find that the variation of the jamming coverage $\propto T_s^{-\phi}$, $\phi \simeq 1/3$. [**2. Continuum limit in RSA**]{} We consider \[1\] the deposition of objects of size $l$ on a $1$D substrate of size $L$. $R$ is the rate of random deposition attempts per unit time and volume. The lattice approximation is introduced by choosing the cubic mesh size $b = l / k$. The lattice deposition is defined by requiring that the objects of size $l$ can only deposit in sites consisting of $k$ lattice units. The late stage of the deposition (after time $\tau$) in continuum can be described as filling up of voids small enough to accommodate only one depositing object. At this time $\tau$, the density of those small gaps (of various sizes) will be $\rho$. For lattice models, a similar picture applies for $k >> R l \tau $. Typical small gaps can be assumed \[4\] of sizes $k+n \ (n=0,1,\ldots ,k-1)$ with density $\rho / k$ at time $\tau$, and will be filled up at the rate $R b (n+1)$ per unit time. We will consider $t>> \tau$ so that no new small gaps are created by the filling up of large gaps. Then the density $\Omega$ of each type of the small gaps will have the time dependence $ \Omega (n) = (\rho / k) \exp (-R b (n+1) (t - \tau )) $. In each deposition event with rate $R b \Omega ( n) (n +1)$ per unit time the coverage is increased by $(l/L)$. Thus, we have $ {d \theta / dt} \simeq \sum_{n=0}^{k-1} {(R b l \rho / k )} (n+1) \exp \{ - R b (n+1) (t- \tau ) \} $. After integration we get the asymptotic ($t >> \tau$) estimate, generalized to $D$ dimensions \[1\]: $$\theta_k (t) = \theta_k (\infty ) - {\rho l^D \over k^D} \sum\limits_{n_1=0}^{k-1} \ldots \sum\limits_{n_D=0}^{k-1} \exp \left\{ - \left( R l^D t \over k^D \right) \prod_{m=1}^D (n_m+1) \right\} \quad$$ We consider some special limits. For $k$ fixed, the “lattice" long time behavior sets in for $R l^D t >> k^D$. In this limit the $n_j = 0$ term in the sums in eq.(2) dominates: $ \theta (t) \approx \theta (\infty ) - { (\rho l^D / k^D )} { \exp}{(- R l^D t / k^D) } $. Thus, the time decay constant increases as $k^D$, The continuum limit of eq.(2) is obtained for $k^D >> R l^D t$. In this limit one can convert the sums to integrals. Recall that all the expressions here apply only for $t >> \tau$ and $k^D >> R l^D \tau$, where $R l^D \tau$ is a fixed quantity of order 1. Thus, the large-$k$ and large-$t$ conditions are simply $k >> 1$ and $t >> 1/ ( R l^D )$. The latter condition allows us to evaluate the integrals asymptotically, to the leading order for large $t$, which yields $ \theta (t) \approx \theta (\infty ) - {( \rho / (D-1)! \; R t )} \left[ \ln \left( R l^D t \right) \right]^{D-1} $. The asymptotic $ (\ln t) ^{D-1} t^{-1} $ law was derived in Ref. \[4\] for the continuum deposition of cubic objects. We evaluated $\theta_k (\infty )$ numerically for system sizes $L/k=200$. Our data suggest a fit of the form $ \theta_k(\infty) = \theta_{\infty}(\infty) + {(A_1 / k)} + {(A_2 / k^2)} + \ldots $. By standard manipulations to cancel the leading $1/k$ term, followed by a further extrapolation to $k \to \infty$, we arrived at the estimate $\theta_{\infty}(\infty) = 0.5620 \pm 0.0002$. The errors are small enough to rule out the conjecture of Palásti \[5\], and its generalization for finite $k$, which state that the jamming coverages for the $2D$ $\, (k \times k)$ oriented squares are equal to the [*squared*]{} jamming coverages of the corresponding $1D$ $k$-mer models. The latter are known exactly \[2\]. [**3. Effects of diffusional relaxation**]{} In this section we report numerical studies \[1\] of the effects of diffusion on RSA in 1D and 2D. In the deposition of $k$-mers on a 1D linear lattice, holes of $k-1$ sites or less cannot be reached by deposition. Diffusion of the deposited objects can combine small holes to form larger landing sites accessible to further deposition attempts leading to a fully covered lattice at large times. For large times the holes are predominantly single-site vacancies which hop due to $k$-mer diffusion. They must be brought together in groups of $k$ to be covered by a depositing $k$-mer. If the deposition rate is small, the $k$-site holes may be broken again by diffusion before a successful deposition attempt. Thus the process of $k$-mer deposition with diffusion will reach its asymptotic large-time behavior when most of the empty space is in single-site vacancies. The approach of the coverage to $1$ for large times will then be related to the reaction $k {\cal A} \to inert$ with partial reaction probability on each encounter of $k$ diffusing particles ${\cal A}$. Scaling arguments indicate that the particle density for $k \geq 3$ will follow the mean-field law $\propto t^{-1/(k-1)}$ for large times, with possible logarithmic corrections for $k=3$ (borderline). This corresponds to $1-\theta(t\hbox{-large}) = t^{-1/(k-1)}$ in deposition. Now we study the effect of diffusional relaxation in 1D dimer deposition. At each Monte Carlo step a pair of adjacent sites on a linear lattice ($L=2000$) is chosen at random. Deposition is attempted with probability $p$ or diffusion otherwise with equal probability to move one lattice spacing to the left or right. The time step $\Delta T =1$ corresponds to $L$ deposition/diffusion-attempt Monte Carlo steps. We define the time variable $t = pT$. Our Monte Carlo results were obtained for $p=0.9, 0.8, 0.5, 0.2$. The coverage increases monotonically with $(1-p)/p$ at fixed $pT$. For $p<1$ we obtain $\theta(\infty)=1$, for $p=1$, $\theta (T) = 1 - \exp \left\{ -2 \left[ 1 - \exp (-T) \right] \right\} \to %\, , %\qquad (p=1) \eqno(3) $$ 1 - {\sl e}^{-2 } < 1 .$ The convergence of ($1-\theta$) to the limiting value at $t=pT=\infty$ is exponential without diffusion. Small diffusional rates lead to the asymptotically $\sim t^{-1/2}$ convergence to $\theta (p<1, t=\infty) =1 $. For faster diffusion, the onset of the limiting behavior is preceded by the region of $\sim t^{-1}$ behavior followed by a crossover to $\sim t^{-1/2}$ for larger times. In the cases $k=3,4$ the large time results are roughly consistent with the mean-field relation. For all $p$ values studied the void area is dominated by the single vacancies precisely in the regime where the mean-field law sets in. For $k = 2$ the single-site vacancies take over for $t^>_\sim 2$. For fast diffusion there follows a long crossover region from the initially mean-field to the asymptotically fluctuation behavior. Now we report on collective effects in RSA of diffusing hard squares. In each Monte Carlo trial of our simulation on a $L\times L$ square lattice, a site is chosen at random with deposition probability $p$. Only if the chosen site and its four nearest-neighbor sites are all empty the deposition is performed. A diffusion move by one lattice spacing is made if the targeted new site and its nearest neighbors are all empty. Numerical estimates were obtained for the coverage and the “susceptibility” $\chi = L^2 \bigl[ \langle m^2 \rangle - \langle |m| \rangle^2 \bigr] $, where the average $\langle\ \rangle$ is over independent runs. The order parameter was defined by assigning “spin” values $+1$ to particles on one of the sublattices and $-1$ on another sublattice. The effective domain size, $\ell (T)$, was defined by $\ell = 2L \sqrt{\langle m^2\rangle}$. For $p=1$, the approach of $\theta(T)$ to the jamming coverage $\theta (\infty) \simeq 0.728 < 1$ is exponentially fast. With diffusion, one can always reach the full coverage $\theta( \infty ) = 1$. However, the approach to the full coverage is slow, power-law. Here the coverage growth mechanism for large times is due to interfacial dynamics. The void space at late times consists of domain walls separating spin-up and spin-down ordered regions. Since a typical domain has area $\sim \ell^2 (T)$ and boundary $\sim \ell(T)$, we anticipate that for large times $ 1 - \theta (T) \propto \ell^{-1} (T)$. We found that the data roughly fit the power law, $ 1- \theta(T) \propto T^{-1/2}$, for $T > 10^3$. Thus, the RSA quantity $1-\theta(T)$ behaves analogously to the energy excess in equilibrium domain growth problems. The “susceptibility” $\chi$ for a given finite size $L$ has a peak and then decreases to zero, indicating long-range order for large $T$. The peak location seems size-dependent, at $T_{\rm peak} \propto L^2$. Since finite-size effects set in for $\ell (T) \sim L$, which given the “bulk” power law $\ell (T) \sim T^{1/2}$ leads precisely to the criterion $T \sim L^2$, we expect this maximum in fluctuations to be a manifestation of the ordering process at high densities. [**Acknowledgments:**]{} The authors wish to thank Prof. Kurt Binder for helpful discussions, and to acknowledge the sponsorship of the SFB 262 of the DFG. P.N. thanks the DFG for a Heisenberg fellowship. [**References:**]{} \[1\] P. Nielaba, V. Privman and J.–S. Wang, J. Phys. [**A 23**]{}, L1187 (1991); P. Nielaba and V. Privman, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**B 6**]{}, 533 (1992); V. Privman and P. Nielaba, Europhys. Lett. [**18**]{}, 673 (1992); V. Privman, J.–S. Wang and P. Nielaba, Phys. Rev. [**B1 43**]{}, 3366 (1991); J.–S. Wang, P. Nielaba and V. Privman, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} (in press) and references therein. \[2\] J.J. Gonzalez, P.C. Hemmer and J.S. H[/]{}oye, Chem. Phys. [**3**]{}, 228 (1974). \[3\] R. Hilfer and J.–S. Wang, J. Phys. [**A 24**]{}, L389 (1991); V. Privman and J.–S. Wang, Phys. Rev. [**A 45**]{}, R2155 (1992). \[4\] R.H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. [**A 24**]{}, 504 (1981). \[5\] I. Palásti, Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We consider the quantity ${P}(G)$ associated with a graph $G$ that is defined as the probability that a randomly chosen subtree of $G$ is spanning. Motivated by conjectures due to Chin, Gordon, MacPhee and Vincent on the behaviour of this graph invariant depending on the edge density, we establish first that ${P}(G)$ is bounded below by a positive constant provided that the minimum degree is bounded below by a linear function in the number of vertices. Thereafter, the focus is shifted to the classical Erdős-Rényi random graph model $G(n,p)$. It is shown that ${P}(G)$ converges in probability to $e^{-1/(ep_{\infty})}$ if $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$ and to $0$ if $p \to 0$.' address: | Stephan Wagner\ Department of Mathematical Sciences\ Stellenbosch University\ Private Bag X1\ Matieland 7602\ South Africa Department of Mathematics\ Uppsala Universitet\ Box 480\ 751 06 Uppsala\ Sweden author: - Stephan Wagner title: On the probability that a random subtree is spanning --- [^1] Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ The study of the distribution of subtrees of a tree goes back to Jamison’s work [@Jamison1983average; @Jamison1984Monotonicity] in the 1980s. Recently, there has been renewed interest especially in the average order of subtrees of a tree, and several problems left open by Jamison have been resolved [@Wagner2016local; @Haslegrave2014Extremal; @Vince2010average; @Mol2019Maximizing]. The recent paper [@Chin2018Subtrees] by Chin, Gordon, MacPhee and Vincent initiated the investigation of several graph invariants based on subtrees of an arbitrary graph, not necessarily a tree. One of these quantities is the probability ${P}(G)$ that a randomly chosen subtree of a graph $G$ is spanning. Clearly, this probability is positive if and only if the graph is connected. More formally, let ${s}_k(G)$ be the number of subtrees of a graph $G$ of order $k$—in other words, the number of (not necessarily induced) $k$-vertex subgraphs of $G$ that are trees. In particular, if $n$ is the number of vertices of $G$, then ${s}_n(G)$ is the number of spanning trees. We write ${T}(G) = {s}_1(G) + {s}_2(G) + \cdots + {s}_n(G)$ for the total number of subtrees of $G$. Note that $${P}(G) = \frac{{s}_n(G)}{{T}(G)} = \frac{{s}_n(G)}{\sum_{k=1}^n {s}_k(G)}$$ for every graph $G$ with $n$ vertices. Chin et al. proved in [@Chin2018Subtrees] (and earlier in [@Chin2015Pick]) that $P(K_n)$, i.e., the probability that a random subtree of the complete graph $K_n$ is spanning, tends to $e^{-1/e}$ as $n \to \infty$. For complete bipartite graphs, they found that $\lim_{n \to \infty} P(K_{n,n}) = e^{-2/e}$. Looking at very sparse graphs, on the other hand, one notices that the probability ${P}(G)$ is very small, e.g. when the graph $G$ is itself a tree. In this case, it clearly goes to $0$ as the number of vertices of $G$ goes to $\infty$. This leads to the natural conjecture that ${P}(G)$ is “small” (in a certain sense) if the graph $G$ is sparse, and “large” if $G$ is dense. However, it is quite difficult to make this statement precise. As Chin et al. already point out themselves, there are rather dense graphs for which the probability is still quite small: for example, let $G$ be a complete graph $K_n$ with a path of length $\omega(n)$ attached to one of the vertices. As long as $\omega(n)$ goes to $\infty$ (arbitrarily slowly with $n$), we have ${P}(G) \leq \frac{1}{\omega(n)} \to 0$, while the edge density of $G$ is close to $1$. Chin et al. [@Chin2018Subtrees] suggested the following conjecture, which avoids such pathological cases. \[conj:dense\] Suppose that $G_n$ is a sequence of connected graphs where $G_n$ has $n$ vertices and $\Omega(n^2)$ edges, and that $G_n$ is edge-transitive. Then $\liminf_{n \to \infty} {P}(G_n) > 0$. In this paper, we prove a modified version of this conjecture: as it turns out, the assumption that the minimum degree is linear in the number of vertices guarantees ${P}(G)$ to be bounded below by a positive constant, without any additional symmetry condition. Specifically, we have the following theorem. \[thm:lower\] Let $\alpha$ be a fixed positive constant. There exists a constant $c = c(\alpha)$ with the following property: for every connected graph $G$ with $n$ vertices and minimum degree $\delta = \delta(G) \geq \alpha n$, we have $${P}(G) \geq e^{-1/\alpha - c/n}.$$ Since edge-transitive graphs are either regular or bipartite and biregular, Conjecture \[conj:dense\] is actually implied by this theorem. At the same time, Chin et al. conjectured in [@Chin2018Subtrees] that an edge density that goes to $0$ will always force ${P}(G)$ to go to $0$ as well. More precisely, they made the following conjecture. \[conj:sparse\] Suppose that $G_n$ is a sequence of connected graphs where $G_n$ has $n$ vertices and $O(n^{\alpha})$ edges, where $\alpha < 2$ is fixed. Then $\lim_{n \to \infty} {P}(G_n) = 0$. Unfortunately, this conjecture is false: consider a graph $G$ consisting of a path of length $n$ with a complete graph of order $\lfloor \sqrt{n} \rfloor$ attached to each end. The number of edges of such a graph is only linear in the number of vertices. However, it is not difficult to see that almost all subtrees have to contain vertices of both complete graphs, thus also the entire connecting path. Then it follows essentially from the aforementioned result on complete graphs that ${P}(G) \to e^{-2/e}$ as $n \to \infty$. The sizes of the two complete graphs can even be reduced further to $\lfloor n^{\epsilon} \rfloor$ vertices to obtain a graph with only $n + O(n^{2\epsilon})$ edges and $n + O(n^{\epsilon})$ vertices for every $\epsilon > 0$, still with the same limit. In this paper, we will show, however, that Conjecture \[conj:sparse\] is true for sparse *random* graphs (Erdős-Rényi graphs $G(n,p)$, where $p \to 0$), while on the other hand Conjecture \[conj:dense\] is true for dense random graphs (Erdős-Rényi graphs $G(n,p)$, where $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$). The precise statement reads as follows. \[thm:gnp\] Consider the Erdős-Rényi random graph $G = G(n,p)$, where the probability $p$ is allowed to depend on the number of vertices $n$. As $n \to \infty$, we have - ${P}(G) \overset{p}{\to} e^{-1/(ep_{\infty})}$ if $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$, - ${P}(G) \overset{p}{\to} 0$ if $p \to 0$. As a side result of our considerations, we also obtain information on the distribution of the number of subtrees in dense Erdős-Rényi graphs, i.e., in the case where $p$ is constant or converges to a positive constant $p_{\infty}$. This is based on the following distributional result due to Janson [@Janson1994numbers] for the number of spanning trees in $G(n,p)$, which we will also use for the purposes of our proof. \[thm:janson\] Assume that $p \to p_{\infty} \in [0,1)$ and that $\liminf_{n \to \infty} \sqrt{n}p > 0$. Then we have, as $n \to \infty$, $$p^{1/2} \Big( \log {s}_n(G(n,p)) - \log (n^{n-2}p^{n-1}) + \frac{1-p}{p} \Big) \overset{d}{\to} N(0,2(1-p_{\infty})).$$ On the other hand, if $p \to 1$ and $n^2(1-p) \to \infty$, then we have, as $n \to \infty$, $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1-p)}} \Big( \frac{{s}_n(G(n,p))}{\mathbb{E} ({s}_n(G(n,p)) )} - 1 \Big) \overset{d}{\to} N(0,1).$$ Theorem \[thm:lower\] will be proven in the following section. The double-counting argument that is used will be important for our treatment of random graphs as well. The dense case of Theorem \[thm:gnp\] will be treated in Section \[sec:dense\], the sparse case in Section \[sec:sparse\]. In the sparse case, we even obtain a somewhat stronger result than stated, which puts an explicit upper bound on ${P}(G(n,p))$ that holds with high probability. Some corollaries of our main results will be discussed in the concluding section. Graphs with large minimum degree {#sec:mindeg} ================================ This section is concerned with the proof of our first main result, Theorem \[thm:lower\]. The proof technique, however, will also be important for the proofs of our other results. As it turns out, the condition that the minimum degree is “large”, i.e., linear in the number of vertices, already suffices to obtain a lower bound on the probability ${P}(G)$. We use a double-counting argument to prove the statement of the theorem: for every positive integer $k$, we count the number of pairs $(S,T)$ consisting of a subtree $S$ of $G$ with $n-k$ vertices and a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ such that $S$ is a subtree of $T$. Let this number be denoted by ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$. - On the one hand, for every spanning tree $T$ of $G$, the number of possible subtrees $S$ to form a pair with $T$ that satisfies the required conditions is clearly at most $\binom{n}{k}$ (which is the number of ways to choose $n-k$ vertices). Therefore, $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \leq \binom{n}{k} {s}_n(G) \leq \frac{n^k}{k!} {s}_n(G).$$ - On the other hand, we can construct a feasible pair $(S,T)$ starting from the subtree $S$. For each of the remaining $k$ vertices, we choose one of the edges that connects it with one of the vertices of $S$. Adding all these edges to $S$, we obtain a tree $T$; note that all the vertices of $T$ that do not belong to $S$ are leaves by this construction. There are at least $\delta - k$ edges to choose for each of the $k$ vertices, so it follows that $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \geq (\delta - k)^k {s}_{n-k}(G)$$ for every $k \leq \delta$. Combining the two inequalities, we find that $$(\delta - k)^k {s}_{n-k}(G) \leq {\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \leq \frac{n^k}{k!} {s}_n(G)$$ and thus $$\label{eq:firstineq} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \leq \frac{n^k}{(\delta - k)^k k!} \leq \frac{n^k}{(\alpha n - k)^k k!} = \frac{1}{\alpha^k k!} \Big( 1 - \frac{k}{\alpha n} \Big)^{-k}$$ for every $k < \alpha n \leq \delta$. We need one more simple inequality for our purposes: clearly, every subtree of $G$ with at most $r$ vertices is contained in a subtree with exactly $r$ vertices, since $G$ is connected (which allows us to add vertices one by one until we reach a tree with exactly $r$ vertices). On the other hand, an $r$-vertex subtree contains at most $2^r$ smaller subtrees, hence $$\label{eq:secondineq} {s}_1(G) + {s}_2(G) + \cdots + {s}_r(G) \leq 2^r {s}_r(G).$$ Now we split the sum $$\frac{1}{P(G)} = \frac{{s}_1(G) + {s}_2(G) + \cdots + {s}_n(G)}{{s}_n(G)} = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)}$$ into three parts that are estimated separately. It clearly suffices to prove the desired inequality for sufficiently large $n$. - For $k \leq (\alpha n)^{1/6}$ (the specific choice of exponent is irrelevant, provided it is less than $\frac12$; we choose $\frac16$ for later use), we use . Observe that $$\Big( 1 - \frac{k}{\alpha n} \Big)^{-k} = \exp \Big(\negthickspace - k \log \Big( 1 - \frac{k}{\alpha n} \Big) \Big) = \exp \Big( \frac{k^2}{\alpha n} + O \Big( \frac{k^3}{n^2} \Big) \Big) = 1 + O \Big( \frac{k^2}{n} \Big)$$ holds under our assumption on $k$. It follows that $$\sum_{0 \leq k \leq (\alpha n)^{1/6}} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \leq \sum_{0 \leq k \leq (\alpha n)^{1/6}} \frac{1}{\alpha^k k!} \Big( 1 + \frac{\kappa k^2}{n} \Big)$$ for some constant $\kappa > 0$ (that depends on $\alpha$), and we find that $$\sum_{0 \leq k \leq (\alpha n)^{1/6}} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \leq \sum_{k \geq 0} \frac{1}{\alpha^k k!} \Big( 1 + \frac{\kappa k^2}{n} \Big) = e^{1/\alpha} \Big( 1 + \frac{\kappa(1+\alpha)}{\alpha^2 n} \Big).$$ - Next, we consider the case that $(\alpha n)^{1/6} < k \leq \frac{\alpha n}{2}$. In this case, the estimate  yields $$\frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \leq \frac{2^k}{\alpha^k k!}.$$ For large enough $n$, this gives us $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{(\alpha n)^{1/6} < k \leq \alpha n/2} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} &\leq \sum_{k > (\alpha n)^{1/6}} \frac{2^k}{\alpha^k k!} \leq \frac{2^{\lceil (\alpha n)^{1/6} \rceil}}{\alpha^{\lceil (\alpha n)^{1/6} \rceil} (\lceil (\alpha n)^{1/6} \rceil)!} \sum_{\ell \geq 0} \frac{2^\ell}{\alpha^\ell (\alpha n)^{\ell/6}} \\ &= \frac{2^{\lceil (\alpha n)^{1/6} \rceil}}{\alpha^{\lceil (\alpha n)^{1/6} \rceil} (\lceil (\alpha n)^{1/6} \rceil)!} \Big( 1 - \frac{2}{\alpha^{7/6} n^{1/6}} \Big)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ which goes to $0$ faster than any power of $n$ thanks to the factorial in the denominator. - Finally, we consider the case that $k > \frac{\alpha n}{2}$. Here, we combine  and  to obtain $$\sum_{k > \alpha n/2} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \leq \frac{{s}_{n-\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor}(G)2^{n-\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor}}{{s}_n(G)} \leq \frac{2^{\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor}2^{n-\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor}}{\alpha^{\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor} (\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor)!} = \frac{2^n}{\alpha^{\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor} (\lfloor \alpha n/2 \rfloor)!},$$ which also goes to $0$ faster than any power of $n$. Combining the three cases, we arrive at $$\frac{1}{{P}(G)} = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \leq e^{1/\alpha} \Big( 1 + O \Big( \frac{1}{n} \Big) \Big) = e^{1/\alpha + O(1/n)},$$ and the statement of the theorem follows. Dense random graphs {#sec:dense} =================== Next we consider random Erdős-Rényi graphs $G(n,p)$ where $p$ is constant or converges to a positive constant $p_{\infty}$. The argument of the previous section can be modified to obtain more than just a lower bound in this case. We can exploit the fact that random graphs $G(n,p)$, where $p$ is of constant order, are “almost regular” to prove that ${P}(G(n,p))$ converges in probability to a constant, giving us the first half of Theorem \[thm:gnp\]. Let us first repeat the formal statement. \[thm:dense\] Suppose that $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$ as $n \to \infty$. We have $${P}(G(n,p)) \overset{p}{\to} e^{-1/(e p_{\infty})}$$ as $n \to \infty$. For the proof, we will use a modification of inequality . It is based on the same double-counting strategy, but the derivation is somewhat more involved. It will therefore be presented as a sequence of lemmas. Let us first mention two classical tools that will be used repeatedly in the following: first, *Markov’s inequality* on nonnegative random variables, see for instance [@Gut2013Probability Chapter 3, Theorem 1.1] or [@Janson2000Random Eq. (1.3)]. For every nonnegative random variable $X$ and every positive real number $a$, we have ${\mathbb{P}}(X \geq a) \leq \frac{{\mathbb{E}}(X)}{a}$. There are various variants of the so-called *Chernoff bounds* for bounding the tails of sums of independent random variables, in particular the tails of the binomial distribution. We will use the following version [@Janson2000Random Theorem 2.1]: \[lem:chernoff\] Let $X$ be a random variable that follows a $\operatorname{Bin}(n,p)$ distribution, and write $\mu = {\mathbb{E}}(X) = np$. For every $t > 0$, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\big(X \leq \mu - t\big) \leq \exp \Big( \negthickspace -\frac{t^2}{2 \mu} \Big)$$ and $${\mathbb{P}}\big(X \geq \mu + t\big) \leq \exp \Big( \negthickspace -\frac{t^2}{2(\mu+t/3)} \Big).$$ Next, we collect some properties of $G(n,p)$ that hold with high probability, i.e., with probability tending to $1$. \[lem:four\_statements\] Suppose that $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Each of the following events occurs with high probability as $n \to \infty$: 1. The maximum degree $\Delta(G(n,p))$ is bounded above by $pn + n^{2/3}$. 2. The minimum degree $\delta(G(n,p))$ is bounded below by $pn - n^{2/3}$. 3. The number of spanning trees ${s}_n(G(n,p))$ is bounded below by $n^{n-2}p^{n-1} e^{-n^{1/6}}$. 4. The number of spanning trees whose number of leaves does not lie in the interval $[\frac{n}{e} - n^{2/3},\frac{n}{e} + n^{2/3}]$ is bounded above by $n^{n-2}p^{n-1}e^{-n^{1/4}}$. The first two statements are classical: note that the degree of a fixed vertex is the sum of $n-1$ independent $0$-$1$-random variables, thus follows a binomial distribution. Using the second inequality of Lemma \[lem:chernoff\], we find that the probability for any fixed vertex to have degree greater than $pn + n^{2/3}$ is at most $e^{-cn^{1/3}}$ for some constant $c > 0$ if $n$ is large enough, so the expected number of vertices whose degree is greater than $pn + n^{2/3}$ is at most $n e^{-cn^{1/3}}$. Combined with Markov’s inequality, this shows that the probability that at least one of the vertices has degree greater than $pn + n^{2/3}$ must tend to $0$. The same argument applies to the minimum degree. For the third statement, we use Janson’s results (see Theorem \[thm:janson\]) on the distribution of the number of spanning trees: our statement can be rewritten as $$\log {s}_n(G(n,p)) - \log (n^{n-2}p^{n-1}) \geq -n^{1/6},$$ and Janson’s distributional results clearly imply that this holds with probability tending to $1$ as long as $(1-p)n^2$ still goes to $\infty$. If $p$ goes even faster to $1$, then one can e.g. apply Janson’s theorem with $p = 1-n^{-3/2}$ and use the fact that the number of spanning trees increases when edges are added. Let us finally deal with the last statement: we show that the expected number of such spanning trees is substantially smaller than the given bound, so that we can apply Markov’s inequality. To this end, we need a bound on the number of trees on a set of $n$ vertices whose number of leaves does not lie in the interval $[\frac{n}{e} - n^{2/3},\frac{n}{e} + n^{2/3}]$. It is known that the number of leaves in a random labelled tree with $n$ vertices (equivalently, a random spanning tree of the complete graph $K_n$) satisfies a central limit theorem with mean $\sim \frac{n}{e}$ and variance $\sim \frac{(e-2)n}{e^2}$. Moreover, an exponential tail bound holds: for some constants $\kappa,\lambda > 0$, the number of trees with fewer than $\frac{n}{e} - t$ or more than $\frac{n}{e} + t$ leaves is at most $n^{n-2}e^{-\kappa t^2/n}$, provided that $t \leq \lambda n$. One way to prove this is to note that the bivariate generating function for labelled trees (where the first variable is associated with the number of vertices and the second with the number of leaves) satisfies the conditions of [@Drmota2009Random Theorems 2.21–2.23] (cf. [@Drmota2009Random Theorem 3.13]). Specifically, inequality (2.26) of [@Drmota2009Random Theorem 2.22] gives the desired tail bound. Each tree has probability $p^{n-1}$ of occurring as spanning tree in $G(n,p)$, so the expected number of spanning trees satisfying the stated condition is at most $n^{n-2}p^{n-1}e^{-\kappa n^{1/3}}$. Now another standard application of Markov’s inequality completes the proof. Throughout the rest of this section, we assume that $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$ as $n \to \infty$. By Lemma \[lem:four\_statements\], we can assume in the following that the four statements of the lemma are all satisfied. This turns out to be sufficient for our purposes. Let us recall the notation ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$ from the previous section, which stands for the number of pairs $(S,T)$ of a spanning tree $T$ of $G$ and a subtree $S$ of $T$ such that $|S| = |T| - k$. \[lem:Pk1\] Suppose that a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices satisfies the first two conditions of Lemma \[lem:four\_statements\]. Define ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:lower\]. We have, for every $k \leq n^{1/6}$, $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) = {s}_{n-k}(G) p^k n^k \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big),$$ where the $O$-constant does not depend on $k$. We determine the number ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$ of pairs $(S,T)$ consisting of a spanning tree $T$ and a subtree $S$ with $n-k$ vertices contained in $T$ by first fixing $S$ (for which we have ${s}_{n-k}(G)$ possibilities) and counting the number of ways to extend $S$ to a spanning tree $T$. Clearly, each of the $k$ vertices that do not belong to $S$ can be connected to one of the vertices of $S$ by one of at least $\delta(G) - k \geq pn - n^{2/3} - k$ edges. This means that the number of possible extensions to a tree $T$ is at least $$(pn - n^{2/3} - k)^k = p^k n^k \big(1 - O(n^{-1/3})\big)^k = p^k n^k \big( 1 - O(kn^{-1/3}) \big) = p^k n^k \big( 1 - O(n^{-1/6}) \big).$$ Now we prove a matching upper bound. The graph induced by $T$ on the vertices that do not belong to $S$ must be a forest and thus consist of $r$ edges for some $r < k$. The number of components is then exactly $k-r$, and each of them must be connected to $S$ by precisely one edge. There are clearly at most $\binom{k(k-1)/2}{r}$ choices for the induced forest (since it consists of a subset of the $\binom{k}{2} = \frac{k(k-1)}{2}$ edges). If the component sizes of the forest are $a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{k-r}$, then there are $a_1a_2\cdots a_{k-r}$ ways to choose the vertices that have a neighbour in $S$, and at most $\Delta(G)^{k-r}$ choices for the vertices in $S$ that they are connected to. By the inequality between the arithmetic and the geometric mean, we have $$a_1a_2\cdots a_{k-r} \leq \Big( \frac{a_1+a_2+\cdots+a_{k-r}}{k-r} \Big)^{k-r} = \Big( \frac{k}{k-r} \Big)^{k-r} = \Big(1 - \frac{r}{k} \Big)^{r(1-k/r)}.$$ Noting that the function $x \mapsto (1-x)^{1-1/x}$ is bounded above by $e$ for $x \in (0,1]$, we can conclude that $$a_1a_2\cdots a_{k-r} \leq e^r.$$ Thus the total number of ways to extend $S$ to a tree $T$ is at most $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{r=0}^{k-1} \binom{k(k-1)/2}{r} e^r \Delta(G)^{k-r} &\leq \Delta(G)^k \sum_{r=0}^{k(k-1)/2} \binom{k(k-1)/2}{r} \Big(\frac{e}{\Delta(G)} \Big)^r \\ &= \Delta(G)^k\Big(1 + \frac{e}{\Delta(G)}\Big)^{k(k-1)/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since we are assuming that $pn - n^{2/3} \leq \delta(G) \leq \Delta(G) \leq pn + n^{2/3}$ and $k \leq n^{1/6}$, we have $$\Delta(G)^k = (pn)^k \big(1 + O(n^{-1/3})\big)^k = p^k n^k \big( 1 + O(kn^{-1/3}) \big) = p^k n^k \big( 1 + O(n^{-1/6}) \big)$$ as well as $$\Big(1 + \frac{e}{\Delta(G)}\Big)^{k(k-1)/2} \leq \exp \Big( \frac{ek(k-1)}{2\Delta(G)} \Big) = 1 + O(k^2 n^{-1}) = 1 + O(n^{-2/3}),$$ so the desired upper bound follows as well. For our next step, we need bounds on the number of subtrees of a tree. \[lem:est\_by\_leaves\] Let $T$ be a tree with $n$ vertices, of which $\ell$ are leaves. The number of subtrees of $T$ with $n-k$ vertices satisfies $$\binom{\ell}{k} \leq {s}_{n-k}(T) \leq \binom{\ell+k-1}{k}.$$ The lower bound is trivial: removing any subset of $k$ leaves from $T$, we obtain a subtree with $n-k$ vertices. For the upper bound, we associate every subtree $S$ of $T$ with an $\ell$-tuple $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_\ell)$ of nonnegative integers. To this end, let us denote the leaves by $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{\ell}$. For $0 \leq j \leq \ell$, we define $S_j$ as the smallest subtree of $T$ that contains $S$ as well as $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_j$. In particular, $S_0 = S$ and $S_{\ell} = T$. It is easy to see that $S_j$ is obtained from $S_{j-1}$ by adding the path from $v_j$ to the vertex of $S_{j-1}$ nearest to it (this path might be empty if $v_j$ is already contained in $S_{j-1}$). Now set $a_j = |S_j| - |S_{j-1}|$ for $1 \leq j \leq \ell$ to obtain the $\ell$-tuple $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{\ell})$. In other words, $a_j$ is the number of vertices on the path that is added to $S_{j-1}$ to obtain $S_j$ (including $v_j$ if it is not in $S_{j-1}$, but not the other end). Now we claim that the subtree $S$ can be reconstructed uniquely from $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{\ell})$ (if there is any subtree associated with the specific $\ell$-tuple). We use backwards induction on $j$ to show that $S_j$ is unique for $0 \leq j \leq \ell$. This is trivial for $j = \ell$, so we focus on the induction step. Assume that $S_j$ is known for some $j > 0$, and let $w$ be the vertex nearest to $v_j$ in $S_j$ whose degree is greater than $2$. If no such vertex exists, then $S_j$ is a path with $v_j$ at one of its ends, and we let $w$ be the other end (this is only possible if $j=1$ or $j=2$). In the former case (the degree of $w$ is greater than $2$), consider the components of $S_j - w$: each of them needs to contain either a vertex of $S$ or one of the leaves $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_j$, since we could otherwise remove it from $S_j$ to obtain a smaller tree that still contains all of $S$ as well as $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_j$, contradicting the definition of $S_j$. Since there are at least three such components, at least two of them contain a vertex of $S$ or one of $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{j-1}$. This implies that $w$ must be a vertex of $S_{j-1}$. Note that this is also true in the latter case, where $S_j$ is a path and $w$ the other end: if $w$ was not part of $S$ or the leaf $v_1$, we could remove it from $S_j$. So we find that the difference between $S_{j-1}$ and $S_j$ is always a part of the path between $w$ and $v_j$ that is either empty or contains $v_j$. This means that it is uniquely determined by its number of vertices $a_j$, and we can determine $S_{j-1}$ from $S_j$ and $a_j$, completing our induction proof that $S$ is uniquely determined by the $\ell$-tuple $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{\ell})$. Since $$|T| - |S| = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} \big( |S_j| - |S_{j-1}| \big) = \sum_{j=1}^{\ell} a_j,$$ we find that ${s}_{n-k}(T)$ is bounded above by the number of $\ell$-tuples $(a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_{\ell})$ of nonnegative integers that satisfy $$\sum_{j=1}^{\ell} a_j = k,$$ which is well known to be $\binom{\ell+k-1}{k}$. This completes the proof of the upper bound. \[lem:Pk2\] Suppose that a graph $G$ with $n$ vertices satisfies the last two conditions of Lemma \[lem:four\_statements\]. Define ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$ as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:lower\]. We have, for every $k \leq n^{1/6}$, $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) = {s}_{n}(G) \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big),$$ where the $O$-constant does not depend on $k$. For every tree $T$ with a number of leaves $\ell$ between $\frac{n}{e} - n^{2/3}$ and $\frac{n}{e} + n^{2/3}$, we use the bounds of Lemma \[lem:est\_by\_leaves\]. For $k \leq n^{1/6}$, we have $$\frac{(n/e - n^{2/3} - n^{1/6})^k}{k!} \leq \binom{\ell}{k} \leq {s}_{n-k}(T) \leq \binom{\ell+k-1}{k} \leq \frac{(n/e+n^{2/3} + n^{1/6})^k}{k!},$$ and both the upper and lower bound are of the form $$\frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big( 1 + O(n^{-1/3}) \big)^k = \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(k n^{-1/3}) \big) = \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6}) \big).$$ Therefore, the contribution of all these trees to ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$ is $$\begin{aligned} \Big( {s}_n(G) - O(n^{n-2}p^{n-1}e^{-n^{1/4}}) \Big) &\frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6}) \big) \\ &= {s}_n(G) \Big( 1 - O\big(e^{n^{1/6}-n^{1/4}}\big) \Big) \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6}) \big) \\ &= {s}_n(G) \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6}) \big).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, every tree $T$ with $n$ vertices has at most $\binom{n}{k} \leq \frac{n^k}{k!}$ subtrees with $n-k$ vertices. Therefore, the contribution of spanning trees $T$ with more than $\frac{n}{e} + n^{2/3}$ or fewer than $\frac{n}{e} - n^{2/3}$ leaves to ${\mathcal{P}}_k(G)$ is at most $$n^{n-2} p^{n-1} e^{-n^{1/4}} \cdot \frac{n^k}{k!} \leq {s}_n(G) e^{2n^{1/6}-n^{1/4}} \cdot \frac{n^k}{e^k k!}$$ by our assumptions on the number of such spanning trees. Since the exponent $2n^{1/6} - n^{1/4}$ goes to $-\infty$, this contribution is negligible, and we conclude that $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) = {s}_n(G) \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big).$$ Now we can put together all ingredients to prove Theorem \[thm:dense\]. We can assume that all four statements of Lemma \[lem:four\_statements\] are satisfied, since each of them holds with high probability. For $k \leq n^{1/6}$, Lemmas \[lem:Pk1\] and  \[lem:Pk2\] yield $${s}_{n-k}(G) p^k n^k \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big) = {\mathcal{P}}_k(G) = {s}_{n}(G) \frac{n^k}{e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big),$$ thus $$\frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} = \frac{1}{p^k e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big).$$ From the proof of Theorem \[thm:lower\], we know that the contribution that comes from terms with $k > n^{1/6}$ is completely negligible, given only the condition on the minimum degree from Lemma \[lem:four\_statements\]: for every positive exponent $A$, we have $$\sum_{k > n^{1/6}} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} = O(n^{-A}).$$ Since we also have $$\sum_{k > n^{1/6}} \frac{1}{p^k e^k k!} = O(n^{-A}),$$ we can finally conclude that $$\frac{1}{{P}(G)} = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{p^k e^k k!} \big(1 + O(n^{-1/6})\big) + O(n^{-A}) = e^{1/(ep)}+ O(n^{-1/6}),$$ which converges to $e^{1/(ep_{\infty})}$ by assumption. Sparse random graphs {#sec:sparse} ==================== In this section, we consider Erdős-Rényi graphs $G(n,p)$ with $p$ tending to $0$. Based on the results of the previous section and the fact that $$\lim_{p \to 0^+} e^{-1/(ep)} = 0,$$ one naturally expects the following theorem to hold. \[thm:sparse\] Suppose that $p \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. We have $${P}(G(n,p)) \overset{p}{\to} 0$$ as $n \to \infty$. Somewhat surprisingly, the proof becomes more complicated if $p$ is very small. This is mainly due to the fact that Janson’s result on the distribution of the number of spanning trees in $G(n,p)$ (Theorem \[thm:janson\]) is only available when $p$ is at least of order $n^{-1/2}$. This was necessary to show that “most” spanning trees have sufficiently many leaves. The main technical difficulty for us will be to replace Janson’s theorem by a different argument. We will be able to prove a somewhat stronger result: \[thm:dense\_strong\] There exists an absolute constant $c > 0$ such that the inequality $${P}(G(n,p)) \leq e^{-c/p}$$ holds with high probability as $n \to \infty$, for any choice of $p$. Obviously, Theorem \[thm:dense\_strong\] implies Theorem \[thm:sparse\]. Let us remark that the constant $c$ that we obtain through our proof is certainly not best possible. It is conceivable that it can be chosen arbitrarily close to $1/e$. For the proof of Theorem \[thm:dense\_strong\], we first require a lower bound on the total number of subtrees. The first step is a lemma on the giant component of $G(n,p)$ in the case that $pn \to \infty$. Suppose that $pn \to \infty$. With high probability, the graph $G(n,p)$ has a connected component that contains all but $o(1/p)$ vertices. By [@Janson2000Random Theorem 5.4], there exists a constant $\kappa > 0$ such that $G(n,p)$ has a connected component containing at least half of the vertices with high probability as soon as $p > \frac{\kappa}{n}$. Now we generate the edges of $G(n,p)$ in two rounds: in the first round, each edge is inserted with probability $\frac{p}{2-p}$. In the second round, each edge that is not already present is inserted with probability $\frac{p}{2}$. In this way, each edge has probability $$\frac{p}{2-p} + \Big( 1 - \frac{p}{2-p} \Big) \cdot \frac{p}{2} = p$$ of being included, as it should be. Since $\frac{p}{2-p} > \frac{\kappa}{n}$ for large enough $n$ by our assumption on $p$, the graph after the first round contains a component of at least $\frac{n}{2}$ vertices with high probability. We assume in the following that this is the case. For each of the remaining vertices, the probability of not getting connected to this giant component in the second round is no greater than $(1-\frac{p}2)^{n/2} \leq e^{-pn/4}$. Thus the expected number of vertices that do not belong to the giant component after the second round is bounded above by $\frac{n}{2} \cdot e^{-pn/4}$. An application of Markov’s inequality now shows that with high probability, no more than $ne^{-pn/8} = o(1/p)$ of the vertices are not part of the giant component (here, we are making use of the assumption that $pn \to \infty$). This completes the proof. \[trees\_lower\_bound\] There exists a constant $a > 0$ such that $${T}(G(n,p)) \geq p^n n! e^{an}$$ holds with high probability provided that $p \geq \frac{\log n}{2n}$. Set $n_0 = \lfloor \sqrt{n/p} \rfloor$, and fix a set $A_0$ of $n_0$ vertices of $G = G(n,p)$. Since $pn_0 \to \infty$ by our assumptions on $p$, the subgraph induced by these $n_0$ vertices has a giant component that contains all but at most $o(1/p)$ vertices with high probability by the previous lemma. Let us denote the vertex set of this giant component by $A_1$, and set $n_1 = |A_1|$, so that $n_1 = n_0 - o(1/p)$. In the following, we condition on $A_1$ being a specific set of vertices, and consider $A_1$ fixed. Next, consider an order $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{n-n_0}$ of the vertices that do not belong to $A_0$. Set $\epsilon = (\log n)^{-1/6}$. Inductively, we define further sets $A_2,A_3,\ldots, A_{n-n_0+1}$ of vertices as follows: - If $v_i$ has at least $(1-\epsilon)p|A_i|$ neighbours among the vertices of $A_i$, set $A_{i+1} = A_i \cup \{v_i\}$. - Otherwise, $A_{i+1} = A_i$. In this case, we call $v_i$ a failure. Observe that $|A_i| \geq |A_1| = n_1$. An application of the first Chernoff bound stated in Lemma \[lem:chernoff\] shows that a vertex is a failure with probability at most $e^{-\epsilon^2 pn_1/2} = e^{-\epsilon^2 \sqrt{p n}/2 + O(1)}$. Let us now call the order $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_{n-n_0}$ of the vertices that do not belong to $A_0$ successful if the number of failures is no greater than $f = \lfloor n e^{-\epsilon^2 \sqrt{p n}/4} \rfloor$. By the Markov inequality, any fixed order of vertices is successful with high probability. The set of vertices $A_{n-n_0+1}$ has at least $n_1 + n - n_0 - f$ vertices for a successful order. We now construct subtrees of $G$ that are spanning trees of this set in the following way: - Start with any spanning tree $T_1$ of $A_1$. This is possible since we are assuming that the graph induced by $A_1$ is connected. - Add all vertices that belong to $A_{n-n_0+1}$ (i.e., all vertices that are not failures) to the tree according to the fixed order of vertices by attaching each of the vertices $v_i$ to one of its neighbours in $|A_i|$. For each vertex $v_i$ that is added in this way, we have at least $(1-\epsilon)p|A_i|$ possible ways to do so. This procedure gives us at least $$\prod_{j=1}^{n-n_0-f} \big( (1-\epsilon)p(n_1+j-1)\big)$$ different trees. We can estimate this quantity as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \prod_{j=1}^{n-n_0-f} \big( (1-\epsilon)p(n_1+j-1)\big) &= (1-\epsilon)^{n-n_0-f}p^{n-n_0-f} \frac{(n+n_1-n_0-f-1)!}{(n_1-1)!} \\ &\geq (1-\epsilon)^n p^{n-n_0} \frac{n!}{n_1!} n^{n_1-n_0-f-1} \\ &\geq (1-\epsilon)^n p^{n-n_0} \frac{n!}{n_0^{n_0}} n^{n_1-n_0-f-1} \\ &= p^n n! (1-\epsilon)^n (pn_0)^{-n_0} n^{n_1-n_0-f-1} \\ &= p^n n! \exp \Big( n \log(1-\epsilon) - n_0 \log(pn_0) + (n_1-n_0-f-1) \log n\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that - $n \log(1-\epsilon) = o(n)$ by our choice of $\epsilon$, - $n_0 \log (pn_0) \leq \sqrt{n/p} \log \sqrt{np} = n \frac{\log (np)}{2\sqrt{np}} = o(n)$ since $np \to \infty$ by our assumptions on $p$, - $(n_0-n_1)\log n = o(1/p \cdot \log n) = o(n)$ by definition of $n_1$, - $(f+1)\log n = o(n)$ by definition of $f$ (note that $e^{-\epsilon^2 \sqrt{pn}/4}$ goes faster to $0$ than any power of $\log n$). In conclusion, the number of different trees we obtain is $p^n n! e^{o(n)}$ for every successful vertex order (and choice of spanning tree $T_1$ on $A_1$). For the argument that follows, we need to show that most of these trees do not have too many leaves. To this end, we first determine a bound on the number of ways to successively attach at least $n - n_0 - f$ of the vertices $v_1,v_2,\ldots$ in such a way that at least $\frac{5n}{6}$ of them are leaves. Suppose that $n-n_0-j$ vertices (where $j \leq f$) of the vertices have been chosen to become part of the tree (which can be done in $\binom{n-n_0}{j}$ ways), and that we are adding them one by one, starting from $T_1$, to obtain a tree (not necessarily a subtree of $G$). Clearly, the number of ways to do so is $$n_1(n_1+1) \cdots (n_1+n-n_0-j-1).$$ Now we estimate the number of ways to do this in such a way that the number of leaves at the end is at least $\frac{5n}{6}$. In our procedure, if a vertex ever becomes a non-leaf, it stays a non-leaf. Thus the number of non-leaves never exceeds $\frac{n}{6}$. Consequently, once the number of vertices in our tree reaches $\lceil\frac{n}{3} \rceil$, at least half of the vertices are leaves. Of the remaining $N = n - n_0 - \lceil\frac{n}{3} \rceil - j = \frac{2n}{3} - o(n)$ vertices, at most $\frac{n}{6}$ can be attached to a leaf. If we were to attach all these remaining vertices randomly, then the probability of attaching to a leaf would always be at least $\frac12$, and the probability that we attach to a leaf at most $\frac{n}{6}$ times would be at most $$\sum_{i \leq n/6} \binom{N}{i} 2^{-N} \leq e^{-\kappa n}$$ for some $\kappa > 0$, if $n$ is sufficiently large (by the Chernoff bound of Lemma \[lem:chernoff\]). This means that the number of ways to obtain a tree with $n_1+n-n_0-j$ vertices for which at least $\frac{5n}{6}$ of the vertices outside of $A_1$ are leaves is at most $$n_1(n_1+1) \cdots (n_1+n-n_0-j-1) e^{-\kappa n} = \frac{(n_1+n-n_0-j-1)!}{(n_1-1)!} e^{-\kappa n}.$$ Each of these trees has probability $p^{n-n_0-j}$ to be a subtree of $G$ (given that $T_1$ is). Therefore, the expected number of such trees with at least $\frac{5n}{6}$ leaves is at most $$\label{eq:exnum_trees} \sum_{j \leq f} \binom{n-n_0}{j} p^{n-n_0-j} \frac{(n_1+n-n_0-j-1)!}{(n_1-1)!} e^{-\kappa n}.$$ For sufficiently large $n$, we have $n_1+n-n_0-j \geq n_1+n-n_0-f \geq \frac{1}{p}$ for all $j \leq f$, thus $$p^{n-n_0-j} \frac{(n_1+n-n_0-j-1)!}{(n_1-1)!} \leq p^{n-n_1} \frac{(n-1)!}{(n_1-1)!} \leq \frac{p^nn!}{n_1!p^{n_1}},$$ so the expression in  is less than or equal to $$\sum_{j \leq f} \binom{n-n_0}{j} \frac{p^nn!}{n_1!p^{n_1}} e^{-\kappa n}.$$ Since $f = o(n)$, we have $$\sum_{j \leq f} \binom{n-n_0}{j} = e^{o(n)},$$ and another simple calculation shows that $n_1!p^{n_1} = e^{o(n)}$. Therefore, the expected number of trees with at least $\frac{5n}{6}$ leaves outside of $A_1$ is bounded above by $$p^n n! e^{-\kappa n + o(n)}.$$ By the Markov inequality, there are therefore at most $p^n n! e^{-\kappa n/2}$ such trees with high probability (all of this still for a fixed vertex order). Since we get $p^n n! e^{o(n)}$ trees from every successful vertex order, it follows that a fixed vertex order generates, with high probability, $p^n n! e^{o(n)}$ trees with the property that at most $\frac{5n}{6}$ of the vertices that do not belong to $A_1$ are leaves. Applying the Markov inequality one more time, we see that with high probability, this statement holds for at least half of the $(n-n_0)!$ possible vertex orders. This gives us $p^n n! (n-n_0)! e^{o(n)}$ trees, but of course a given tree may have been counted several times in this total number, so we need to estimate how often trees are counted. Here, the bound on the number of leaves comes into play: given a specific tree, we bound the number of vertex orders it can arise from. Fixing some root vertex in $A_1$, the tree becomes a poset by the successor relation, which induces a partial order on those vertices that lie outside of $A_1$ (here, vertices that are not part of the tree are considered to be incomparable to all others). A tree can only come from a certain vertex order if that order is a linear extension of the partial order that was just described. It is well known (see [@Ruskey1992Generating Eq. (5)] or [@Knuth1998art Section 5.1.4, Ex. 20]) that the number of linear extensions of a rooted forest $F$ is given by the formula $$|F|! \prod_{v \in F} \frac{1}{s(v)},$$ where $s(v)$ is the number of successors of $v$, including $v$ itself, and the product is over all vertices. Note that $s(v) \geq 2$ as soon as $v$ is not a leaf. Thus each of the aforementioned trees, for which at least $\frac{n}{6} - o(n)$ of the vertices are not leaves, arises from at most $$(n-n_0)! 2^{-n/6 + o(n)}$$ different vertex orders. So we can finally conclude that the number of trees of $G$ is, with high probability, at least $$p^n n! (n-n_0)! e^{o(n)} \cdot \frac{2^{n/6 + o(n)}}{(n-n_0)!} = p^n n! e^{(n \log 2)/6 + o(n)},$$ which proves the lemma for any $a < (\log 2)/6$. \[few\_leaves\] For every $\alpha > 0$, there exists a $\beta > 0$ such that the number of trees with $n$ labelled vertices and fewer than $\beta n$ leaves is less than $n! e^{\alpha n}$ for sufficiently large $n$. There is a classical bijective correspondence (going back to Cayley) between labelled trees with $n$ vertices and functions from $\{1,2,\ldots,n-2\}$ to $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, see [@Harary1973Graphical Chapter 1.7]. In this bijection, the non-leaves correspond to the elements of the image. It follows that the number of trees with $n$ labelled vertices and exactly $\ell$ leaves is $\binom{n}{\ell} \cdot {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell)$, where ${\operatorname{Sur}}(a,b)$ is the number of surjections from a set of $a$ elements to a set of $b$ elements. It is our goal to estimate the sum $$\sum_{\ell < \beta n} \binom{n}{\ell} {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell).$$ If $\beta \leq \frac12$, then we have $$\sum_{\ell < \beta n} \binom{n}{\ell} {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell) \leq \binom{n}{\lfloor \beta n \rfloor} \sum_{\ell < \beta n} {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell)$$ by the unimodality of the binomial coefficients. Now consider arbitrary functions from the set $\{1,2,\ldots,n-2\}$ to itself. The number of functions for which $\{1,2,\ldots,n-L\}$ is contained in the image is greater than or equal to $\sum_{\ell = 2}^L {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell)$, since clearly all surjections from $\{1,2,\ldots,n-2\}$ to some set of the form $\{1,2,\ldots,n-\ell\}$ (where $\ell \leq L$) have this property. Now let us bound the number of functions $f$ with this property: first, for every $j \in \{1,2,\ldots,n-L\}$, we pick an $i \in \{1,2,\ldots,n-2\}$ such that $f(i) = j$. This can be done in $(n-2)(n-3)\cdots (L-1)$ different ways. Now there are still $L-2$ elements in $\{1,2,\ldots,n-2\}$ left for which $f$ has no value yet. These values can be assigned in $(n-2)^{L-2}$ ways. Note that some functions are counted more than once in this way, but since we are only interested in upper bounds, this is immaterial. So we find that $$\sum_{\ell=2}^{L} {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell) \leq \frac{(n-2)!}{(L-2)!} (n-2)^{L-2}.$$ Thus $$\sum_{\ell < \beta n} \binom{n}{\ell} {\operatorname{Sur}}(n-2,n-\ell) \leq \binom{n}{\lfloor \beta n \rfloor} \frac{(n-2)!}{(\lfloor \beta n \rfloor-2)!} (n-2)^{\lfloor \beta n \rfloor-2}.$$ By Stirling’s formula, $$\binom{n}{\lfloor \beta n \rfloor} \frac{(n-2)!}{(\lfloor \beta n \rfloor-2)!} (n-2)^{\lfloor \beta n \rfloor-2} = n! \exp \Big( \big( \beta - 2\beta \log \beta - (1-\beta)\log(1-\beta)\big) n + O(\log n) \Big).$$ Since $\beta - 2\beta \log \beta - (1-\beta)\log(1-\beta)$ tends to $0$ as $\beta \to 0^+$, we can make it smaller than $\alpha$ by choosing a sufficiently small $\beta$. The statement of the lemma then follows immediately. \[lem:maxdeg\_weakbound\] Suppose that $p \geq \frac{\log n}{2n}$. With high probability, the maximum degree of $G(n,p)$ is at most $4np$. We can apply the second Chernoff bound stated in Lemma \[lem:chernoff\] to the degree of a single vertex. It shows that the probability for the degree to be greater than $4(n-1)p$ is at most (taking $t = 3(n-1)p$) $e^{-9(n-1)p/4} = O(n^{-9/8})$ by our assumption on $p$. Thus the expected number of vertices whose degree is greater than $4(n-1)p$ is $O(n^{-1/8})$, and Markov’s inequality shows that the maximum degree is at most $4np$ with high probability. We use this bound on the maximum degree to prove a modified version of the upper bound in Lemma \[lem:Pk1\]. \[lem:Pk\_upper\_hp\] Suppose that $p \geq \frac{\log n}{2n}$, and consider the random graph $G = G(n,p)$. There exists a constant $b > 0$ such that, with high probability, the inequality $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \leq {s}_{n-k}(G) b^k p^k n^k$$ holds for all $k \geq 0$. We adapt the argument that we used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:Pk1\]. By Lemma \[lem:maxdeg\_weakbound\], we can assume that the maximum degree $\Delta(G)$ is at most $4np$. Given any subtree $S$ of $G$ with $n-k$ vertices, we estimate the number of ways to extend it to a spanning tree $T$. The remaining $k$ vertices induce at most $k \Delta(G)/2$ edges, so the number of ways to choose a forest of $r$ edges on this set of vertices is at most $\binom{k \Delta(G)/2}{r}$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:Pk1\], the number of ways to extend $S$ and a forest of $r$ edges to a spanning tree $T$ is at most $\Delta(G)^{k-r} e^r$. Therefore, we find that $$\begin{aligned} {\mathcal{P}}_k(G) &\leq {s}_{n-k}(G) \sum_{r=0}^{k-1} \binom{k \Delta(G)/2}{r} \Delta(G)^{k-r} e^r \leq {s}_{n-k}(G) \Delta(G)^k \Big( 1 + \frac{e}{\Delta(G)} \Big)^{k \Delta(G)/2} \\ & \leq {s}_{n-k}(G) \Delta(G)^k \Big( \exp \Big( \frac{e}{\Delta(G)} \Big) \Big)^{k \Delta(G)/2} = {s}_{n-k}(G) \Delta(G)^k e^{ek/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Now we use the inequality $\Delta(G) \leq 4np$ to obtain $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \leq {s}_{n-k}(G) (4np)^k e^{ek/2} = {s}_{n-k}(G) (4e^{e/2})^k p^k n^k.$$ In other words, the desired statement holds with $b = 4e^{e/2}$. We can assume that $p \geq \frac{\log n}{2n}$: if not, then the graph $G = G(n,p)$ is with high probability disconnected (in fact, it has an isolated vertex with high probability, see e.g. [@Janson2000Random Corollary 3.31]), so that ${s}_n(G) = {P}(G) = 0$. Thus Lemma \[trees\_lower\_bound\] applies. Let $a$ be the constant from Lemma \[trees\_lower\_bound\] for which $$\label{eq:tot_lower} {T}(G) \geq p^n n! e^{an}$$ holds with high probability, so that we can assume that this inequality is satisfied. Now pick a constant $\beta > 0$ according to Lemma \[few\_leaves\] so that the number of trees with $n$ labelled vertices and fewer than $\beta n$ leaves is less than $n! e^{an/4}$ for sufficiently large $n$. Since each of these trees has probability $p^{n-1}$ of occurring as spanning tree in $G$, the expected number of spanning trees in $G$ with fewer than $\beta n$ leaves is less than $n! e^{an/4} p^{n-1}$. By the Markov inequality, the number of such spanning trees is therefore less than $p^n n! e^{an/2}$ with high probability. Hence we can assume that this is the case as well. Next, note that the inequality of Theorem \[thm:dense\_strong\] holds (for sufficiently large $n$) if ${s}_n(G) < p^n n! e^{3an/4}$ by  and our assumption on $p$. So we may also assume that ${s}_n(G) \geq p^n n! e^{3an/4}$. This means, however, that at least ${s}_n(G)(1-e^{-an/4})$ spanning trees of $G$ have at least $\beta n$ leaves each. In view of Lemma \[lem:est\_by\_leaves\], this implies that $${\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \geq {s}_n(G)\big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) \binom{\lceil \beta n \rceil}{k}$$ for every $k$. On the other hand, making use of the inequality in Lemma \[lem:Pk\_upper\_hp\] (which is also satisfied with high probability), we obtain $${s}_n(G)\big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) \binom{\lceil \beta n \rceil}{k} \leq {\mathcal{P}}_k(G) \leq {s}_{n-k}(G) b^k p^k n^k.$$ Thus $$\frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \geq \big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) \binom{\lceil \beta n \rceil}{k}(bpn)^{-k}.$$ Summing over all values of $k$, we get $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{{P}(G)} = \frac{{T}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} &\geq \big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) \sum_{k \geq 0} \binom{\lceil \beta n \rceil}{k}(bpn)^{-k} = \big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) \Big( 1 + \frac{1}{b p n} \Big)^{\lceil \beta n \rceil} \\ &\geq \big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) \Big( 1 + \frac{1}{b p n} \Big)^{\beta n} = \big(1-e^{-an/4}\big) e^{\beta/(b p) + o(1/p)}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the desired inequality (with high probability, for sufficiently large $n$) for every $c < \beta/b$. Corollaries and final remarks ============================= Looking back over the proof of Theorem \[thm:gnp\] (the dense case), we see that we have also established the following as a side result: Consider the random graph $G = G(n,p)$, and suppose that $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$. As $n \to \infty$, we have, for every fixed nonnegative integer $k$, $$\frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \overset{p}{\to} \frac{1}{k!} (ep_{\infty})^{-k}.$$ In other words, the number of vertices missing in a random subtree asymptotically follows a Poisson distribution. In fact, the same proof still works if $k$ and $\frac{1}{p}$ both grow sufficiently slowly with $n$, in which case we have $$k! (ep_{\infty})^k \frac{{s}_{n-k}(G)}{{s}_n(G)} \overset{p}{\to} 1.$$ It might be interesting to establish the precise thresholds for $k$ and $p$ up to which this statement remains true. The average number of edges in a random subtree is another parameter that was considered by Chin et al. in [@Chin2018Subtrees]. Equivalently, one can also consider the average number of vertices, which is precisely $1$ greater. For this quantity, we obtain the following result in the dense case: Let $\mu(G)$ denote the average number of edges in a randomly chosen subtree of $G$. Consider the random graph $G = G(n,p)$, and suppose that $p \to p_{\infty} > 0$. As $n \to \infty$, we have $$n - \mu(G) \to 1 + \frac{1}{ep_{\infty}}.$$ Moreover, we can combine Janson’s Theorem \[thm:janson\], Theorem \[thm:dense\] and Slutsky’s theorem [@Gut2013Probability Chapter 5, Theorem 11.4] to obtain the following result on the distribution of the total number of subtrees: Assume that $p \to p_{\infty} \in (0,1)$. Then we have, as $n \to \infty$, $$\log {T}(G(n,p)) - \log (n^{n-2}p^{n-1}) \overset{d}{\to} N \Big( \frac{1-e+ep_{\infty}}{ep_{\infty}}, \frac{2-2p_{\infty}}{p_{\infty}} \Big).$$ The argument fails if $p \to 0$ since the difference between $\log {T}(G(n,p))$ and $\log {s}_n(G(n,p))$ grows at a rate of $\frac{1}{p}$, while the standard deviation of $\log {s}_n(G(n,p))$ is only of order $\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}$. However, it should be possible to adapt Janson’s proof of Theorem \[thm:janson\] to obtain a lognormal limit law for ${T}(G(n,p))$ as long as $\liminf_{n \to \infty} \sqrt{n}p > 0$. Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered} ============== The author would like to thank Svante Janson for many helpful comments. [10]{} A. Chin, G. Gordon, K. MacPhee, and C. Vincent. Pick a tree—any tree. , 122(5):424–432, 2015. A. J. Chin, G. Gordon, K. J. MacPhee, and C. Vincent. Subtrees of graphs. , 89(4):413–438, 2018. M. Drmota. . SpringerWienNewYork, Vienna, 2009. An interplay between combinatorics and probability. A. Gut. . Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer, New York, second edition, 2013. F. Harary and E. M. Palmer. . Academic Press, New York-London, 1973. J. Haslegrave. Extremal results on average subtree density of series-reduced trees. , 107:26–41, 2014. R. E. Jamison. On the average number of nodes in a subtree of a tree. , 35(3):207–223, 1983. R. E. Jamison. Monotonicity of the mean order of subtrees. , 37(1):70–78, 1984. S. Janson. The numbers of spanning trees, [H]{}amilton cycles and perfect matchings in a random graph. , 3(1):97–126, 1994. S. Janson, T. [Ł]{}uczak, and A. Rucinski. . Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2000. D. E. Knuth. . Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1998. Second edition. L. Mol and O. Oellermann. Maximizing the mean subtree order. , 91(4):326–352, 2019. F. Ruskey. Generating linear extensions of posets by transpositions. , 54(1):77–101, 1992. A. Vince and H. Wang. The average order of a subtree of a tree. , 100(2):161–170, 2010. S. Wagner and H. Wang. On the local and global means of subtree orders. , 81(2):154–166, 2016. [^1]: The author gratefully acknowledges financial support from a Swedish Foundations’ Starting Grant from the Ragnar Söderberg Foundation.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Building a successful recommender system depends on understanding both the dimensions of people’s preferences as well as their dynamics. In certain domains, such as fashion, modeling such preferences can be incredibly difficult, due to the need to simultaneously model the visual appearance of products as well as their evolution over time. The subtle semantics and non-linear dynamics of fashion evolution raise unique challenges especially considering the sparsity and large scale of the underlying datasets. In this paper we build novel models for the One-Class Collaborative Filtering setting, where our goal is to estimate users’ *fashion-aware* personalized ranking functions based on their past feedback. To uncover the complex and evolving visual factors that people consider when evaluating products, our method combines high-level visual features extracted from a deep convolutional neural network, users’ past feedback, as well as evolving trends within the community. Experimentally we evaluate our method on two large real-world datasets from *Amazon.com*, where we show it to outperform state-of-the-art personalized ranking measures, and also use it to visualize the high-level fashion trends across the 11-year span of our dataset.' author: - | Ruining He\ \ \ Julian McAuley\ \ \ bibliography: - 'visual.bib' title: 'Ups and Downs: Modeling the Visual Evolution of Fashion Trends with One-Class Collaborative Filtering' --- &lt;ccs2012&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10002951.10003317.10003347.10003350&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Information systems Recommender systems&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003120.10003130.10003131.10003269&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Human-centered computing Collaborative filtering&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;/ccs2012&gt; Introduction ============ ![Above the timeline are the three most fashionable styles (i.e., groups) of women’ sneakers during each year/epoch, revealed by our model; while below the timeline is a specific user’s purchases (one in each year), which we model as being the result of a combination of fashion and personal factors.[]{data-label="fig:timeline"}](timeline.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Recommender systems play a key role in helping users to discover items matching their personal interests amongst huge corpora of products. In order to surface useful recommendations, it is crucial to be able to learn from user feedback in order to understand and capture the underlying decision factors that have an influence on users’ choices. Here we are interested in applications in which *visual* decision factors are at play, such as clothing recommendation. In such settings, visual signals play a key role—naturally one wouldn’t buy a t-shirt from *Amazon* without being able to see a picture of the product, no matter what ratings or reviews the product had. Likewise then, when building a recommender system, we argue that this important source of information should be accounted for when modeling users’ preferences. In spite of their potential value, there are several issues that make visual decision factors particularly difficult to model. First is simply the complexity and subtlety of the factors involved; to extract any meaningful signal about the role of visual information in users’ purchasing decisions shall require large corpora of products (and images) and purchases. Second is the fact that visual preferences are highly personal, so we require a system that models and accounts for the preferences of and differences between individuals. Third is the fact that complex *temporal dynamics* are at play, since the features considered ‘fashionable’ change as time progresses. And finally, it is important to account for the considerable amount of *non*-visual factors that are also at play (such as durability and build quality); this latter point is particularly important when trying to interpret the role of visual decision factors, since we need to ‘tease apart’ the visual from the non-visual components of people’s decisions. Our main goal is to address these four challenges, i.e., to build visually-aware recommender systems that are scalable, personalized, temporally evolving, and interpretable. We see considerable value in solving such problems—in particular we shall be able to build better recommender systems that surface products that more closely match users’ and communities’ evolving interests. This is especially true for fashion recommendation, where product corpora are particularly ‘long-tailed’ as new items are continually introduced; in such cold-start settings we cannot rely on user feedback but need a rich model of the product’s appearance in order to generate useful recommendations. Beyond generating better recommendations, such a system has the potential to answer high-level questions about how visual features influence people’s decisions, and more broadly how fashions have evolved over time. For instance, we can answer queries such as “what are the key visual features or factors that people consider when evaluating products?” or “what are the main factors differentiating early 2000s vs. late 2000s fashions?”, or even “at what point did Hawaiian shirts go out of style?”. Thus our main goal is to learn from data how to model users’ preferences toward products, and by doing so to make high-level statements about the temporal and visual dynamics at play. Addressing our goals above requires new models to be developed. Previous models have considered either visual [@StreetFashion; @VBPR] or temporal data [@zhang2015daily; @timeSVD; @lathia2010temporal; @cebrian2010music] in isolation, though few have modeled both aspects simultaneously as we do here. First, as we show quantitatively, the evolution of fashion trends can be abrupt and non-linear, so that existing temporal models such as timeSVD++ [@timeSVD] are not immediately appropriate to address the challenge of capturing fashion dynamics. Moreover, multiple sources of temporal dynamics can be at play simultaneously, e.g. dynamics at the user or community level; the introduction of new products; or sales promotions that impact the choices people make in the short term. Thus we need a flexible temporal model that is capable of accounting for these varied effects; this is especially true if we want to interpret our findings, which requires that we ‘tease-apart’ or separate these visual vs. non-visual temporal dynamics. Secondly, real-world datasets are often highly sparse, especially for clothing data where new products are constantly emerging and being replaced over time; this means on the one hand that accounting for *content* (i.e., visual information) is critical for new items, but on the other hand that only a modest amount of parameters are affordable per item due to the huge item vocabulary involved. This drives us to avoid using localized structures as much as possible. Thirdly, scalability can be a potential challenge since the new model needs to be built on top of a large corpus of product image data as well as a huge amount of user feedback. Note that the high dimensionality of the image data also exacerbates the above sparsity issue. Specifically, our main contributions include: 1. We build scalable models to capture temporal dynamics in order to make better recommendations for the classical One-Class Collaborative Filtering setting [@OCCF], where only the implicit (or ‘positive’) feedback of users (i.e., purchase histories, bookmarks, browsing logs, mouse activities etc. [@dwelltime]) are available. To cope with the non-linearity of fashion trends, we propose to automatically discover the important fashion ‘epochs’ each of which captures a separate set of prevailing visual decision factors at play. 2. Our method also models non-visual dimensions and non-visual temporal dynamics (in a lightweight manner), which not only helps to account for interference from non-visual sources, but also makes our method a fully-fledged recommendation system. We develop efficient training procedures based on the Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) framework to learn the epoch segmentation and model parameters simultaneously. 3. Empirical results on two large real-world datasets, *Women’s* and *Men’s Clothing & Accessories* from *Amazon*, demonstrate that our models are able to outperform state-of-the-art methods significantly, both in warm- and cold-start settings. 4. We provide visualizations of our learned models and qualitatively demonstrate how fashion has shifted in recent years. We find that fashions evolve in complex, non-linear ways, which can not easily be captured by existing methods. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. We introduce our proposed method in Section \[sec:model\], before we develop a Coordinate Ascent fitting procedure in Section \[sec:learn\]. Comprehensive experiments on real-world datasets as well as visualizations are conducted in Section \[sec:experiment\]. We discuss related work in Section \[sec:relwork\] and conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\]. Modeling the Temporal Dynamics of Visual Styles {#sec:model} =============================================== We are interested in learning visual temporal dynamics from implicit feedback datasets (e.g. purchase histories of clothing & accessories) where visual signals are at play, rather than (say) star-ratings. This choice is made due to the expectation that evolving fashion styles will be more closely reflected in purchase choices than in ratings—our hypothesis being that people only buy items if they are already attracted to their visual appearance, so that variation in ratings can be predominantly explained by *non*-visual factors, whereas variation in purchases is a combination of both visual and non-visual decisions. By accounting for evolving fashion dynamics for implicit feedback in the form of purchase histories, we hope to build systems that are quantitatively helpful for estimating users’ personalized rankings (i.e., assigning likely purchases higher ranks than non-purchases), which can then be harnessed for recommendation. Notation Explanation -------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- $\mathcal{U}$, $\mathcal{I}$ user set, item set $\mathcal{I}_u^+$ the items for which user $u$ expressed positive feedback $\mathcal{P}_u$,$\mathcal{V}_u$, $\mathcal{T}_u$ training/validation/test subsets of $\mathcal{I}_u^+$ $\widehat{x}_{u,i}$ predicted preference of user $u$ towards item $i$ $\widehat{x}_{u,i}(t)$ predicted preference of $u$ towards $i$ at time $t$ $K$ dimensionality of latent factors $K'$ dimensionality of visual factors $F$ dimensionality of Deep CNN features $\alpha$ global offset (scalar) $\beta_u$, $\beta_i$ user $u$’s bias, item $i$’s bias (scalar) $\beta_i(t)$ item $i$’s bias at time $t$ (scalar) $\beta_{C_i}(t)$ subcategory bias item at time $t$ (scalar) $\gamma_u$, $\gamma_i$ latent factors of user $u$, item $i$ ($K \times 1$) $\theta_u$, $\theta_i$ visual factors of user $u$, item $i$ ($K' \times 1$) $\theta_u(t)$, $\theta_i(t)$ visual factors of user $u$, item $i$ at time $t$ ($K' \times 1$) $f_i$ Deep CNN visual features of item $i$ ($F \times 1$) $\mathbf{E}$ $K' \times F$ embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}(t)$ $K' \times F$ embedding matrix at time $t$ $\beta$ visual bias vector (visual bias = $\langle \beta, f_i \rangle $) $\beta(t)$ visual bias vector at $t$ (visual bias = $\langle \beta(t), f_i \rangle $) : Notation \[tab:notation\] Formally, we represent the set of users and items with $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{I}$ respectively. Each user $u \in \mathcal{U}$ is associated with a set of items $\mathcal{I}_u^+$. About each item $i \in \mathcal{I}_u^+$, $u$ has expressed explicit positive feedback (i.e., by purchasing it) at time $t_{ui}$. Additionally, a single image is available for each item $i \in \mathcal{I}$. Using the above data, our objective is to generate for each user $u$ a *time-dependent* personalized ranking of those items about which they haven’t yet provided feedback (i.e. $\mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{I}_u^+$). The challenge here is to develop efficient methods to make use of these raw images to learn visual styles that are temporally-evolving and predictive of users’ opinions. The notation we use throughout the paper is summarized in Table \[tab:notation\]. Matrix Factorization -------------------- We begin by briefly describing the underlying ‘standard’ Matrix Factorization method [@korenSurvey], whose basic formulation we adopt. Here the preference of a user $u$ toward an item $i$ (i.e. $\widehat{x}_{u,i}$) is predicted according to $$\label{eq:baseline} \widehat{x}_{u,i} = \alpha + \beta_u + \beta_i + \langle \gamma_u, \gamma_i \rangle,$$ where $\alpha$ is a global offset, $\beta_u$ and $\beta_i$ are user/item bias terms, and $\gamma_u$ and $\gamma_i$ are $K$-dimensional latent factors describing user $u$ and item $i$ respectively. Intuitively, $\gamma_i$ can be interpreted as the ‘properties’ of the item $i$, while $\gamma_u$ can be seen as user $u$’s personal ‘preferences’ toward those properties. Modeling Visual Dimensions {#subsec:VBPR} -------------------------- Although the above standard model can capture rich interactions between users and items, it suffers from *cold start* issues due to the sparsity of real-world datasets, especially in domains like fashion where the product vocabulary is long-tailed and continuously evolving. Using explicit features like user profiles and product features can alleviate this problem by making use of auxiliary signals in cold start scenarios. To model visual dimension and uncover users’ preferences towards different visual styles, we are interested in incorporating the *visual appearance* of items into the formulation. Previous methods for ‘visually aware’ recommendation have made use of features from deep networks [@VisualSIGIR; @VBPR] though made no use of temporal dynamics. In those works the basic idea is to discover low-dimensional ‘visual decision factors’ to explain user’s activities. We build upon this idea and define our predictor as $$\label{eq:VBPR} \widehat{x}_{u,i} = \underbrace{\alpha + \beta_u + \beta_i}_{\text{bias terms}} + \underbrace{\langle \gamma_u, \gamma_i \rangle}_{\text{non-visual interaction}} + \underbrace{\langle \theta_u, \theta_i \rangle}_{\text{visual interaction}},$$ where $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are as in [Eq. \[eq:baseline\]]{}. $\theta_u$ and $\theta_i$ are newly introduced $K'$-dimensional *visual factors* that encode the ‘visual compatibility’ between the user $u$ and the item $i$. Intuitively, we want $\theta_i$ to be explicit visual features of the item $i$. Particularly, it is more desirable to use high-level features to capture human notions of visual styles. Deep Convolutional Neural Network (i.e., ‘Deep CNN’) features extracted from raw product images presented a good option due to their widely demonstrated efficacy at capturing abstract notions of fine-grained categories [@ImageNetchallenge], photographic style [@ImageStyle], aesthetic quality [@AestheticsDL], and scene characteristics [@Decaf], among others. Let $f_i$ denote the Deep CNN features of item $i$ and $F$ represent its number of dimensions. We further introduce a $K' \times F$ embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}$ to linearly embed the high-dimensional feature vector $f_i$ into a much lower-dimensional (i.e., $K'$) *visual style space*. Namely, we take $$\theta_i = \mathbf{E} f_i.$$ Then the parameter set is $\Theta = \{\alpha, \beta_u, \beta_i, \gamma_u, \gamma_i, \theta_u, \mathbf{E}\}$. By learning the embedding $\mathbf{E}$ from the data, we are uncovering $K'$ visual dimensions that are the most predictive of users’ opinions. Modeling Visual Evolution ------------------------- The above model is good at capturing/uncovering visual dimensions as well as the extent to which users are attracted to each of them. Nevertheless, fashions, i.e., the visual elements of items that people are attracted to, evolve gradually over time. This presents challenges when modeling the visual dimensions of opinions because the same appearance may be favored during some time periods while disliked during others. Our goal here is to discover such trends both as a means of making better predictions, but also so that we can draw high-level conclusions about how fashions have evolved over the life of our dataset. Thus we want to extend the above ‘static’ model to capture the temporal dynamics of fashion. Considering the sparsity of real-world datasets, it is important to develop models that are expressive enough to capture the relevant dynamics but at the same time are tractable in terms of the number of parameters involved. ### Temporally-evolving Visual Factors {#subsec:tempfactor} Here we identify three main fashion dynamics from which we can potentially benefit. We propose models to capture each of them with temporally-evolving visual factors; that is we model user/item visual factors as a function of time $t$, i.e., $\theta_u(t)$ and $\theta_i(t)$, with their inner products accounting for the temporal user-item visual interactions. This formulation is able to capture different kinds of fashion dynamics as described below. [[[**Temporal Attractiveness Drift.**]{}]{}]{} The first notion of temporal dynamics is based on the observation that items gradually gain/lose ‘attractiveness’ in different visual dimensions as time goes by. To capture such a phenomenon, it is natural to extend our embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}$ to be time-dependent. More specifically, we model our embedding matrix at time $t$ as $$\mathbf{E}(t) = \mathbf{E} + \mathbf{\Delta_E}(t).$$ Here the underlying ‘stationary’ component of the model is captured by $\mathbf{E}$ while the time-dependent ‘drifting’ component is accounted for by $\mathbf{\Delta_E}(t)$. Then item $i$’s visual factors at time $t$ become $$\theta_i(t) = \mathbf{E}(t) f_i.$$ In this way, we are modeling fashion evolution across entire communities with *global* low-rank structures. Such structures are expressive while introducing only a modest number of parameters. [[[**Temporal Weighting Drift.**]{}]{}]{} As fashion evolves over time, it is likely that users *weigh* visual dimensions differently. For example, people may pay less attention to a dimension describing colorfulness as communities become more tolerant of bright colors. Accordingly, we introduce a $K'$-dimensional temporal weighting vector $w(t)$ to capture users’ evolving emphasis on different visual dimensions, namely $$\label{eq:vis} \theta_i(t) = \mathbf{E} f_i \odot w(t),$$ where $\odot$ is the Hadamard product. Combining the above two dynamics, our formulation for item visual factors becomes $$\label{eq:thetait} \theta_i(t) = \underbrace{\mathbf{E} f_i \odot w(t)}_{\text{base}} + \underbrace{\mathbf{\Delta_E}(t) f_i}_{\text{deviation}}$$ such that (when properly regularized) temporal variances are partly explained by the weighting scheme while the rest are absorbed by the expressive deviation term. Note that compared to our basic model, so far we have only introduced *global* structures that are shared by all users. This achieves our goal of capturing temporal fashion trends that apply to the entire population. Next, we introduce ‘local’ dynamics, in order to model the drift of *personal* tastes over time. $$\label{eq:final} \underbrace{\widehat{x}_{u,i}(t)}_{\substack{\text{preference of user $u$}\\\text{towards item $i$ at time $t$}}} = \underbrace{\alpha + \beta_u + \underbrace{\beta_i(t) + \beta_{C_i}(t)}_{\text{temporal non-visual biases}} + \underbrace{\langle \overbrace{\beta(t)}^{\text{defined by {Eq.~\ref{eq:betat}}}}, f_i \rangle}_{\text{temporal visual bias}}}_{\text{bias terms}} + \underbrace{\underbrace{\langle \gamma_u, \gamma_i \rangle}_{\text{non-visual interaction}} + \underbrace{\langle \overbrace{\theta_u(t)}^{\text{defined by {Eq.~\ref{eq:thetaut}}}}, \overbrace{\theta_i(t)}^{\text{defined by {Eq.~\ref{eq:thetait}}}} \rangle}_{\text{temporal visual interaction}}}_{\text{user-item interactions}}.$$ [[[**Temporal Personal Drift.**]{}]{}]{} Apart from the above global temporal dynamics (i.e., fashion evolution), there also exist dynamics at the level of drifts in personal tastes over time. In other words, users’ opinions are affected by ‘outside’ fashion trends as well as their own personal preferences, both of which can evolve gradually. Modeling this kind of drift can borrow ideas from existing works (e.g. timeSVD++ [@timeSVD]) in order to extend our basic model with time-evolving user visual factors, i.e., by modeling $\theta_u$ as a function of time. Here we give one example formulation (see [@timeSVD] for more details) as follows: $$\label{eq:thetaut} \theta_u(t) = \theta_u + sign(t-t_u) \cdot |t-t_u|^{\kappa} \eta_u ,$$ which uses a simple parametric form to account for the deviation of user $u$ at time $t$ from his/her mean feedback date $t_u$. This method uses two vectors $\theta_u$ and $\eta_u$ to model each user, with hyperparameter $\kappa$ learned with a validation set (to be described later). ### Temporally-evolving Visual Bias {#subsec:tempbias} In addition to temporally evolving factors $\theta_i(t)$, we introduce a temporal visual bias term to account for that portion of the variance which is common to all factors. More precisely, we use a time-dependent $F$-dimensional vector $\beta(t)$ that adopts a formulation resembling that of [Eq. \[eq:thetait\]]{}: $$\label{eq:betat} \beta{(t)} = \beta \odot b(t) + \Delta_{\beta}(t).$$ Then the visual bias of item $i$ at time $t$ is computed by taking the inner product $\langle \beta(t), f_i \rangle$. The intention is to use low-rank structures to capture the changing ‘overall’ response to the appearance, so that the rest of the variance (i.e., per-user and per-dimension dynamics) are captured by properly regularized higher-rank structures, namely the inner product of $\theta_u(t)$ and $\theta_i(t)$. Experimentally, incorporating this term improves the performance to some degree, and is also useful for visualization. ### Non-Visual Temporal Dynamics {#subsec:nonfashion} Up to now, we have described how to extend our basic formulation to model visual dynamics. However, there also exist non-visual temporal dynamics in the datasets, such as sales, promotions, or the emergence of new products. Incorporating such dynamics into our model can not only improve predictive performance, but also helps with interpretability by allowing us to tease apart visual from non-visual decision factors. Here we want to distinguish as much as possible those factors that can be determined by the item’s non-visual properties (such as its category) versus those that can only be determined from the image itself. To serve this purpose, we propose to incorporate the following two non-fashion dynamics in a lightweight manner, i.e., we guarantee that we are only introducing an affordable amount of additional parameters due to the sparsity of the real-world datasets we consider. [[[**Per-Item Temporal Dynamics.**]{}]{}]{} The first dynamics to model are on the per-item level. As said before, various factors can cause an item to be purchased during some periods and not during others. Our choice is to replace the stationary item bias term $\beta_i$ in [Eq. \[eq:thetait\]]{} with a temporal counterpart $\beta_i(t)$ [@timeSVD]. [[[**Per-Subcategory Temporal Dynamics.**]{}]{}]{} Next, for datasets where the category tree is available (as is the case for the ones we consider), it is also possible to incorporate per-subcategory temporal dynamics. By accounting for category information explicitly as we do here, we discourage the visual component of our model from indirectly trying to predict the subcategory of the product, so that it may instead focus on subtler visual aspects. Letting $C_i$ denote the subcategory the item $i$ belongs to, we add a temporal subcategory bias term $\beta_{C_i}(t)$ to our formulation to account for the drifting of users’ opinions towards a subcategory. Gluing all above components together, we predict $\widehat{x}_{u,i}(t)$, the affinity score of user $u$ and item $i$ at time $t$, with [Eq. \[eq:final\]]{}.[^1] Experimentally, we found that *global* temporal dynamics (i.e., fashion trends) are particularly useful at addressing personalized ranking tasks. However, modeling user terms, i.e., temporal personal drift, had relatively little effect in our datasets. The reasons are dataset-specific: (a) our datasets span a decade and most users only remain active during a relatively short period of time; (b) our datasets are highly sparse which means that the lack of per-user observations makes it difficult to fit the high-dimensional models required (see [Eq. \[eq:thetaut\]]{}). Therefore for our experiments we ultimately adopted stationary user visual factors $\theta_u$ (note this way users’ preferences are still affected by fashion trends). ### Fashion Epoch Segmentation So far we have described *what* temporal components to use in the formulation of our time-aware predictor; what remains to be seen is how to model the temporal term, i.e., how $\beta(t), \theta(t)$ change as time progresses. One solution is to adopt a fixed schedule to describe the underlying evolution, e.g. to fit some parameterized function of (say) the raw timestamp, as is done by timeSVD++ [@timeSVD]. However, fashion tends to evolve in a non-linear and somewhat abrupt manner, which goes beyond the expressive power of such methods (we experimentally tried parameterized functions like those in timeSVD++ but without success). Instead, a time-window design which uncovers fashion ‘stages’ or ‘epochs’ during the life span of the dataset proved preferable in our case. In other words, we want to *learn* a temporal partition of the timeline of our data into discrete segments during which different visual characteristics predominate to influence users’ opinions. To achieve our goal, we learn a partition of the timeline of our dataset, consisting of $N$ epochs, and to each epoch $\mathit{ep}$ we attach a set of parameters $$\Theta_{ep} = \{\mathbf{\Delta_E}(ep), \Delta_{\beta}(ep), w(ep), b(ep), \beta_i(ep), \\ \beta_{C_i}(ep) \}.\footnote{i.e., discretized $\mathbf{\Delta_E}(t), \Delta_{\beta}(t), w(t), b(t), \beta_i(t), \beta_{C_i}(t)$ (respectively).}$$ Then we predict the preference of user $u$ towards item $i$ at epoch $ep$ according to $\widehat{x}_{u,i}(ep(t))$, where the function $ep(\cdot)$ returns the epoch index of time $t$ according to the segmentation. Note that while such a model could potentially capture seasonal effects (given fine-grained enough epochs), this is not our goal in this paper since we want to uncover long-term temporal drift; this can easily be achieved by tuning the number of epochs such that they tend to span multiple seasons (e.g. we obtained the best performance using 10 epochs in our 11 year dataset). Finally, there are two components of the model to be estimated: (a) the model parameters $\Theta = \cup_{ep}{\Theta_{ep}} \cup \{\alpha, \beta_u, \gamma_u, \gamma_i, \theta_u, \mathbf{E}, \beta \}$, and (b) the fashion epochs themselves, i.e., a partition $\Lambda$ of the timeline into segments with different visual rating behavior. Learning the Model {#sec:learn} ================== With the above temporal preference predictor, our objective is for each user $u$ to generate a personalized ranking of the items they haven’t interacted with (i.e., $\mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{I}_u^+$) at time $t$. Here we adopt Bayesian Personalized Ranking, a state-of-the-art ranking optimization framework [@BPR], to directly optimize the rankings produced by our model. First we derive the likelihood function we are trying to maximize according to BPR, before we describe the coordinate ascent optimization procedure to learn the fashion epoch segmentation as well as the model parameters. Log-Likelihood Maximization --------------------------- Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) is a pairwise ranking optimization framework which adopts Stochastic Gradient Ascent to optimize the regularized corpus likelihood [@BPR]. Let $\mathcal{P}_u \subset \mathcal{I}_u^+$ be the set of positive (i.e., observed) items for user $u$ in the training set. Then according to BPR, a training tuple set $D_S$ consists of triples of the form $(u,i,j)$, where $i \in \mathcal{P}_u$ and $j \in \mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{P}_u$. Given a triple $(u,i,j) \in D_S$, BPR models the probability that user $u$ prefers item $i$ to item $j$ with $\sigma (\widehat{x}_{u,i} - \widehat{x}_{u,j})$, where $\sigma$ is the sigmoid function, and learns the parameters by maximizing the regularized log-likelihood function as follows: $$\sum_{\mathclap{(u,i,j) \in D_S}} \quad \log \sigma (\widehat{x}_{u,i} - \widehat{x}_{u,j}) - \frac{\lambda_{\Theta}}{2} ||\Theta||^2.$$ Building on the above formulation, we want to add a temporal term $t_{ui}$ encoding the time at which user $u$ expressed positive feedback about $i \in \mathcal{P}_u$. The basic idea is that we want to rank the observed item $i$ higher than all non-observed items at time $t_{ui}$. More precisely, our training set $D_{S^+}$ is comprised of quadruples of the form $(u,i,j, t_{ui})$, where user $u$ expressed positive feedback about item $i$ at time $t_{ui}$ with $j$ being a non-observed item: $$\label{eq:DS} D_{S^+} = \{(u,i,j,t_{ui})|u \in \mathcal{U} \wedge i \in \mathcal{P}_u \wedge j \in \mathcal{I} \setminus \mathcal{P}_u \}.$$ To simplify this notion, we introduce the shorthand $$\widehat{x}_{uij}(ep(t_{ui})) = \widehat{x}_{u,i}(ep(t_{ui}))-\widehat{x}_{u,j}(ep(t_{ui})),$$ where $ep(t)$ returns the index of the epoch that timestamp $t$ falls into, and $\widehat{x}_{u,i}(ep)$ as well as $\widehat{x}_{u,j}(ep)$ are defined by [Eq. \[eq:final\]]{}. Then according to the BPR framework, our model is fitted by maximizing the regularized log-likelihood of the corpus (i.e., BPR-OPT in [@BPR]): $$\label{eq:obj} \widehat{\Theta}, \widehat{\Lambda} = \operatorname*{arg\,max}_{\Theta, \Lambda} \quad \sum_{\mathclap{\qquad(u,i,j, t_{ui}) \in D_{S^+}}} \quad \log \sigma (\widehat{x}_{uij}(ep(t_{ui}))) - \frac{\lambda_{\Theta}}{2} ||\Theta||^2.$$ Again, note that there are two components to fit to maximize the above objective function, with one being the parameter set $\Theta$ and the other being the segmentation $\Lambda$ of the timeline comprising $N$ fashion epochs. Next we describe how to derive a coordinate-ascent-style optimization procedure to fit these two components. Coordinate Ascent Fitting Procedure ----------------------------------- We adopt an iterative optimization procedure which alternates between (a) fitting the model parameters $\Theta$ (given the segmented timeline $\Lambda$), and (b) segmenting the timeline $\Lambda$ (given the current estimate of the model parameters $\Theta$). This procedure resembles the one used in [@WWWUserExper], though the problem setting and data are different. ### Fitting the Model Parameters $\Theta$ This step fixes the epoch segmentation $\Lambda$ and adopts stochastic gradient ascent to optimize the regularized log-likelihood in [Eq. \[eq:obj\]]{}. Given a randomly sampled training quadruple $(u,i,j,t_{ui}) \in D_{S^+}$, the update rule of $\Theta$ is derived as $$\Theta \leftarrow \Theta + \epsilon \cdot (\sigma(-\widehat{x}_{uij}(ep(t_{ui}))) \frac{\partial \widehat{x}_{uij}(ep(t_{ui}))}{\partial \Theta} - \lambda_{\Theta}\Theta ),$$ where $\epsilon$ is the learning rate. Sampling strategies may affect the performance of the model to some extent. In our implementation, we sample users uniformly to optimize the average AUC metric (to be discussed later). ### Fitting the Fashion Epoch Segmentation $\Lambda$ Given the model parameters $\Theta$, this step finds the optimal segmentation of the timeline to optimize the objective in [Eq. \[eq:obj\]]{}. To achieve this goal, we first partition the timeline into $N$ continuous bins of equal size. Then the fitting problem is solved with a dynamic programming procedure, which finds the segmentation such that rankings inside all bins are predicted most accurately. This is a canonical instance of a sequence segmentation problem [@dynamic], which admits an $\mathcal{O}(|\mathcal{D_S^+}| \times N)$ solution in our case. [[[**Scaling to large datasets.**]{}]{}]{} Fitting the epoch segmentation in a naïve way would be time-consuming due to the fact that the ‘ranking quality’ has to be evaluated by enumerating *all* non-observed items for each positive item. Fortunately, it turns out that for this step we can *approximate* the full log-likelihood by sampling a relatively small ‘batch’ of non-observed items for each positive user-item pair. Experimentally this proved to be effective and allows the dynamic programming procedure to find the optimal solution within around 3 minutes on our largest datasets. Finally, our parameters are randomly initialized between 0 and 1.0. The two fitting steps above are repeated until convergence, or until no further improvement is obtained on the validation set. We discuss scalability further in Appendix \[appd:scale\]. Experiments {#sec:experiment} =========== We perform experiments on two real-world datasets to investigate the efficacy of our proposed method. First we introduce the datasets we work with, before we compare and evaluate our method against different baselines, and finally visualize the fashion dynamics captured by our model. Datasets -------- To evaluate the strength of our method at capturing fashion dynamics, we are interested in real-world datasets that (a) are broad enough to capture the general tastes of the public, and (b) temporally span a long period so that there are discernibly different visual decision factors at play during different times. The two datasets we use are from *Amazon.com*, as introduced in [@VisualSIGIR]. We consider two large categories that naturally encode fashion dynamics (within the U.S.) over the past decade, namely Women’s and Men’s Clothing & Accessories, each consisting of a comprehensive vocabulary of clothing items. The images available from this dataset are of high quality (typically centered on a white background) and have previously been shown to be effective for recommendation tasks (though different from the one we consider here). We process each dataset by taking users’ review histories as implicit feedback and extracting visual features $f_i$ from one image of each item $i$. We discard users $u$ who have performed fewer than 5 actions, i.e., for whom $|\mathcal{I}_u^+| < 5$. Statistics of our datasets are shown in Table \[table:dataset\]. Dataset \#users \#items \#feedback Timespan --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------------------- *Women* 99,748 331,173 854,211 Mar. 2003 - Jul. 2014 *Men* 34,212 100,654 260,352 Mar. 2003 - Jul. 2014 Total 133,960 431,827 1,114,563 Mar. 2003 - Jul. 2014 : Dataset statistics (after processing) \[table:dataset\] Visual Features --------------- To extract a visual feature vector $f_i$ for each item $i$ in the above datasets, we employ a pre-trained convolutional neural network, namely the Caffe reference model [@Caffe], which has previously been demonstrated to be useful at capturing the properties of images of this type [@VisualSIGIR]. This model implements the architecture proposed by [@DeepCNNArchitecture] with 5 convolutional layers followed by 3 fully-connected layers and was pre-trained on 1.2 million ImageNet (ILSVRC2010) images. We obtain our $F = 4096$ dimensional visual features by taking the output of the second fully-connected layer (i.e., FC7). Evaluation Methodology ---------------------- Given a user-item pair $(u,i)$, the preference of $u$ towards $i$ is a function of time, i.e., the recommended item ranking for $u$ is time-dependent. Therefore for a held-out triple $(u,i,t_{ui})$, our evaluation consists of calculating how accurately item $i$ is ranked for user $u$ at time $t_{ui}$. Each of our datasets is split into training/validation/test sets by uniformly sampling for each user $u$ from $\mathcal{I}_u^+$ an item $i$ (associated with a timestamp $t_{ui}$) to be used for validation $\mathcal{V}_u$ and another for testing $\mathcal{T}_u$. The rest of the data $\mathcal{P}_u$ is used for training, i.e., $\mathcal{I}_u^+=\mathcal{P}_u \cup \mathcal{V}_u \cup \mathcal{T}_u$ and $|\mathcal{P}_u| = |\mathcal{V}_u| = |\mathcal{U}|$. All methods are then evaluated on $\mathcal{T}_u$ with the widely used AUC (*Area Under the ROC curve*) measure: $$\mathit{AUC} = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{U}|} \sum_u \frac{1}{|E(u)|} \sum_{(i,j) \in E(u)} \delta (\widehat{x}_{u,i}(t_{ui}) > \widehat{x}_{u,j}(t_{ui})),$$ where the indicator function $\delta(b)$ returns 1 $\mathit{iff}$ $b$ is $\mathit{true}$, and the evaluation goes through the pair set of each user $u$: $$E(u) = \{(i,j) | i \in \mathcal{T}_u \wedge j \notin (\mathcal{P}_u \cup \mathcal{V}_u \cup \mathcal{T}_u) \}.$$ For all methods we select the best hyperparameters using the validation set $\mathcal{V} = \cup_{u \in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{V}_u$ and report the corresponding performance on the test set $\mathcal{T} = \cup_{u \in \mathcal{U}} \mathcal{T}_u$. Comparison Methods ------------------ Matrix Factorization (MF) based methods are currently state-of-the-art for modeling implicit feedback datasets (e.g. [@BPR; @GBPR; @MRBPR]). Therefore we mainly compare against state-of-the-art MF methods in this area, including both point-wise and pairwise MF models (see Section \[sec:relwork\] for more details). - **Popularity (POP):** Items are ranked according to their popularity. - **WR-MF:** A state-of-the-art point-wise MF model for implicit feedback proposed by [@WRMF]. It assigns confidence levels to different feedback instances and afterwards factorizes a corresponding weighted matrix. - **BPR-MF:** Introduced by [@BPR], is a state-of-the-art method for personalized ranking on implicit feedback datasets. It uses standard MF (i.e., [Eq. \[eq:baseline\]]{}) as the underlying predictor. - **BPR-TMF:** This model extends BPR-MF by making use of taxonomies and temporal dynamics; that is, it adds a temporal category bias as well as a temporal item bias in the standard MF predictor (using the techniques introduced in Subsection \[subsec:nonfashion\]). - **VBPR:** This method models raw visual signals for recommendation using the BPR framework [@VBPR], but does not capture any temporal dynamics as we do in this work. - **TVBPR:** This method models visual dimensions and captures visual temporal dynamics using the techniques we introduced in Subsection \[subsec:tempfactor\] and \[subsec:tempbias\], but does not account for any *non*-visual dynamics. - **TVBPR+:** Compared to TVBPR, this method further captures *non*-visual temporal dynamics (see Subsection \[subsec:nonfashion\]) to improve predictive performance and help with interpretability, i.e., it makes use of all the terms in [Eq. \[eq:final\]]{}. Ultimately these methods are designed to evaluate (a) the performance of the current state-of-the-art non-visual methods (BPR-MF); (b) the value to be gained by using raw visual signals (VBPR); (c) the importance of visual temporal dynamics (TVBPR); and (d) further performance enhancements from incorporating non-visual temporal dynamics (TVBPR+). For clarity, we compare all above models in terms of whether they are ‘personalized’, ‘visually-aware’, ‘temporally-aware’, and ‘taxonomy-aware’, as shown in Table \[table:base\]. All time-aware methods are trained with our proposed coordinate ascent procedure. Model Personalized --------- -------------- ----- ----- ----- -- POP No No No No WR-MF Yes No No No BPR-MF Yes No No No BPR-TMF Yes No Yes Yes VBPR Yes Yes No No TVBPR Yes Yes Yes No TVBPR+ Yes Yes Yes Yes : Models[]{data-label="table:base"} Most of our baselines are from MyMediaLite [@MyMediaLite]. To make fair comparisons, our experiments always use the same total number of dimensions for all MF models. Additionally, all visually-aware MF models adopt a fifty-fifty split for visual vs. non-visual dimensions for simplicity. All our experiments were performed on a standard desktop machine with 4 physical cores and 32GB main memory. Performance ----------- We first introduce the two settings used for evaluation, and then present results and discuss our findings. [llcccccccccc]{} & &(a) &(b) &(c) &(d) &(e) &(f) &(g5) &(g) &\ & &POP &WR-MF &BPR-MF &BPR-TMF &VBPR &TVBPR &TVBPR+ &TVBPR+ &g vs. d &g vs. e\ &All Items &0.5726 &0.6441 &0.7020 &0.7259 &0.7834 &0.8117 &0.8148 &**0.8210** &13.1% &4.8%\ &*Cold Start* &0.3214 &0.5195 &0.5281 &0.5749 &0.6813 &0.7325 &0.7355 &**0.7469** &29.9% &9.6%\ &All Items &0.5772 &0.6228 &0.7100 &0.7069 &0.7841 &0.8064 &0.8074 &**0.8084** &14.6% &3.1%\ &*Cold Start* &0.3159 &0.5124 &0.5512 &0.5498 &0.6898 &0.7314 &0.7373 &**0.7459** &35.7% &8.1%\ \[table:auc\] ### All Items & Cold Start We evaluate all methods in two settings: ‘All Items’ and ‘Cold Start’. ‘All Items’ measures the overall ranking accuracy, including both warm start and cold start scenarios. However, it is desirable for a system to be able to recommend/rank ‘cold start’ items effectively, especially in the domains we consider (i.e., fashion) where new items are constantly added to the system and the data is incredibly long-tailed. Therefore, we also evaluate our model in ‘Cold Start’ settings. To this end, our ‘All Items’ setting evaluates the average AUC on the full test set $\mathcal{T}$, while ‘Cold Start’ is evaluated by only keeping the cold start items in $\mathcal{T}$, i.e., items that had fewer than five positive feedback instances in the training set $\mathcal{P}$. It turns out that such cold start items account for around 60% of the test set. This means that to achieve acceptable performance on sparse real-world datasets, one must be able to deal with their inherent cold start nature. ### Results & Analysis Table \[table:auc\] compares the performance of different models with the total number of dimensions set to 20. Due to the sparsity of our datasets, no MF-based model observed significant performance improvements when increasing the number of dimensions beyond this point. We make a few comparisons to better explain and understand our findings as follows: 1. Being a state-of-the-art method for personalized ranking from implicit feedback, BPR-MF beats the point-wise method WR-MF and the popularity-based baseline POP. POP is especially ineffective in cold start settings since cold items are inherently ‘unpopular’. 2. Further improvement over BPR-MF can be obtained by using taxonomy (i.e., category) information and by modeling temporal dynamics, as we see from the improvement of BPR-TMF over BPR-MF, i.e., on average 1.5% for all items and 4.3% for cold start. 3. More significant improvements over BPR-MF are obtained by making use of additional visual signals, as is done by VBPR. This leads to as high as an 11.6% improvement on *Women’s Clothing* and 10.4% on *Men’ Clothing*. These visual signals are especially helpful in cold start settings where BPR-MF does not have enough observations to learn reliable item factors. In ‘Cold Start’ settings, VBPR beats BPR-MF by as much as 29.0% on *Women’s Clothing* and 25.1% on *Men’s Clothing*. 4. Although VBPR can benefit from modeling visual signals, it is limited by its inability to capture dynamics in the system. However in data such as ours (where feedback spans more than a decade) it is necessary to make use of a finer-grained model to capture evolving opinion dynamics. Here TVBPR captures three types of ‘fashion dynamics’ (see Section \[sec:model\]) and yields significant improvements over VBPR. 5. TVBPR+ incorporates non-visual dynamics into TVBPR to further account for the variety of temporal factors at play. TVBPR+ outperforms VBPR by 4.8% on *Women’s Clothing* and 3.1% on *Men’s Clothing* for the all items setting, and even more for the cold start setting (9.6% and 8.1% respectively). Additionally, all temporal models observed comparably larger improvements on *Women’s Clothing* than *Men’s Clothing*; presumably this is due to the size of the dataset (see Table \[table:dataset\]) or richer temporal dynamics exhibited by women’s clothing. ### Reproducibility In all cases, regularization hyperparameters are tuned to perform the best on the validation set $\mathcal{V}$. The best regularization hyperparameter was $\lambda_{\Theta} = 100$ for WR-MF, and $\lambda_{\Theta} = 1$ for other MF-based methods. For visually-aware methods, the embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}$ and visual bias vector $\beta$ are not regularized as they introduce only a constant (and small) number of parameters to the model. In TVBPR and TVBPR+, $\mathbf{\Delta_E}(t)$, $w(t)$ and $b(t)$ are regularized with regularization parameter 0.0001. Complete code for all our experiments and baselines is available at <https://sites.google.com/a/eng.ucsd.edu/ruining-he/>. Visualization ------------- ### Visual Dimensions Our first visualization consists of demonstrating the visual dimensions uncovered by our method, i.e., what kind of characteristics people consider when evaluating items, as well as the evolution of their weights throughout the years. A simple visualization of the learned visual dimensions is to find which items exhibit maximal values for each dimension. That is, we select items according to $$\arg\max_i \mathbf{E}_k f_i,$$ for each row of the embedding matrix $\mathbf{E}$ in [Eq. \[eq:thetait\]]{}, corresponding to a visual dimension $k$. This tells us which items most exhibit, or are ‘most representative’ of a particular visual aspect discovered by the model. ![Demonstration of ten visual dimensions discovered by our model on *Amazon Women’s Clothing*. Here we focus on a single subcategory, ‘tees,’ for a clear comparison. Each row shows the top ranked tees for a particular dimension $k$ (i.e., $\arg\max_i \mathbf{E}_k f_i$), as well as the evolution of the weight (i.e., $w_k(t)$ in [Eq. \[eq:thetait\]]{}) for this dimension across epochs (x-axis). Note that for many styles the weight evolves non-linearly.[]{data-label="fig:dim"}](womenDimNarrow.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:dim\] shows such items for our model. Two things are notable here. Firstly, the visual dimensions uncovered by our method seem to be meaningful, and capture combinations of color, shape and textural features (e.g. tees in the third row vary in shape but are similar in pattern). Secondly, human notions seem to be revealed by our method, e.g. semi-formal versus casual in rows 1 and 2, graphic designs versus patterns in rows 3 and 5 etc. It is this ability to discover visual characteristics that are correlated with human decision factors that explains the success of our model. Note that at first glance these dimensions may seem to pick up more than just fashion trends (like model poses or photo setups). Considering the size of the dataset we are experimenting on, this may be simply due to the amount of visually similar items available in the corpus. Examining longer ranked-lists for those dimensions helped assure us that they indeed focus on capturing characteristics of the clothes in the pictures. In addition to the visual dimensions, our formulation of item visual factors (i.e., $\theta_i(t)$ in [Eq. \[eq:thetait\]]{}) also models how the weight of each visual dimension has evolved during these years, with a weighting vector $w(t)$. We also show such evolution in Figure \[fig:dim\]. Due to the sparsity of the data in earlier years, we demonstrate the learned weights of the nine epochs from Aug. 2004 to Jul. 2014. As we can see from this figure, each visual dimension evolves roughly continuously as time progresses, although there do occasionally exist comparatively abrupt changes. ### Shifts in Fashion Next we visualize the distribution of fashionable versus non-fashionable appearances as well as the subtle shifts as time progresses. This enables us to see not only how people weigh each specific dimension/aspect over time (as we did in Figure \[fig:dim\]), but rather to comprehensively evaluates fashion as a whole by combining the dynamics from all dimensions. To achieve this goal, we need a metric to qualitatively measure the overall visual popularity of a product image, which we term its ‘visual score’. The visual score of item $i$ in epoch $ep$, $\mathit{VisualScore}(i,ep)$ is calculated by averaging the *visual component* of the predictor (i.e., [Eq. \[eq:final\]]{}) for all users, which naturally gives us the overall visual popularity of an item during epoch $ep$: $$\label{eq:vscore} \mathit{VisualScore}(i,ep) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{U}|} \sum_{u \in \mathcal{U}} \langle \theta_u, \theta_i(ep) \rangle + \langle \beta(ep), f_i \rangle. $$ Then we can visualize how fashion has shifted using a normalized visual score as the metric, i.e., by subtracting the average visual score of all items in each epoch. By modeling the visual dimensions that best explain users’ opinions, our method uncovers a low-dimensional ‘visual space’ where items that users evaluate similarly (i.e., with similar visual styles) are embedded to nearby positions. By definition, nearby items in the space will have similar visual scores. Then our visualization consists of demonstrating the visual space, as well as the time-dependent visual scores (i.e., popularity) attached to each of those items in the space. {width="\textwidth"} After training our TVBPR+ model with 10 epochs on *Women’s Clothing*, we take the base portion of the embedding, i.e., $\mathbf{E}f_i$ in [Eq. \[eq:thetait\]]{}, to map all items into a visual space. The purpose is to help visualize items that have similar visual evaluation characteristics (or styles). Next, we use t-SNE [@tsne] to embed a random sample of 30,000 items from the test set $\mathcal{T}$ into a 2d space. Figure \[fig:embed\] shows the embedding we obtain. As expected, items from the same category tend to be mapped to nearby locations, since they share common features in terms of appearance. What is interesting and useful about the embedding is it can learn (a) a smooth transition across categories, and (b) ‘sub-genres’ in terms of appearance similarity. This is important since the available taxonomy is limited in its ability to differentiate between items *within* categories and in its ability to discover connections (especially visual ones) among items *across* categories. To demonstrate how fashion has shifted over the life-span of the dataset, for each item $i$ in the embedding we calculate its normalized visual score during every discovered epoch $ep$, which can then be used to build a ‘heat map’ demonstrating which items/styles were considered popular during each epoch. These heat maps are also presented in Figure \[fig:embed\], from which we can observe the gradual evolution of users’ tastes. We highlight a particular example where a certain style of shoe gradually gained popularity, which then diminished in recent years (see the circled area in Figure \[fig:embed\]). Case Study: Men’s Fashion in the 2000s -------------------------------------- To help demonstrate that our method has captured interpretable visual dynamics, we take a review of fashion trends in the 2000s as ground-truth and conduct a case study on men’s clothing. The model used for this case study is TVBPR+ trained on *Amazon Men’s Clothing*. 1950s and 1980s fashions resurfaced for men in the late 2000s.[^2] Representative items include Ed Hardy T-shirts with low necklines, Hawaiian shirts, ski jackets, straight leg jeans, black leather jackets, windbreakers, and so forth. A simple evaluation then consists of visualizing the *visual popularity* of such items to see if there is any discernible resurgence around the late 2000s, as history tells us there ought to be. To this end, we randomly selected four query items (from outside of the dataset we trained on, i.e., not from *Amazon*) representing each of Ed Hardy T-shirts, Hawaiian shirts, black leather jackets, and ski jackets respectively. In Figure \[fig:casestudy\], first we visualize our visual space by retrieving nearest-neighbors for each of the query items (in the middle of the figure), and then compute the normalized visual score of each query image in each fashion epoch. From Figure \[fig:casestudy\] we can see that, as expected, these styles are indeed predicted by our model to be gaining popularity especially since 2009, no matter how they performed prior to this period. This to some degree confirms that our proposed method can capture real-world fashion dynamics successfully. Related Work {#sec:relwork} ============ [[[**One-Class Collaborative Filtering.**]{}]{}]{} Collaborative Filtering (CF), especially Matrix Factorization approaches, have seen wide success at accurately modeling users’ preferences, perhaps most notably for the Netflix Prize [@Netflixprize; @BellKorSolution; @korenSurvey]. The concept of One-Class Collaborative Filtering (OCCF) was introduced by Pan *et al.* [@OCCF] to allow Collaborative Filtering methods to effectively cope with scenarios where only positive feedback (e.g. purchases rather than ratings) is observed. In the same work, they proposed to sample unknown feedback as negative instances and perform matrix factorization. This was further refined by Hu *et al.* in [@WRMF], where they assign varying confidence levels to different feedback and factorize the resulting weighted matrix. These two models can be classified as ‘point-wise’ methods. Following this thread, there are also subsequent works that build probabilistic models (e.g. [@paquet2013OCCF; @stern2009matchbox]) to address the same task. Pairwise methods were later introduced by Rendle *et al.* in [@BPR], where they proposed the framework of Bayesian Personalized Ranking (BPR) and empirically demonstrate that Matrix Factorization outperforms competitive baselines when trained with BPR (i.e., BPR-MF in our experiments). To our knowledge, this is the state-of-the-art framework for the OCCF setting. Recently there have been efforts to extend BPR to incorporate users’ social relations, e.g. [@MRBPR; @GBPR; @ZhaoCIKMSocial]. Our model is an extension of BPR-MF to make it fashion-aware while maintaining its accuracy and scalability. ![On the left we show query images each representing a resurgent style in men’s fashion in the late 2000s. According to TVBPR+ trained on *Amazon Men’s Clothing*, nearest neighbors of these images in our style space are shown in the middle and normalized visual scores (i.e., visual popularity) in the past decade on the right. We can see that our model captures such a resurgence especially since 2009.[]{data-label="fig:casestudy"}](casestudy.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} [[[**Modeling Temporal Dynamics.**]{}]{}]{} There has been some work in the machine learning community that investigates the notion of *concept drift* in temporally evolving data. Such learning algorithms include decision trees [@wang2003mining], SVMs [@klinkenberg2004learning], instance-based learning [@aha1991instance], etc.; see the work of Tsymbal [@conceptDriftSurvey] for a comprehensive survey. According to [@conceptDriftSurvey], these methods can be summarized into three basic approaches: instance selection, instance weighting, and ensemble learning. In some sense, our method fits into the instance selection camp, i.e., we use a time-window (or epoch) mechanism to highlight/favor appearance that are widely accepted by the community in each window. There also have been CF models that take temporal dynamics into consideration. For example, to improve similarity-based CF, Ding *et al.* [@timeweightCF] propose a time weighting scheme to assign decaying weights to previously-rated items according to the time difference. Apart from being accurate and scalable, Matrix Factorization techniques are also able to smoothly incorporate temporal dynamics. For instance, Koren [@timeSVD] investigated methods to model the underlying temporal dynamics in Netflix data with encouraging results. Despite the success of these methods, existing work in this line of research typically neglects visual data and thus can’t address the unique challenges that come with modeling visual temporal dynamics as we do here. [[[**Visual Models.**]{}]{}]{} Extensive previous research have emphasized the importance of images in e-commerce scenarios (e.g. [@di2014picture; @gilkeson2003determinants; @goswami2011study]). In recent years, there is a growing interest in investigating the visual compatibility between different items. For example, [@VisualSIGIR] learns a distance metric to classify whether two given items are compatible or not. [@SiameseICCV] fine-tunes a Siamese Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) to learn a feature transformation from the image space to a latent space of metric distances. There are also related works that focus more on parsing or retrieving clothing images. For instance, the work of [@simo2014neuroaesthetics] can tell a user how to become more fashionable after taking a look at a photograph with the user in it. Another method [@ClothingSegmentation] uses segmentation to detect clothing classes in the query image before it retrieves visually similar products from each of the detected classes. However, these works don’t use the historical feedback of users to learn their personalized preferences, which is at the core of making sensible personal recommendations. Additionally, it is also necessary for a recommender system to take into account other non-visual factors, which goes beyond the scope of the above methods. [[[**Visually-aware Collaborative Filtering.**]{}]{}]{} It is beneficial to combine the above two streams of research to build recommender systems that are able to understand the visual aspects of the user-item interactions. This is partly addressed in [@VBPR], which maps users and items into a visual space with the inner products depicting the visual compatibility. However, this model ignores the underlying temporal dynamics of fashion and is therefore unable to answer the type of questions we identified earlier. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== Modeling visual appearance and its evolution is key to gaining a deeper understanding of users’ preferences, especially in domains like fashion. In this paper, we built scalable models on top of product images and user feedback to capture the temporal drifts of fashion and personal tastes. We found that deep CNN features are useful for modeling visual dimensions as well as the associated temporal dynamics. Low-rank structures learned on top of such features are efficient at capturing fashion dynamics and help our method significantly outperform state-of-the-art approaches. Visualization using our trained models helped demonstrate the non-linear characteristics of the evolution of different visual dimensions, as well as how fashion has shifted over the past decade. Scalability Analysis {#appd:scale} ==================== Building on top of BPR-MF, our method achieves the goal of scaling up to large real-world datasets. Here we analyze and compare our time complexity with those of BPR-MF and VBPR, the two most related models. [[[**Fitting the model parameters.**]{}]{}]{} For this step, our method adopts the sampling scheme of BPR-MF implemented in MyMediaLite [@MyMediaLite], i.e., during each iteration we sample $|\mathcal{P}|$ training tuples to update the model parameters $\Theta$, which we repeat for 100 iterations. For each training triple $(u,i,j)$, BPR-MF requires $\mathcal{O}(K)$ to update the parameters, while VBPR and TVBPR+ need to update the visual parameters as well. VBPR takes $\mathcal{O}(K + K')$ in total to finish updating the parameters for each sampled training triple. Compared to VBPR, although there are more visual parameters to describe multiple fashion epochs, TVBPR+ only needs to update the parameters associated with the epoch the timestamp $t_{ui}$ falls into. This means that TVBPR+ exhibits the same time complexity as VBPR. Additionally, visual feature vectors ($f_i$) from Deep CNNs turn out to be very sparse, which can significantly reduce the above worst-case running time. [[[**Fitting the epoch segmentation.**]{}]{}]{} In addition to the model parameters, TVBPR+ has to fit a fashion epoch segmentation term. Compared to the parameter fitting step, training the segmentation (i.e., the ‘outer loop’) is performed at comparatively much lower frequency and consumes much less time. Generally speaking, TVBPR+ takes more iterations to converge than VBPR due to learning the temporal dynamics. Training on our *Women’s Clothing* dataset takes around 20 hours (in which epoch fitting accounting for around 45 minutes in total) on our commodity desktop machine as described earlier. [^1]: Note that when computing personalized rankings for a single user $u$, $\alpha$ and $\beta_u$ in [Eq. \[eq:final\]]{} can be ignored. [^2]: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_in_fashion>, retrieved on Oct. 1, 2015.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'On each FRW metric, there exist a redshift for massive particles, analogous to that of photons, but depending on the mass. This is a simple consequence of the fundamental laws of Classical Mechanics.' address: 'Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Salamanca, Plaza de la Merced 1-4, E-37008 Salamanca, Spain.' author: - 'J. Muñoz-D[í]{}az and R. J. Alonso-Blanco' title: Redshift for massive particles --- Let us consider a manifold $M=\R\times\overline M$ endowed with a metric $$T_2=dz^2-a(z)\,\overline T_2$$ where $z$ is the “cosmological time” and $\overline T_2$ is a Riemannian “spatial metric” on $\overline M$. The Liouville form on $TM$ associated with $T_2$ is $$\theta=\dot z\,dz-a(z)\,\overline\theta$$ where $\overline\theta$ is the Liouville form on $\overline M$ associated with $\overline T_2$. The function on $TM$ associated with the horizontal 1-form $\theta$ (see [@MecanicaMunoz]) is $$\dot\theta=\dot z^2-a(z)\,\dot{\overline\theta}$$ which is 2 times the “kinetic energy” $T$. Let $D$ be the geodesic field on $TM$ associated with the metric $T_2$. The mechanical system $(M,D)$ is conservative with Lagrangian $$L=T=\frac 12\,\dot\theta.$$ In general, each tangent vector field $u$ on a manifold $M$ determines a function on $T^*M$, defined by $$p_u:=\langle\theta,u\rangle$$ (inner contraction), where $\theta$ is the Liouville form moved to $T^*M$ (by means of the metric). The function $p_u$ is the *momentum associated with $u$*. When $M$ is the configuration space of a conservative mechanical system $(M,T_2,dU)$, with Lagrangian $L=T-U$, the evolution of the momentum function $p_u$ is given by the Hamilton-Noether Equation (see [@MecanicaMunoz], p.80, [@RM]): $$Dp_u=\delta_uL,$$ where $\delta_u$ is the infinitesimal variation defined by $u$ (see [@MecanicaMunoz]). In our case, we take $u=\textrm{grad}\, z=\partial/\partial z$ (so that $\delta_u$ is also $\partial/\partial z$) and denote the momentum associated by $p_0$: $$p_0=\langle\theta,\partial/\partial z\rangle=\dot z.$$ The Hamilton-Noether Equation along each geodesic is $$\frac{dp_0}{dt}(=Dp_0)=\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\left(\frac 12\,\dot\theta\right)=-\frac 12 a'(z)\,\dot{\overline\theta}.$$ Here, $t$ is the parameter of the geodesic, which in our case equals the proper time (see [@RelatividadMunoz]). Multiplying by $$dt/dz=\dot z^{-1}=p_0^{-1}$$ we obtain from the above, $$\frac{dp_0}{dz}=-\frac 12 a'(z)\,\frac{\dot{\overline\theta}}{p_0}.$$ For light trajectories is $\dot\theta=0$, so that, $\dot{\overline\theta}=\dot z^2/a(z)=p_0^2/a(z)$, and we get $$\frac{dp_0}{dz}=-\frac 12 \frac{a'(z)}{a(z)}\,{p_0},$$ or, $$\frac{dp_0}{p_0}+\frac 12\frac{da}a=0,$$ which gives $$p_0=\textrm{const.}\,a(z)^{-1/2}.$$ Because the “radius of the Universe” $R$ is $\varpropto a(z)^{1/2}$ we have $$p_0\varpropto R(z)^{-1},$$ which is the classical law for the redshift of the light. Let us consider now a geodesic into the mass-shell $\dot\theta=\mu$, $\mu>0$. The Hamilton-Noether Equation (or, alternatively, the Geodesics Equations) gives, along each geodesic $$\frac{dp_0}{dz}=-\frac 12 a'(z)\,\frac{\dot{\overline\theta}}{p_0}=-\frac 12 a'(z)\,\frac{1}{p_0}\left(\frac{p_0^2-\mu}{a(z)}\right).$$ The general solution of the above differential equation is $$(p_0^2-\mu)\,a(z)=\textrm{const.}$$ By substituting $\mu$ by its value on a given geodesic, $\mu=\dot\theta=p_0^2-a(z)\dot{\overline\theta}$, we get $\dot{\overline\theta}\,a(z)^2=\textrm{const.}$, or, $$\label{redshift} \dot{\overline\theta}=\textrm{const.}\,a(z)^{-2}.$$ That is the law of redshift for the “kinetic energy” on the spatial manifold $\overline M$ of a particle moving along a geodesic on $M$. For a light trajectory is $$p_0^2=a(z)\,\dot{\overline\theta},$$ and the general rule (\[redshift\]) gives again $$p_0\varpropto a(z)^{-1/2}.$$ [10]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">R. J. Alonso-Blanco and J. Muñoz Díaz</span>, Una nota sobre los fundamentos de la mecánica (spanish), In El legado matemático de Juan Bautista Sancho Guimerá (edited by A. Campillo and D. Hernández-Ruipérez), 111-138. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca and Real Sociedad Matemática Española, 2015. (see also arXiv:1404.1321 \[math-ph\]) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Muñoz Díaz</span>, The structure of time and inertial forces in Lagrangian mechanics, *Contemporary Mathematics*, vol. 549, 2011, pp. 65-94. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Muñoz Díaz</span>, Relativistic forces in Lagrangian mechanics, preprint arXiv:1206.1372.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this paper we consider the NLS equation with focusing nonlinearities in the presence of a potential. We investigate the compact soliton motions that correspond to a free soliton escaping the well created by the potential. We exhibit the dynamical system driving the exiting trajectory and construct associated nonlinear dynamics for untrapped motions. We show that the nature of the potential/soliton is fundamental, and two regimes may exist: one where the tail of the potential is fat and dictates the motion, one where the tail is weak and the soliton self interacts with the potential defects, hence leading to different motions.' author: - | Ivan Naumkin[^1]\ Laboratoire J.A. Dieudonné, Université de la Côte d’Azur, France\ and\ Pierre Raphaël[^2]\ Laboratoire J.A. Dieudonné, Université de la Côte d’Azur, France. title: On travelling waves of the non linear Schrödinger equation escaping a potential well --- Introduction ============ Setting of the problem ---------------------- We consider in this paper the focusing nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the presence of a potential $$i\partial_{t}u+\Delta u+\mathcal{V}\left( x\right) u+\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-1}u=0,\text{ \ }t\in\mathbb{R}\text{, }x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}, \label{NLS}$$ in the $L^{2}$ sub-critical range $p<1+\frac{4}{d}$. This equation appears in a variety of physical models like the Ginzburg-Landau theory of superconductivity [@deGennes], the one-dimensional self-modulation of a monochromatic wave [@Taniuti], stationary two-dimensional self-focusing of a plane wave [@Bespalov], propagation of a heat pulse in a solid Langmuir waves in plasmas [@Shimizu] and the self-trapping phenomena of nonlinear optics [@Karpman], see [@Berge; @Scott; @Eboli; @Combes; @Benney; @Sulem] for more complete references.\ The complete qualitative description of solutions to is far from being complete. In the case of trivial external potential $\mathcal{V}=0$, various classes of solutions are known. First low energy scattering solutions which asymptotically in time $t\pm \infty$ behave as linear or modified linear waves are investigated in [@Strauss2; @Strauss; @Barab; @GinibreV1; @GinibreV2; @CazenaveW1; @Ozawa1; @HayashiNau1; @GinibreOV; @NakanishiO; @CN; @CN1]. The ground state nonlinear soliton is a time periodic solution $$u(t,x)=Q(x)e^{it}$$ where $Q$ is the ground state solution to $$\Delta Q-Q+Q^{p}=0. \label{eqsoliton}$$ Multisoliton like solutions which asymptotically behave like decoupled non trivial trains of solitons were first explicitly computed in the completely integrable case $d=1$, $p=3$, and then systematically constructed as [*compact*]{} solutions of the flow in [@Merle; @Martel1; @MartelMerle]. As discovered in [@Krieger] for Hartree type nonlinearities and systematically computed in [@MaRa; @Nguyen], the interaction between two solitary waves can be computed through a two body problem dynamical system which describes their exchange of energy: untrapped hyperbolic like motion leading to asymptotically free non interacting bubbles, untrapped parabolic like regimes which is a threshold dynamic were solitary remain logarithmically close, and a priori trapped elliptic like motion. Note that the resonant parabolic motion can lead to spectacular exchanges of energy which may dramatically modify the size of the solitary waves and lead to finite or infinite time blow up mechanisms [@MaRa].\ A fundamental open problem is to understand the possibility of [*trapped*]{} multitudes. While these are formally predicted by the two body problem, they are sometimes believed to exist, sometimes not, the instability mechanism being a subtle radiation phenomenon. We refer for example to [@Si] for a beautiful introduction to these problems for the Gross Pitaevski model with non vanishing density at $+\infty$. Potential/soliton interaction ----------------------------- We propose in this paper to start the investigation of such mechanisms for with non trivial potential $\mathcal V$. Let us first recall that in $L^{2}$ sub-critical case, (\[NLS\]) is globally well-posed in $H^{1}$ for a wide class of potentials $\mathcal{V}$ (see, for example, Corollary 6.1.2 of [@Cazenave]), but little is known on the long-time behaviour of solutions. The existence of standing wave solutions to (\[NLS\]) was investigated in [@Floer]. The existence of low energy scattering for (\[NLS\]) in dimension $d=1$ was studied in [@Weder2000; @Cuccagna; @Ivan; @Ivan1]. The dynamics of solitons for NLS equation with certain external potentials were studied in [@Gang]. In particular, it was shown that the dynamical law of motion of the soliton is close to Newton’s equation with some dissipation due to radiation of the energy. Long-time behaviour of solution for the perturbed NLS equation was also studied in [@Soffer1; @Soffer2; @Soffer3; @Soffer4; @Tai; @Tai1; @Tai2]. In [@Frolich] it was shown the existence of solutions for (\[NLS\]) that behaves as solitary waves for the free NLS equation for large but finite times.\ Our aim in this paper is to start the investigation of [*compact*]{} soliton motions corresponding to a free soliton ($V=0)$ escaping the well created by $V$. Our first task is to exhibit the dynamical system driving the exiting trajectory and construct associated nonlinear dynamics for untrapped motions. Interestingly enough, we shall see that the nature of the potential/soliton is fundamental, and two regimes may exist: one where the tail of the potential is fat and dictates the motion, one where the tail is weak and the soliton self interacts with the potential defects, hence leading to different motions. Assumptions on the potential ---------------------------- The sharp structure of the potential is essential for the qualitative description of solutions. We exhibit below a large class of potentials for which we can construct compact non trapped solutions. \[ConidtionPotential\]We assume the following on $\mathcal V$:\ [*1. Regularity and decay*]{}: $\mathcal{V}\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ is a real-valued, symmetric function that satisfies the decay estimate $$\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\left( k\right) }\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right) \right\vert \leq C\left( 1+\left\vert x\right\vert \right) ^{-\rho },\text{ }x\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\text{\ }\rho>0,$$ for all derivatives of $\mathcal{V}^{\left( k\right) },$ $k\geq0.$\ [*2. Structure and monotonicity of the tail*]{}: there is $r_{0}\geq0$ such that the following is true for all $r\geq r_{0}.$ The potential and its derivatives $\mathcal{V}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) ,$ $k\geq0,$ are monotone. For any $\lambda>0,$ $\mathcal{V}$ has one of the forms $$\mathcal{V}\left( r\right) =\mathcal{V}_{+}\left( r\right) \text{ or }\mathcal{V}\left( r\right) =\mathcal{V}_{-}\left( r\right) ,$$ where $$\mathcal{V}_{\pm}\left( r\right) =\kappa e^{-2\frac{r}{\lambda}-\left( d-1\right) \ln\frac{r}{\lambda}\pm\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) },$$ and $\mathbf{H}\geq0$ is such that $\mathbf{H},\mathbf{H}^{\prime}$ are monotone and $\mathbf{H}^{\prime\prime}\left( r\right) $ is bounded. Moreover, the estimate $$\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}e^{-2\frac{r}{\lambda}-\left( d-1\right) \ln\frac{r}{\lambda}},\text{ }k\geq0,$$ with $C_{k}>0$ is satisfied. In addition, in the case $\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{V}_{+},$ $\mathbf{H}$ is either $\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) $ or $0<cr\leq\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) \leq2r+o\left( r\right) .$ Furthermore, in the case when $\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) =2\frac{r}{\lambda}+\left( d-1\right) \ln r+o\left( r\right) ,$ suppose that the potential $\mathcal{V=}$ $e^{-\mathbf{h}\left( r\right) }$ with $\mathbf{h}\left( r\right) \geq0$ satisfies $\left\vert \mathcal{V}\left( r\right) \right\vert ^{N_{0}}\leq C\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime\prime }\left( r\right) \right\vert $ for some $N_{0}>0.$ The function $\mathbf{h}$ is such that $\mathbf{h}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,$ $\mathbf{h}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) $ are monotone for all $k\geq0$ and $$\left\vert \mathbf{h}^{\left( k\right) }\left( \frac{r}{2}\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert \mathbf{h}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert ,\text{ }k\geq0,$$ and$$\left\vert \mathbf{h}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{C}{r}\left\vert \mathbf{h}^{\left( k-1\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert ,\text{ }k\geq1,$$ are valid. In order to introduce the leading order dynamical system describing the motion of the center of the solitary wave escaping the well, we need to compare the tail of $\mathcal V$ with the one of the solitary wave. Recall that there is a unique positive, radial symmetric solution $Q\left( x\right) $ to $$-\Delta Q-Q+Q^{p}=0.$$ (see Chapter 8 of [@Cazenave]). Moreover, $Q\left( x\right) =q\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right) $ where $q$ satisfies for some $\mathcal{A}>0$ and all $\left\vert x\right\vert \geq1$ $$\left\vert q\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right) -\mathcal{A}\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left\vert x\right\vert }\right\vert +\left\vert q^{\prime}\left( \left\vert x\right\vert \right) +\mathcal{A}\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left\vert x\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-1-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left\vert x\right\vert } \label{ap2}$$ and, moreover$$\left\vert \nabla^{k}Q\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( 1+\left\vert x\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left\vert x\right\vert },\text{ }k\geq0. \label{ap29}$$ \[Def1\]Let $\lambda>0.$ Let $$\upsilon\left( d\right) ={\textstyle\int_{0}^{\infty}} e^{-2\eta^{2}}\eta^{d-2}d\eta$$ and $\mathbf{C}_{\pm}\left( \xi\right) =\xi^{\frac{d-1}{2}}{\textstyle\int_{1}^{\xi-1}} \left( r\left( \xi-r\right) \right) ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{\pm\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) }dr.$ We define the function $\mathbf{U}_{\lambda ,\mathcal{V}}\left( \xi\right) ,$ $\xi\geq0$ as follows. If $\mathcal{V}\left( r\right) =\mathcal{V}_{+}\left( r\right) $ we put$$\mathbf{U}_{\lambda,\mathcal{V}}\left( \xi\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dfrac{\kappa}{2}\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) \mathbf{C}_{+}\left( \xi\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,\\ \mathcal{KV}\left( \lambda\xi\right) ,\text{ if }0<c\lambda^{-1}r\leq\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) \leq2\lambda^{-1}r, \end{array} \right.$$ where $\mathcal{K=}{\displaystyle\int} e^{\left( 2-a\right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz,$ $a=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{H}^{\prime }\left( r\right) .$ If $\mathcal{V}\left( r\right) =\mathcal{V}_{-}\left( r\right) ,$ we set$$\mathbf{U}_{\lambda,\mathcal{V}}\left( \xi\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dfrac{1}{2}\left( {\displaystyle\int} \left( \mathcal{A}^{2}\mathcal{V}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) +\kappa\mathcal{\tilde{K}}Q^{2}\left( z\right) \right) e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }d\geq4,\\ \dfrac{1}{2}\left( {\displaystyle\int} V\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }d=2,3,\text{ }r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) }\in L^{1}\left( [1,\infty)\right) ,\\ \dfrac{\kappa}{2}\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) \mathbf{C}_{-}\left( \xi\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }d=2,3,\text{ }r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) }\notin L^{1}\left( [1,\infty)\right) , \end{array} \right.$$ with $\mathcal{\tilde{K}}=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}e^{-\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) }.$ \[C1\]Let $\lambda>0.$ Suppose that there are constants $R_{1}\left( \lambda\right) ,R_{2}\left( \lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\mathbf{U}_{\lambda,\mathcal{V}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left( r\right) \mathcal{Y}^{2}\left( r,\lambda\right) =R_{1}\left( \lambda\right) +o\left( 1\right) \text{ and }\frac{\mathbf{U}_{\lambda,\mathcal{V}}^{\prime}\left( r\right) }{r}\mathcal{Y}^{2}\left( r,\lambda\right) =R_{2}\left( \lambda\right) +o\left( 1\right) , \label{condpotin}$$ as $r\rightarrow\infty,$ where we denote $\mathcal{Y}\left( r,\lambda\right) =\int_{r_{0}}^{r}\mathbf{U}_{\lambda,\mathcal{V}}^{-1/2}\left( \frac{\tau }{\lambda}\right) d\tau.$ The main assumption on the potential is the first item in Condition \[ConidtionPotential\]. The rest of the assumptions are made in order to determine the asymptotics in Section \[AppendixA\], and to obtain the approximate dynamics in Section  \[Sec1\] (see Lemma \[approxsyst\]) and the a priori estimates of Section \[Secproof\]. In order to simplify the reading, one can follow the proofs by taking in account the examples $V\left( r\right) =Ce^{-c\sqrt{1+r^{2}}}$ or $V\left( r\right) =C\left( 1+r^{2}\right) ^{-\rho/2},$ $\rho>0,$ with $C,c>0,$ for all $r>0,$ which clearly satisfy the above assumptions. Statement of the result ----------------------- For $\lambda^{\infty}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ let us consider the problem of the motion in the central field $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}^{\infty}=2\beta^{\infty},\\ \dot{\beta}^{\infty}=\dfrac{1}{2\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}\nabla\left( \mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty},\mathcal{V}}\left( \frac {\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) . \end{array} \right. \label{s1}$$ We observe that the force in (\[s1\]) is given in terms of $\mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty},\mathcal{V}}$ and not of the potential $\mathcal{V}$ directly. This is due to the fact that for potentials decaying faster than $Q^{2},$ the soliton dictates the behaviour of the speed parameter $\beta^{\infty}$ (see (\[ap17\]) and Lemma \[L2 1\]). In the case when the potential decays slower than $Q^{2},$ that is $0<c\left( \lambda^{\infty }\right) ^{-1}r\leq\mathbf{H}\left( r\right) \leq2\left( \lambda^{\infty }\right) ^{-1}r,$ we have $\mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty},\mathcal{V}}^{\prime }\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) =\mathcal{KV}^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert \right) $ and system (\[s1\]) is reduced to$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}^{\infty}=2\beta^{\infty},\\ \dot{\beta}^{\infty}=\dfrac{\mathcal{K}}{2\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}\nabla\mathcal{V}\left( \left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert \right) . \end{array} \right.$$ Therefore, in this case the force is given in terms of $\mathcal{V}$ itself. The energy of the system (\[s1\]) is given by $$E_{0}=\frac{\left\vert \dot{\chi}^{\infty}\right\vert ^{2}}{2}-\frac {\mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty},\mathcal{V}}\left( \frac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }{\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}$$ where $r^{\infty}=\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert .$ The asymptotic behaviour for large $t$ of the unbounded solutions $\chi^{\infty}$ to (\[s1\]) depends on the regime:\ : hyperbolic motion with untrapped trajectory $$r^{\infty}=K_{\operatorname*{hyp}}t+o\left( t\right) \text{ and }\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert =K_{\operatorname*{hyp}}^{\prime}+o\left( 1\right) .$$ for some $K_{\operatorname*{hyp}},K_{\operatorname*{hyp}}^{\prime}>0.$\ : parabolic motion with untrapped trajectory $$\frac{\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}}{\sqrt{2}}\int_{r_{0}}^{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }\tfrac{dr}{\sqrt{\mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty },\mathcal{V}}\left( \frac{r}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) -\left( \frac{\mu }{r}\right) ^{2}}}=t+t_{0},\text{ }\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert =\tfrac{\sqrt{\mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty},\mathcal{V}}\left( \frac {r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) -\left( \frac{\mu}{r}\right) ^{2}}}{\sqrt{2}\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}},$$ where $\mu\geq0$ is the angular momentum.\ : all the solutions to (\[s1\]) remain bounded in space, this is the trapped regime.\ Our main result is that both untrapped hyperbolic and parabolic regimes of the two body problem can be reproduced as the leading order dynamics of the soliton centers for [*compact*]{} solutions to the full problem . \[T1\]Let the potential $\mathcal{V}$ satisfy Conditions \[ConidtionPotential\] and \[C1\]. Suppose that $\lambda^{\infty}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ is such that $\left( \lambda^{\infty}\right) ^{2}\sup_{r\in\mathbb{R}}\mathcal{V}\left( r\right) <1.\ $ Let $\Xi^{\infty }\left( t\right) =\left( \chi^{\infty}\left( t\right) ,\beta^{\infty }\left( t\right) \right) $ be a solution to (\[s1\]). \(i) Positive energy. If $E_{0}>0,$ then there is a solution $u\in H^{1}$ for the perturbed NLS equation (\[NLS\]) and $\gamma\left( t\right) \in\mathbb{R}$, such that$$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\left\Vert u\left( t,x\right) -\left( \lambda^{\infty}\right) ^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}Q\left( \frac{x-\chi^{\infty }\left( t\right) }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta^{\infty}\left( t\right) \cdot x}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}=0.$$ \(ii) Zero energy. Suppose in addition that $\mathcal{V}\left( r\right) \geq0,$ for all $r\geq r_{0},$ with some $r_{0}>0.$ If $E_{0}=0,$ then there is a solution $u\in H^{1}$ for the perturbed NLS equation (\[NLS\]) and $\chi\left( t\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d},$ $\gamma\left( t\right) \in\mathbb{R}$, such that $$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\left\Vert u\left( t,x\right) -\left( \lambda^{\infty}\right) ^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}Q\left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta^{\infty}\left( t\right) \cdot x}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}=0$$ and$$\lim_{t\rightarrow+\infty}\left\vert \frac{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\left( t\right) \right\vert }-1\right\vert =0.$$ [*Comments on the result*]{}.\ [*1. Positivity condition on $\mathcal{V}$*]{} In the case $E_0=0$, the positivity condition in $\mathcal V$ is made in order to ensure the existence of unbounded solutions for(\[s1\]). Since by Condition \[ConidtionPotential\] $\mathcal{V}$ is monotone, there are no such solutions if this positivity assumption is not satisfied on $\mathcal{V}$. Let us stress that as in [@Krieger], the parabolic regime is particularly difficult to close due to uncertainties on the trajectory of the centers and degeneracies in the control of the infinite dimensional part of the solution.\ [*2. Soliton/potential regimes*]{}. Let us stress onto the fact that Theorem \[T1\] covers both cases which are very different: one where the potential is “fat” at $\infty$ and where the potential tail drives the untrapped dynamics of the centers, one where the potential tail is “weak” and the soliton dynamics is driven by self interaction with the potential. The existence of such dynamics driven by a suitable leading order like two body problems was first predicted in [@Frolich], but for suitable transient times, while Theorem \[T1\] ensures the existence of such [*global in time*]{} compact flows.\ [*3. Overview of the proof*]{}. We adapt the method developed in [@Krieger]. We modulate the solitary wave by letting act the symmetries of the free NLS equation (see (\[modulation\])). Then, we translate (\[NLS\]) into the stationary equation $$\triangle W-W+\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}W=F, \label{*}$$ where $F=F\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\,\right) $, with $\chi$-the translation parameter, $\beta-$the Galilean drift and $\lambda-$the scaling parameter (see (\[E2\])). By adjusting the modulation parameters $\chi,\beta,\lambda$, we construct approximate solutions to (\[\*\]) in such way that the error is uniformly bounded by a small enough constant. This is achieved in Lemmas \[Lemmaapp\] and \[Lemmaapp1\]. We separate the potentials in “fast” and “slow” decaying: $V\left( r\right) =O\left( e^{-cr}\right) ,$ $c>0,$ or $V\left( r\right) =O\left( e^{-h\left( r\right) }\right) ,$ $h\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) \geq0,$ as $r\rightarrow\infty,$ respectively. The both cases are delicate. On the one hand, this is due to the possible slow decay of the potential. On the other hand, if the potential decays very fast, the solitary waves dominates and it becomes complicated to control the error and to extract the leading order terms in the expansion for the speed parameter $\beta$. The construction of these approximate solutions for (\[\*\]) yields modulation equations for $\chi,\beta,\lambda\,.$ Then, by energy estimates applied in a neighborhood of the solitary wave, we obtain a priori bounds for the modulation parameters $\chi,\beta,\lambda$ and the error $\varepsilon\left( t,x\right) $ (see Lemma \[L6\]). Theorem \[T1\] then follows from a compactness argument in Section \[Sec2\] and the asymptotic behaviour of the approximate modulation parameters (see Lemma \[approxsyst\]).\ There are two main open problems after this work. First to address the question of [*stability*]{} of the corresponding compact dynamics. This has been proved for two bubbles KdV like flows using remarkable dine monotonicity properties [@Martel1], but it is still an open problem for two bubbles in the Schödinger case, and the case of the potential interaction seems a nice intermediate problem to investigate. The second main open problem is to address the case of [*trapped dynamics*]{} where bubbles are predicted to stay close to one another. Here new radiation mechanisms are expected which is a fundamental open problem in the field, see again[@Si] for beautiful related problems.\ The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we construct approximate free solitary wave solutions for the perturbed NLS equation which we use to obtain approximate equations for the modulation parameters. Section 3 is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[T1\]. This proof depends on Lemma \[L6\], which is stated in Section 3, but whose proof is deferred until Section 4. The asymptotics for modulation equation for the speed parameter are obtained in Section 5. In Section 6 we establish an invertibility result for the perturbation $\mathcal{L}_{V}$ of the linearized operator for the equation (\[eqsoliton\]) around $Q.\ $Finally, in Section 7 we prove a lemma that is used in the construction procedure of Section 3. Notations {#notations .unnumbered} --------- We denote by $L^{p}\left( {\mathbb{R}}^{d}\right) $, for $1\leq p\leq\infty$, the usual (complex valued) Lebesgue spaces. $H^{s}({\mathbb{R}}^{d})$, $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, is the usual (complex valued) Sobolev space. (See e.g. [@AdamsF] for the definitions and properties of these spaces.) For any $f,g\in L^{2}$ we define the scalar product by $$\left( f,g\right) :=\operatorname{Re}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d}}f\left( x\right) \overline{g\left( x\right) }dx.$$ We adapt the Japanese brackets notation $$\left\langle x\right\rangle =\left( 1+x^{2}\right) ^{1/2}.$$ Finally, the same letter $C$ may denote different positive constants which particular value is irrelevant. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- Both authors are supported by the ERC-2014-CoG 646650 SingWave. Approximate solutions. ====================== First order approximation. -------------------------- We recall that initial value problem for the free NLS equation$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}i\partial_{t}u+\Delta u+\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-1}u=0,\\ u\left( 0,x\right) =u_{0}\left( x\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{NLSfree}$$ admits the following symmetries. Let $\Xi=\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ be a vector of parameters and $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$. Then, if $u_{0}\left( x\right) \rightarrow\lambda^{\frac{2}{p-1}}u_{0}\left( \lambda\left( x+\chi\right) \right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot\left( x+\chi\right) },$ the solution to (\[NLSfree\]) is transformed as$$u\left( t,x\right) \rightarrow\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}u_{0}\left( \lambda^{-2}t,\lambda^{-1}\left( x+\chi-\beta t\right) \right) e^{-i\gamma }e^{i\tfrac{\beta}{2}\cdot\left( x+\chi-\tfrac{\beta}{2}t\right) } \label{sym}$$ Let $\Xi\left( t\right) $ encode the vector of parameters $\Xi\left( t\right) =\left( \chi\left( t\right) ,\beta\left( t\right) ,\lambda\left( t\right) \right) .$ We translate the solution $u$ by using a combination of the symmetries for the free NLS equation. We let $$u\left( t,x\right) =\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( t\right) v\left( t,\tfrac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x},\text{ \ }v=v\left( t,y\right) ,\text{ }y=\tfrac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }. \label{modulation}$$ It is convenient for us to rescale the potential $\mathcal{V}$. We define$$V\left( x\right) =V_{\lambda}\left( x\right) =\mathcal{V}\left( \lambda x\right) . \label{vcall}$$ Also, we let$$\Lambda=\frac{2}{p-1}+y\cdot\nabla.$$ Then$$i\partial_{t}u+\Delta u+\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-1}u+\mathcal{V}\left( x\right) u=\frac{1}{\lambda^{\frac{2p}{p-1}}}\mathcal{E}\left( v\right) \left( t,\tfrac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}, \label{calc1}$$ where$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}\left( v\right) =i\lambda^{2}\partial_{t}v+\Delta v-v+\left\vert v\right\vert ^{p-1}v-i\lambda\dot{\lambda}\Lambda v-i\lambda\left( \dot{\chi }-2\beta\right) \cdot\nabla v-\lambda^{3}\left( \dot{\beta}\cdot y\right) v\\ +\lambda^{2}\left( \dot{\gamma}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) v+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) v. \end{array} \right.$$ We aim to show that there is a vector $\Xi\left( t\right) $ such that $v=Q+\varepsilon$ with $\varepsilon\left( t,x\right) \in C\left( \left( 0,\infty\right) ;\mathbf{H}^{1}\right) $ solves the equation $$\mathcal{E}\left( v\right) =\mathcal{E}\left( Q+\varepsilon\right) =0, \label{E1}$$ in such way that $$\left\Vert \varepsilon\left( t,x\right) \right\Vert _{\mathbf{H}^{1}}\rightarrow0\text{ and\ }\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert \rightarrow\infty,$$ as $t\rightarrow\infty.$ We also want to precise the asymptotic behaviour of $\chi\left( t\right) .$ As a first step, we aim to construct approximate (in a suitable way) solution to the equation $$\mathcal{E}\left( W\right) =0. \label{appeq}$$ Let us denote the approximate modulation equation for the speed parameter $\dot{\beta}$ by $B.$ We decompose $\mathcal{E}\left( v\right) $ as $$\left. \mathcal{E}\left( v\right) =\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) +\tilde{R}\left( v\right) ,\right. \label{E3}$$ with$$\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) =\Delta v-v+\left\vert v\right\vert ^{p-1}v+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) v-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) v, \label{E4}$$ and$$\left. \tilde{R}\left( v\right) =-i\lambda\left( \dot{\chi}-2\beta\right) \cdot\nabla v-i\lambda\dot{\lambda}\Lambda v+\lambda^{2}\left( \dot{\gamma }+\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot \chi\right) v-\lambda^{3}\left( \left( \dot{\beta}-B\right) \cdot y\right) v.\right. \label{ap20}$$ If we modulate the parameters $\chi,$ $\beta,$ $\gamma$ in such a way that $R$ is small, the main part in (\[E3\]) comes from $\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) .$ As $Q$ solves (\[eqsoliton\]), introducing $v=Q+\varepsilon$ into (\[E4\]) we have$$\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) =\lambda ^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q+r\left( \varepsilon\right) , \label{E5}$$ where $$r\left( \varepsilon\right) =\Delta\varepsilon-\varepsilon+V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \varepsilon-\left( B\cdot y\right) \varepsilon+\left\vert Q+\varepsilon\right\vert ^{p-1}\left( Q+\varepsilon\right) -\left\vert Q\right\vert ^{p-1}Q.$$ The stability problem for one travelling wave solution suggests ([@Weisntein],[@Martel]) to adjust the modulation parameters in such way that $\left( \mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) ,\nabla Q\right) \sim0.$ Taking the scalar product of (\[E5\]) with $\nabla Q$ we get$$\left( \mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) ,\nabla Q\right) =\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) Q-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q,\nabla Q\right) +\left( r\left( \varepsilon\right) ,\nabla Q\right) .$$ Then$$\left\vert \left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) Q-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \left( \mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( v\right) ,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( r\left( \varepsilon\right) ,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert \right) .$$ Therefore, we put$$\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q,\nabla Q\right) =0.$$ Noting that $-\left( \left( B\cdot y\right) Q,\nabla Q\right) =B\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}$ we arrive to$$B=B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) =-\frac{1}{2\lambda\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}\int V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( y\right) dy. \label{ap17}$$ We want $R$ to be small as $t\rightarrow\infty$, approximately (\[ap20\]) and (\[ap17\]) yield the system $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}=2\beta,\\ \dot{\beta}=B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) , \end{array} \right. \label{syst}$$ and $$\dot{\gamma}=-\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}+\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}+\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi. \label{gamma}$$ In order to understand the behaviour as $t\rightarrow\infty$ of the solutions to (\[syst\]), we need to study the asymptotics of the integral $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\mathcal{J}_{V}\left( \chi\right) =\int V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( y\right) dy.$$ This means that we need to compare the decay of the potential with the soliton $Q.$ We consider a bounded function $V\in C^{\infty}$ satisfying $$\left\vert \frac{d^{k}}{dr^{k}}V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( 1+r\right) ^{-\rho},\text{ }\rho>0, \label{p1}$$ for all $k\geq0.$ Suppose that $V^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) ,$ $k\geq0,$ are monotone for all $r\geq r_{0}>0.$ We ask $V$ to have one of the forms $$V\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) \text{ or }V\left( r\right) =V_{-}\left( r\right) , \label{potential}$$ where $V_{\pm}\left( r\right) =\kappa e^{-2r-\left( d-1\right) \ln r\pm H\left( r\right) },$ and $H\geq0$ is such that $H,H^{\prime}$ are monotone and $H^{\prime\prime}\left( r\right) $ is bounded, for all $r\geq r_{0}.$ Moreover, we assume some control on the derivatives $$\left\vert \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V_{-}\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}e^{-2r-\left( d-1\right) \ln r},\text{ }k\geq0,$$ with $C_{k}>0.$ In addition, in the case $V=V_{+},$ $H$ is either $H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) $ or $0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) \leq 2r+o\left( r\right) .$ We also need to estimate $V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) Q\left( y\right) ,$ as $\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert $ $\rightarrow\infty.$ Therefore, we require some information about the behavior of the potential compared to the soliton $Q.$ We suppose either one of the following asymptotics. Let $V_{\pm}^{\left( 1\right) }=\kappa_{1}e^{-r-\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) \ln r\pm H_{1}\left( r\right) }$, for $r\geq r_{0},$ with $H_{1}\geq0,$ $H_{1},$ $H_{1}^{\prime}$ are monotone, for all $r\geq r_{0},$ and $$\left\vert \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V_{-}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}e^{-r-\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) \ln r},\text{ }k\geq0, \label{ap256}$$ with $C_{k}>0.$ Moreover, in the case $V_{+}^{\left( 1\right) }$ we suppose that $H_{1}^{\left( j\right) },$ $j\geq1,$ are bounded. Then, we consider potentials $V$ of the form (\[potential\]) that can be represented as $$V=V_{+}^{\left( 1\right) }\text{ or }V=V_{-}^{\left( 1\right) }. \label{potential1}$$ Finally, in the case when $H_{1}\left( r\right) =r+\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) \ln r+o\left( r\right) ,$ we suppose that the potential $V$ is given by $$V\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) =V_{+}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( r\right) =V^{\left( 2\right) }\left( r\right) ,$$ where $$V^{\left( 2\right) }\left( r\right) :=e^{-h_{1}\left( r\right) }, \label{v2}$$ with $h_{1}\left( r\right) \geq0$ is such that $h_{1}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,$ $h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }$ are monotone, $k\geq0$ and $$\left\vert h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }\left( \frac{r}{2}\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert ,\text{ }k\geq0, \label{prop}$$ for all $r\geq r_{0}.$ We also suppose that $$\left\vert h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Cr^{-1}h_{1}^{\left( k-1\right) }\left( r\right) ,\text{ }k\geq1,$$ and that for some $N_{0}>0,$ $$\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert ^{N_{0}}\leq C\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( r\right) \right\vert \label{cond5}$$ We observe that since $V$ and $\mathcal{V}$ are related by (\[vcall\]), the above assumptions on the potential are satisfied if Condition \[ConidtionPotential\] holds. We define$$\upsilon\left( d\right) ={\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}} e^{-2\eta^{2}}\eta^{d-2}d\eta, \label{ap142}$$ and$$C_{\pm}\left( \xi\right) =\xi^{\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\xi-1}} \left( r\left( \xi-r\right) \right) ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{\pm H\left( r\right) }dr. \label{ap167}$$ If $K^{\prime}=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}H^{\prime}\left( r\right) $ exists, we set $$\mathcal{I}={\displaystyle\int} e^{\left( 2-K^{\prime}\right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz. \label{ap184}$$ If $V\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) $ we define $$U_{V}\left( \xi\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dfrac{\kappa}{2}\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) C_{+}\left( \xi\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,\\ \mathcal{I}V\left( \xi\right) ,\text{ if }0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) \leq2r. \end{array} \right. \label{ap190}$$ If $V\left( r\right) =V_{-}\left( r\right) $ we set$$U_{V}\left( \xi\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dfrac{1}{2}\left( {\displaystyle\int} \left( \mathcal{A}^{2}V\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) +K\kappa Q^{2}\left( z\right) \right) e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }d\geq4,\\ \dfrac{1}{2}\left( {\displaystyle\int} V\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }d=2,3,\text{ }r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\in L^{1}\left( [1,\infty)\right) ,\\ \dfrac{\kappa}{2}\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) C_{-}\left( \xi\right) e^{-2\xi}\xi^{-\left( d-1\right) },\text{ if }d=2,3,\text{ }r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\notin L^{1}\left( [1,\infty )\right) , \end{array} \right. \label{ap191}$$ where we denote by $K=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}e^{-H\left( r\right) }.$ \[L2 1\]Let $V\in C^{\infty}$ have the form (\[potential\]) where $H,H^{\prime}$ are monotone and $H^{\prime\prime}\left( r\right) $ is bounded. If $V\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) \ $let $H\left( r\right) <2r.$ Then, the asymptotics$$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =-\frac{\tilde{\chi}}{\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert }\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) U_{V}^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) , \label{l2}$$ as $\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$ is true. If $V=V^{\left( 2\right) },$ then$$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =-\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( \left( \int Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right) V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +e^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}\right) , \label{l2bis}$$ where $$\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) =O\left( \left( \left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert \left( \left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{\left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi \right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+\left\vert h^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert +\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-2}\right) +\tfrac{\left\vert h^{\prime\prime }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+\left\vert h^{\prime\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) V\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) .$$ See Lemmas \[L3\] and \[L4\] in Section \[AppendixA\]. In the next lemma we compare the potential with the solitary wave $Q.$ We denote $$\Theta\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) =\Theta_{V}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}e^{-\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( 1+\left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}},\text{ if }V\left( r\right) =V_{-}^{\left( 1\right) }\\ \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert ,\text{ \ if }V\left( r\right) =V_{+}^{\left( 1\right) }. \end{array} \right. \label{theta}$$ Observe that$$\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert \leq C\Theta\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) . \label{ap246}$$ We have the following result. \[L2\]Let $V\in C^{\infty}$ be the form (\[potential\]) and in addition may be represented as (\[potential1\]). Then, there is $C\left( V\right) >0$ such that for any $\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \geq C\left( V\right) $ the following hold. The estimate $$\left\Vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C_{k}\Theta\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) ,\text{ }k\geq0,\text{ }C_{k}>0, \label{estp}$$ is valid for any $\tilde{Q}$ satisfying (\[ap29\]). Moreover, in the case when $V\left( r\right) =V^{\left( 2\right) }\left( r\right) $ we have$$\left\Vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C_{k}\left( \left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) \right\vert +e^{-\frac{\delta\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert }{2}}\right) ,\text{ }\delta>0, \label{estp1}$$ for any $k\geq0.$ Let us prove (\[estp\]). If $V\left( r\right) =V_{-}^{\left( 1\right) },$ using (\[ap29\]) and (\[ap256\]) we have$$\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}e^{-\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }\left( 1+\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) }\left( 1+\left\vert y\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) }e^{-\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert -\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert +\left\vert y\right\vert \right) } \label{ap180}$$ and then$$\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}e^{-\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }\left( 1+\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) },\text{ }C_{k}>0\text{.} \label{ap259}$$ Suppose now that $V\left( r\right) =V_{+}^{\left( 1\right) }.$ First, as all the derivatives $H_{1}^{\left( j\right) },$ $j\geq1,$ are bounded we have$$\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert . \label{ap257}$$ If $\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \leq\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert ,$ since $H_{1}$ is monotone similarly to (\[ap180\]) we get $$\left\vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde {Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert \left( 1+\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( d-1\right) }e^{-\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert }\tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert e^{H_{1}\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) }\leq C\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\vert . \label{ap258}$$ If $\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \geq\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert ,$ we have $\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}+2\tilde{\chi}\cdot y\geq0.$ Then $$-\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert -\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) +\left( H_{1}\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) -H_{1}\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right) =-\left( 1-H^{\prime}\left( \xi\right) \right) \frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}+2\tilde{\chi}\cdot y}{\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert +\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert },$$ for some $\xi\in\left[ \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert ,\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right] .$ As $V$ is bounded, $H_{1}\geq0$ and $H_{1}^{\prime}$ is monotone, in particular $H_{1}^{\prime}\leq1+o\left( 1\right) ,$ as $r\rightarrow\infty.$ Then $-\left( 1-H_{1}^{\prime}\left( \xi\right) \right) \frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}+2\tilde{\chi}\cdot y}{\left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert +\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }\leq o\left( 1\right) \left\vert y\right\vert ,$ as $\left\vert \tilde {\chi}\right\vert \rightarrow\infty,$ and hence by (\[ap180\])$$\left\vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde {Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\vert . \label{ap4}$$ Therefore, using (\[ap258\]) and (\[ap4\]) in (\[ap257\]) we deduce$$\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \tilde{Q}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\vert . \label{ap260}$$ Relation (\[estp\]) follows from (\[ap259\]) and (\[ap260\])$.$ We now prove (\[estp1\])$.$ For $\left\vert y\right\vert \geq\frac {\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2},$ since $h_{1}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) $ we estimate$$\left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C\left\Vert V^{\prime }\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}e^{-\frac{\delta\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2}}. \label{ap252}$$ Using that $h_{1}^{\prime\prime}$ is bounded we get$$\left\vert h_{1}\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}+y\right\vert \right) -h_{1}\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) -h_{1}^{\prime }\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \left( \frac{\tilde {\chi}\cdot y}{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }\right) \right\vert \leq C\frac{1+\left\vert y\right\vert ^{4}}{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }$$ for $\left\vert y\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2}.$ This implies $$\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}+y\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) e^{-h_{1}^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \frac{\tilde{\chi}\cdot y}{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }}\right\vert \leq\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\vert e^{-h_{1}^{\prime }\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \frac{\tilde{\chi}\cdot y}{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }}\frac{1+\left\vert z\right\vert ^{4}}{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert },\text{ as }\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert \rightarrow\infty. \label{ap248}$$ Since $h_{1}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) $ and $h_{1}^{\prime}$ is monotone $\left\vert h_{1}^{\prime}\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq \frac{\delta}{2},$ for all $r\ $sufficiently large$.$ As for $\left\vert y\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2},$ $\left\vert \tilde{\chi}+y\right\vert \geq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2},$ using that $h_{1}^{\prime}$ is monotone we get $$\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}+y\right\vert \right) e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) e^{-\frac{\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }{4}}\right\vert . \label{ap261}$$ Then, as for $\left\vert y\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi }\right\vert }{2},$ $\left\vert \tilde{\chi}+y\right\vert \geq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2},$ using that $h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }$ are monotone and relations (\[ap261\]), (\[prop\]) we deduce$$\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2}\right) e^{h_{1}\left( \frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2}\right) }V\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert \left( \left( \frac{d}{dr}\right) ^{k}V\right) \left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\vert .$$ Combining the last estimate with (\[ap252\]), we get (\[estp1\]). Refined approximation. ---------------------- Observe that $\left\vert \mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q\right) \right\vert \leq C\Theta\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) .$ This bound on the error is not good enough to close the estimates in Section \[Secproof\]. We can improve the estimate on $\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}$ if we consider a refined approximate solution $W=Q+T$ and adjust the function $T$ and the modulation parameters $\Xi=\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}$ and $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ in a suitable way. Indeed, motivated by [@Krieger], we search for a stationary function $W=W\left( y,\Xi\left( t\right) \right) .$ Since $W$ is stationary, the dependence of $W$ on time is through the modulation vector $\Xi\left( t\right) .$ This yields the relation $$\partial_{t}W=\dot{\chi}\cdot\nabla_{\chi}W+\dot{\beta}\cdot\nabla_{\beta }W+\frac{\partial W}{\partial\lambda}\dot{\lambda}.$$ Using the last identity we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}\left( W\right) =\Delta W-W+\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}W+i\lambda^{2}\left( \dot{\chi}\cdot\nabla_{\chi}W+\dot{\beta}\cdot\nabla_{\beta}W+\frac{\partial W}{\partial\lambda}\dot{\lambda}\right) -i\lambda\dot{\lambda}\Lambda W-i\lambda\left( \dot{\chi}-2\beta\right) \cdot\nabla W\\ -\lambda^{3}\left( \dot{\beta}\cdot y\right) W+\lambda^{2}\left( \dot{\gamma}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot {\beta}\cdot\chi\right) W+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) W. \end{array} \right. \label{E2}$$ Let $M=M\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $ and $B=B\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $ be modulation equations (to be defined) for the scaling and speed parameters $\dot{\lambda}$ and $\dot{\beta}.$ Then, equation (\[E2\]) takes the form$$\left. \mathcal{E}\left( W\right) =\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( W\right) +R\left( W\right) \right. \label{E6}$$ where$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( W\right) =\Delta W-W+\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}W+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) W\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}W+B\cdot\nabla_{\beta}W+\frac{\partial W}{\partial\lambda}\dot{\lambda}\right) -i\lambda M\Lambda W-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) W \end{array} \right. \label{E8}$$ and$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}R\left( W\right) =i\lambda^{2}\left( \left( \dot{\chi}-2\beta\right) \cdot\nabla_{\chi}W+\left( \dot{\beta}-B\right) \cdot\nabla_{\beta}W+\left( \dot{\lambda}-M\right) \frac{\partial W}{\partial\lambda}\right) -i\lambda\left( \dot{\lambda}-M\right) \Lambda W-i\lambda\left( \dot{\chi }-2\beta\right) \cdot\nabla W\\ -\lambda^{3}\left( \left( \dot{\beta}-B\right) \cdot y\right) W+\lambda^{2}\left( \dot{\gamma}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) W. \end{array} \right. \label{E9}$$ Observe that $\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q\right) =\mathcal{\tilde{E}}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q\right) -i\lambda M\Lambda Q.$ Introducing $W=Q+T,$ into (\[E8\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) =\Delta T-T+\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}T+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}\overline{T}\\ +\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q-i\lambda M\Lambda Q-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q\\ +\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) T-i\lambda M\Lambda T-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) T\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}T+B\cdot\nabla_{\beta}T+M\frac{\partial T}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left( T\right) , \end{array} \right. \label{E7}$$ with$$\mathcal{N}\left( T\right) =\left\vert Q+T\right\vert ^{p-1}\left( Q+T\right) -\left( Q^{p}+\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}T+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}\overline{T}\right) .$$ Let $$L_{+}u=-\Delta u+u-pQ^{p-1}u$$ and$$L_{-}u=-\Delta u+u-Q^{p-1}u.$$ Decomposing $T=$ $T_{1}+iT_{2},$ with $T_{1},T_{2}$ real we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) =-L_{+}T_{1}+\lambda ^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) T_{1}+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q\\ -i\left( L_{-}T_{2}\right) +i\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) T_{2}-i\lambda M\Lambda Q+2i\lambda^{2}\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}T_{1}+R_{1}, \end{array} \right. \label{eq3}$$ where$$R_{1}=-i\lambda M\Lambda T-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) T+i\lambda ^{2}\left( 2i\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}T_{2}+B\cdot\nabla_{\beta}T+M\frac {\partial T}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left( T\right) . \label{eq4}$$ As a first step, we want to adjust the approximate modulation parameters $B$ and $M$ in such way that we can solve the equations$$\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}=-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q+\lambda ^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q, \label{eq5}$$$$\left( L_{-}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{2}=-\lambda M\Lambda Q+2\lambda^{2}\beta\cdot\nabla _{\chi}T_{1} \label{eq6}$$ and $R_{1}$ has a better decay than $\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q\right) ,$ as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty.$ In this way, we get a first order approximation. Then, from (\[E7\]), we recursively construct higher order approximations. This will be done separately for fast and slow decaying potentials in Lemmas \[Lemmaapp\] and \[Lemmaapp1\] below, respectively. Before we present this construction, we prepare two results that are involved in the construction. We denote by $\mathcal{L}:H^{1}\rightarrow H^{-1}$ the linearized operator for the equation (\[eqsoliton\]) around $Q:$$$\mathcal{L}f:=-\Delta f+f-\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f-\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f}},\text{ \ \ }f\in H^{1}. \label{L}$$ Representing $f\in H^{1}$ as $f=h+ig,$ with real $h\ $and $g$, we have$$\mathcal{L}f=L_{+}h+iL_{-}g$$ Then $$\left( \mathcal{L}f,f\right) =\left( L_{+}h,h\right) +\left( L_{-}g,g\right) , \label{tw78}$$ for real functions $h,g\in H^{1}.$ Let us denote the perturbed operator $$\mathcal{L}_{V}=\mathcal{L}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) . \label{Lv}$$ In order to solve (\[eq5\]) and (\[eq6\]), we need the following invertibility result for the operators $\mathcal{L}_{V}$. \[Linv\]Suppose that $1<p<1+\frac{4}{d}$ and $V\in C^{\infty},$ $\left\vert V^{\left( k\right) }\left( x\right) \right\vert \rightarrow0,$ as $\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow\infty,$ for any $k\geq0.$ Let $\lambda\geq\lambda_{0}>0\ $be such that $\lambda^{2}\sup_{r\in\mathbb{R}}V\left( r\right) <1.$ Then, there is $C\left( V\right) >0$ such that for any $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C\left( V\right) $ $$\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}f\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}\geq c\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{1}{c}\left( \left\vert \left( f,iQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( f,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) , \label{ineqpert}$$ with some $c>0$ and$$\left( \mathcal{L}_{V}f,f\right) \geq c\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{1}{c}\left( \left( f,Q\right) ^{2}+\left\vert \left( f,xQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left( f,i\Lambda Q\right) ^{2}\right) . \label{ineqpert1}$$ Moreover, for any $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C\left( V\right) $ and $F\in H^{1}\cap C^{\infty}\ $such that $\left( F,\nabla Q\right) =0$ the equation $L_{+}u-\lambda^{2}V\left( y+\tilde{\chi}\right) u=F,$ $\left( u,\nabla Q\right) =0,$ has a real-valued solution $u\in H^{1}\cap C^{\infty}$. If $\left( F,Q\right) =0,$ there is a solution $w\in H^{1}\cap C^{\infty}$ to $L_{-}w-\lambda^{2}V\left( y+\tilde{\chi}\right) w=F$, $\left( w,Q\right) =0.$ Furthermore, if $\left\vert F\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\eta\left\vert x\right\vert },$ for some $0<\eta<1,$ then $$\left\vert u\left( x\right) \right\vert +\left\vert w\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\eta\left\vert x\right\vert }. \label{exp}$$ See Section \[Invertibility\]. We also present a lemma that follows from the properties of the Bessel potential $\left( 1-\Delta\right) ^{-1}.$ \[L8\]Suppose that $T$ solves $$\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) T=f,\text{ }\left( T,\nabla Q\right) =0, \label{eq18}$$ with $f$ satisfying $$\left\vert e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }f\left( z\right) \right\vert \leq A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) , \label{ap290}$$ for some $A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) >0$ and $0<\delta<1.$ Then, the estimate $$\left\Vert e^{-\delta\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }T\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C\left( \delta,\delta^{\prime}\right) \left( A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +\left\Vert T\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\Theta\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) ^{\delta^{\prime}}\right) , \label{ap291}$$ with some $C\left( \delta,\delta^{\prime}\right) >0$ and $\delta^{\prime }<\delta$ holds. See Appendix. We are in position to prove an approximation result for (\[appeq\]). For a vector of multi-indices $K=\left( k,k_{1},k_{2},k_{3}\right) ,$ let us denote $$\mathcal{D}=\partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}\partial_{\beta}^{k_{3}}\text{, \ }\mathcal{D}_{1}=\partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{\beta}^{k_{3}},\text{ \ }\mathcal{D}_{2}=\partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial _{y}^{k_{2}}.$$ Also let$$\mathbf{Y}=\inf_{0<\upsilon<1}\inf_{0<\delta<1}\left\{ C\left( \upsilon,\delta\right) \Theta^{\left( 1-\delta\right) }\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) e^{-\upsilon \delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right\} ,\text{ }0<C\left( \upsilon ,\delta\right) <\infty.$$ where $0<C\left( \upsilon,\delta\right) <\infty$ is such that $C\left( \upsilon,\delta\right) \leq C_{\upsilon_{0},\delta_{0}},$ for all $\left\vert \upsilon\right\vert \leq\left\vert \upsilon_{0}\right\vert ,$ $\left\vert \delta\right\vert \leq\left\vert \delta_{0}\right\vert $ and $C\left( \upsilon,\delta\right) \rightarrow\infty,$ as $\upsilon,\delta\rightarrow1.$ Set $$p_{1}=\min\{p,2\}. \label{p}$$ We have the following. \[Lemmaapp\]Let $\Xi=\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ be a vector of parameters with $\lambda\geq\lambda_{0}>0\ $such that $\lambda^{2}\sup _{r\in\mathbb{R}}V\left( r\right) <1.$ There is $C\left( V\right) >0$ such that for any $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C\left( V\right) $ the following holds. For any $n\geq1,$ there are $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) },B_{j},M_{j}\in L^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) ,$ $j=1,...,n,$ such that$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \mathcal{D}\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda ^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{K}}\mathbf{Y}\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) \right) ^{\left( p_{1}-1\right) \left( j-1\right) },\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}B_{j}\right\vert +\left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}M_{j}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{K}}\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) \right) ^{\left( p_{1}-1\right) \left( j-1\right) }, \end{array} \right. \label{ap14}$$ with $\left\vert K\right\vert \leq2$ and $\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}+\left\vert k_{3}\right\vert \leq1,$ and some $i_{K},l_{K},m_{K}\geq0$ and $C_{K},\delta_{K}>0$. In addition, $B_{j}$ and $M_{j},$ $j=1,...,n,$ satisfy for all $\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}\leq1$ $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}B_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}M_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda ^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \Theta +\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) ,\\ \left\vert \partial_{\beta}M_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{K}}\left( \left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{3/4}+\Theta^{3/2}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) ,\\ \left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}B_{j}\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}M_{j}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda ^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\left( \left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) \Theta\right) ^{p_{1}}+\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{p_{1}}\right) ,\text{ }j\geq2. \end{array} \right. \label{BM}$$ For the approximation $Q+T,$ the error $\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) $ satisfies the estimate $$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m}\mathbf{Y}\left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) \right) ^{A\left( n\right) }+\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) ,\right. \label{eps}$$ for some $i,l,m\geq0$ and $C>0,$ where $A\left( n\right) =\min\{n\left( p_{1}-1\right) ,2\}.$ First, we solve equation (\[eq5\]) given by $$\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}=f_{1} \label{eq7}$$ with$$f_{1}=-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) Q+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q. \label{f1}$$ Taking $B_{1}=B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) ,$ with $B\left( \chi ,\lambda\right) $ defined by (\[ap17\]) we assure that the right-hand side of (\[eq7\]) is orthogonal to $\nabla Q.$ Noting that $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\partial_{\chi}^{k}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) =\lambda^{-\left\vert k\right\vert }\partial_{y}^{k}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \\ \\ \partial_{\lambda}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) =\partial_{\lambda}\mathcal{V}\left( \left\vert \lambda y+\chi\right\vert \right) =\left( \lambda y\cdot\nabla_{y}\mathcal{V}\right) \left( \left\vert \lambda y+\chi\right\vert \right) =y\cdot \nabla_{y}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \end{array} \right. \label{ap265}$$ (recall that $\mathcal{V}$ is defined by (\[vcall\])) we have $$\left. \left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}{\displaystyle\int} V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( y\right) dy\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1}}\lambda^{-\left\vert k\right\vert }\left\vert {\displaystyle\int} V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \left( \nabla_{y}\cdot y\right) ^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k}\left( \nabla Q^{2}\left( y\right) \right) dy\right\vert .\right. \label{ap263}$$ Then, using (\[l2\]) we estimate$$\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\int V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( y\right) dy\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1}}\lambda^{-\left\vert k\right\vert }\left\vert U_{V}^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert .$$ Thus, by (\[estp\]) we have $$\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}B_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{k,k_{1}}}\left\vert U_{V}^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert , \label{b1}$$ which imply (\[ap14\]), (\[BM\]) for $B_{1}.$ Also, by (\[estp\]) we get $$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}\left( V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) Q\left( y\right) \right\vert & \leq C_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda ^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\inf_{0<\delta<1}\left\{ \left\vert V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q\left( y\right) \right\vert ^{\left( 1-\delta\right) }Q^{\delta}\left( y\right) \right\} \\ & \leq C_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\mathbf{Y.}$$ Hence, from (\[f1\]) we see that $$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}f_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\mathbf{Y}.\right. \label{ap234}$$ for all $\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}+\left\vert k_{2}\right\vert \geq0.$ By Lemma \[Linv\], there exists a solution $T_{1}\in H^{1}$ satisfying$$\left\vert T_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{0}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{0}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{0}}\mathbf{Y}. \label{ap235}$$ Differentiating equation (\[eq7\]) with respect to $\lambda$ we get$$\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \partial_{\lambda}T_{1}=\partial_{\lambda}f_{1}+\partial_{\lambda}\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}. \label{ap236}$$ We write the above equation as $$\partial_{\lambda}T_{1}=\left( -\Delta+1\right) ^{-1}\left( \left( pQ^{p-1}+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \partial_{\lambda}T_{1}+\partial_{\lambda}f_{1}+\partial_{\lambda}\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}\right) . \label{ap275}$$ Using the explicit expression for the kernel of the Helmholtz operator $-\Delta+1,$ we estimate$$\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}T_{1}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\Theta^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) }e^{\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\frac{e^{-\left\vert y-z\right\vert }}{\left\vert y-z\right\vert ^{\frac{d-1}{2}}}\left( Q^{p-1}\left( z\right) \left\vert \partial_{\lambda}T_{1}\left( z\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}f_{1}\left( z\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert z+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}\left( z\right) \right\vert \right) dz.$$ Then, using (\[ineqpert\]) to control the first term in the right-hand side of the above equation, by (\[ap234\]) and (\[ap235\]) we have $$\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}T_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{1}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1}}\mathbf{Y}. \label{ap237}$$ Moreover, from (\[ap275\]), by the regularity properties of $-\Delta+1$ we show that (\[ap237\]) is valid for the derivatives $\partial_{\lambda }\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}T_{1}$ for all multi-indices $k_{2}.$ Similarly we estimate $\partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}T_{1}$ for $\left\vert k\right\vert =1.$ By induction in $k,k_{1}$ we prove $$\left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}T_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\mathbf{Y}, \label{ap238}$$ for all $\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}+\left\vert k_{2}\right\vert \geq0.\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad$ Next, we consider equation (\[eq6\])$$\left( L_{-}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{2}=f_{2} \label{eq8}$$ with$$f_{2}=-\lambda M\Lambda Q+2\lambda^{2}\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}T_{1} \label{f2}$$ We fix $M_{1}$ in such way that $$\left( \lambda M_{1}\Lambda Q-2\lambda^{2}\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}T_{1},Q\right) =0.$$ That is $$M_{1}=\frac{2\lambda}{\left( \Lambda Q,Q\right) }\left( \beta\cdot \nabla_{\chi}T_{1},Q\right) . \label{m1}$$ Observe that $\left( \Lambda Q,Q\right) =\left( \frac{2}{p-1}-\frac{d}{2}\right) \left( Q,Q\right) \neq0.$ By (\[ap238\]) we have$$\left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}M_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\omega_{K}\left( \beta\right) \Theta, \label{ap239}$$ for all $\left\vert K\right\vert \geq0,$ where$$\omega_{K}\left( \beta\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \beta\right\vert ,\text{ }\left\vert k_{3}\right\vert =0,\\ C_{K},\text{ }\left\vert k_{3}\right\vert \geq1. \end{array} \right.$$ Then, (\[ap14\]) and the relation in (\[BM\]) for $M_{1}$ follow from (\[ap239\]). Observe by (\[estp\]) that $f_{1}$ can be estimated as $$\left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}f_{1}\right\vert \leq C\left( \inf_{0<\delta <1}\left( e^{\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{\frac{1+\delta}{2}}\right) \right) ,\text{ }\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}+\left\vert k_{2}\right\vert \geq0. \label{ap276}$$ Then, using Lemma \[L8\] and (\[ap238\]) we get$$\left\Vert e^{-\delta\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }\mathcal{D}_{2}T_{1}\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C_{K}\left( \delta,\delta ^{\prime}\right) \left( \left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{\frac{1+\delta}{2}}+\Theta\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) ^{1+\delta^{\prime}}\right) , \label{ap278}$$ with $0<\delta^{\prime}<\delta<1$, for all $\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}+\left\vert k_{2}\right\vert \geq0.$ Using the last estimate with $\delta>\delta^{\prime}=\frac{1}{2}$ in (\[m1\]) we get the second relation in (\[BM\]). Similarly to (\[ap234\]), from (\[f2\]) we deduce $$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{D}f_{2}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\omega_{K}\left( \beta\right) \mathbf{Y}.\right. \label{ap264}$$ for all $\left\vert K\right\vert \geq0.$ By Lemma \[Linv\], there exists a solution $T_{2}\in H^{1}$ to (\[eq8\]). Moreover, similarly to (\[ap238\]) using (\[ap264\]) we prove that $$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{D}T_{2}\right\vert \leq C_{K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{K}}\omega_{K}\left( \beta\right) \mathbf{Y}.\right. \label{ap240}$$ for all $\left\vert K\right\vert \geq0.$ We put $$\boldsymbol{T}=T_{1}+iT_{2}.$$ By (\[ap238\]) and (\[ap240\]) we get (\[ap14\]) for $\boldsymbol{T}.$ Using (\[b1\]), (\[ap238\]), (\[ap239\]), (\[ap240\]) and $$\left\vert \mathcal{N}\left( T\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert T\right\vert ^{p_{1}}, \label{non2}$$ from (\[eq3\]) we get (\[eps\]) with $n=1.$ Therefore, we constructed the first improved approximation $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }.$ Let us construct $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) }.$ We write $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) }=T_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }+iT_{2}^{\left( 2\right) },$ and introduce $T=\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }+\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) },$ $B=B_{1}+B_{2},$ $M=M_{1}+M_{2},$ into (\[E7\]). Then, using (\[eq7\]) and (\[eq8\]) and setting $$\left. \left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }=-\lambda^{3}\left( B_{2}\cdot y\right) Q+f_{3}\right. \label{eq9}$$ with$$\left. f_{3}=\operatorname{Re}\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) \right. \label{ap279}$$ and$$\left( L_{-}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{2}^{\left( 2\right) }=-\lambda M_{2}\Lambda Q+f_{4} \label{eq10}$$ with$$f_{4}=\operatorname{Im}\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) , \label{ap280}$$ we derive$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) =-i\lambda M\Lambda T-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) T\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\left( iT_{2}+\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) +B\cdot\nabla_{\beta}T+M\frac{\partial T}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }+\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) }\right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{er1}$$ From (\[ap279\]) and (\[ap280\]), via (\[ap238\]), (\[ap240\]) and (\[non2\]) we get$$\left\vert \mathcal{D}f_{j}\right\vert \leq C\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{j,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{j,K}}\mathbf{Y}^{p_{1}},\text{ }j=3,4, \label{ap241}$$ for $\left\vert K\right\vert \leq1$. Note that the restriction on the order of derivatives $K$ is due to the nonlinear term in the definition of $f_{j}.$ We put $$B_{2}=-\frac{\left( f_{3},\nabla Q\right) }{\lambda^{3}\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}} \label{B2}$$ and$$M_{2}=\frac{\left( f_{4},Q\right) }{\lambda\left( \Lambda Q,Q\right) }. \label{M2}$$ so that by Lemma \[Linv\] there exist solution $T_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }$ to equation (\[eq9\]). By (\[ap241\]) we derive (\[ap14\]) with $j=2$ for $B_{2}$, $M_{2}$ and hence, for $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) }$ satisfies (\[ap14\])$.$ Observe that thanks to the regularity of $\left( -\Delta+1\right) ^{-1},$ we can estimate the second derivative on the $y$ variable of $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 2\right) }$ by using (\[ap241\]) only$.$ Let us prove (\[BM\]). Using (\[ap240\]), (\[ap278\]) with $\delta=\frac{3-p_{1}}{2p_{1}}$ and $\delta^{\prime}$ close to $\delta,$ and (\[non2\]) we estimate $$\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\left( \operatorname{Re}\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) ,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\left( \operatorname{Im}\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) ,Q\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \Theta\right) ^{p_{1}}+C\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}},\text{ }k\geq0.$$ Hence, from (\[B2\]) and (\[M2\]) we prove (\[BM\]) for $j=2.$ Finally, as $$\left\vert \mathcal{N}\left( a+b\right) -\mathcal{N}\left( a\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert b\right\vert \left( \left\vert a\right\vert ^{p_{1}-1}+\left\vert b\right\vert ^{p_{1}-1}\right) , \label{nonlinear1}$$ using (\[ap14\]) and (\[BM\]) with $j=1,2$, in (\[er1\]) we obtain (\[eps\]) with $n=2.$ We now proceed by induction. Suppose that we have constructed $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) },B_{j},M_{j},$ $j=1,...,n,$ for some $n\geq3,$ satisfying estimates (\[ap14\]), (\[BM\]) and$$\left\Vert e^{-\frac{3-p_{1}}{2p_{1}}\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }\mathcal{D}_{2}\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C\left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) \Theta+\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) , \label{ap283}$$ for $\left\vert K\right\vert \leq2$ and $\left\vert k\right\vert +k_{1}+\left\vert k_{3}\right\vert \leq1.$ Denote $$\Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }=\mathcal{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }+i\mathcal{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) },\text{ with\ }\mathcal{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}T_{1}^{\left( j\right) },\text{\ }\mathcal{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}T_{2}^{\left( j\right) },$$ and $$\mathcal{B}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}B_{j},\text{ \ }\mathcal{M}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}M_{j}.$$ Let us consider the equations$$\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{1}^{\left( n+1\right) }=f_{2n+1}=-\lambda^{3}\left( B_{n+1}\cdot y\right) Q+\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right) \label{eq11}$$ and $$\left( L_{-}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) T_{2}^{\left( n+1\right) }=f_{2n+2}=-\lambda M_{n+1}\Lambda Q+\operatorname{Im}\left( \mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right) . \label{eq12}$$ We put $$B_{n+1}=-\frac{\left( \operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right) ,\nabla Q\right) }{\lambda^{3}\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}\text{ and }M_{n+1}=\frac{\left( \operatorname{Im}\left( \mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right) ,Q\right) }{\lambda\left( \Lambda Q,Q\right) }. \label{Bn+1}$$ Using (\[nonlinear1\]) we have $$\left\vert \mathcal{N}\left( \left( \Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }\right) \right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right\vert \ \leq C\left\vert \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( n\right) }\right\vert \left\vert \Upsilon^{\left( n-1\right) }\right\vert ^{p_{1}-1}. \label{nonlinear2}$$ Then, by (\[ap14\]) we show $$\left\vert \mathcal{D}f_{i}\right\vert \leq C\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{k}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m}\mathbf{Y}\left( \left\vert \beta \right\vert +\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda }\right) \right) ^{\left( p_{1}-1\right) n},\text{ }i=2n+1,2n+2,$$ for $\left\vert K\right\vert \leq1$ and some $k,l,m\geq0.$ Then, $B_{n+1}$ and $M_{n+1}$ satisfy (\[ap14\]) with $j=n+1.$ By Lemma \[Linv\] we can solve (\[eq11\]) and (\[eq12\]) with $T_{1}^{\left( n+1\right) }$ and $T_{2}^{\left( n+1\right) }$ satisfying (\[ap14\]) with $j=n+1.$ We put$$\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( n+1\right) }=T_{1}^{\left( n+1\right) }+iT_{2}^{\left( n+1\right) }. \label{Tn+1}$$ Then, from the equations (\[Bn+1\]), using (\[nonlinear2\]) (with $n$ replaced by $n-1$) and (\[ap283\]) we deduce (\[BM\]) for $j=n+1.$ Moreover, we prove $\left\vert e^{-\frac{3-p_{1}}{2}\left\vert \cdot \right\vert }\mathcal{D}_{2}f_{2n+1}\right\vert +\left\vert e^{-\frac{3-p_{1}}{2}\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }\mathcal{D}_{2}f_{2n+2}\right\vert \leq C\left( \left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) \Theta\right) ^{p_{1}}+\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{p_{1}}\right) \mathbf{,}$ for $\left\vert K\right\vert \leq1.$ Then, by Lemma \[L8\] and (\[ap14\]) we show that (\[ap283\]) is true for $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( n+1\right) }.$ Introducing $T=\Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }+\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( n+1\right) },$ $B=\mathcal{B}^{\left( n+1\right) }$, $M=\mathcal{M}^{\left( n+1\right) },$ into (\[E7\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) =-i\lambda M\Lambda T-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) T\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\left( T-T_{1}\right) +B\cdot\nabla_{\beta}T+M\frac{\partial T}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left( \left( \Upsilon^{\left( n+1\right) }\right) \right) -\mathcal{N}\left( \Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }\right) . \end{array} \right.$$ Hence, using (\[ap14\]) and (\[BM\]) we prove (\[eps\]) for $n=N+1.$ In the case when the potential does not decay fast enough, that is, $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }$, with $V^{\left( 2\right) }$ given by (\[v2\]), the construction of Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] is not good enough to obtain a priori estimates on the modulation parameters of Section \[ModPar\] (see Remark \[Rem1\]). In order to cover also this case, we present a different construction in the following Lemma. We denote$$\Psi=\min\left\{ \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right\vert +\frac{\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+e^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2\lambda}}+e^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}},\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right\} ,$$$$\mathbf{Z=}\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right)$$ and$$\mathbf{e=e}\left( y\right) =\inf_{0<\delta<1}\left\{ C\left( \delta\right) e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right\} ,\text{ }0<C\left( \delta\right) <\infty.$$ \[Lemmaapp1\]Suppose that $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }$. Let $\Xi=\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ be a vector of parameters with $\lambda\geq\lambda _{0}>0\ $such that $\lambda^{2}\sup_{r\in\mathbb{R}}V\left( r\right) <1.$ There is $C\left( V\right) >0$ such that for any $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C\left( V\right) $ the following holds. Given $n\geq0,$ there exist $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( j\right) },\tilde{B}_{j},\tilde{M}_{j}\in L^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) ,$ $j=0,...,n$ satisfying$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}\boldsymbol{\tilde {T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right\vert \leq CC_{k,k_{1},j}\left( \lambda \right) \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \mathbf{e},\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{K,j}\left( \lambda\right) \Psi\mathbf{e},\text{ }k\geq1,\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{j,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{j,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{j,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\Psi\mathbf{e},\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{j,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{j,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{j,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert \beta\right\vert \left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \mathbf{Z}^{j-1}\mathbf{e},\text{ }j\geq2, \end{array} \right. \label{B}$$ and$$\begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{\beta}^{k_{3}}\tilde{B}_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{\beta}^{k_{3}}\tilde{M}_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{j,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{j,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{j,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\Psi,\text{ }\\ \\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}\tilde{B}_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}\tilde{M}_{1}\right\vert \leq C_{j,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{j,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{j,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\left( \Psi ^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) ,\text{ }k\geq1,\\ \\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}\tilde{B}_{j}\right\vert +\left\vert \mathcal{D}_{1}\tilde{M}_{j}\right\vert \leq C_{j,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{j,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{j,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\left( \Psi ^{2}+\left\vert \beta\right\vert \left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \mathbf{Z}^{j-1},\text{ }j\geq2, \end{array} \label{B'}$$ for all $\left\vert K\right\vert \geq0,$ with some $i_{j,K},l_{j,K},m_{j,K}\geq0$ and $C_{j,K},\eta,\delta_{j,K}>0$. For the approximation $Q+T,$ with $T=\sum_{j=0}^{n}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( j\right) },$ the error $\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) $ satisfies the estimate $$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) \right\vert \leq C_{n}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{n}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{n}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{n}}\Psi\mathbf{Z}^{n}\mathbf{e}.\text{ }\right. \label{eps2}$$ In the recursive construction of $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }$ presented in Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] we do not consider the terms in (\[E7\]) containing derivatives of $T,$ treating them as an error. It is possible thanks to the correct decay of these terms. This is not the case now. We need to take into account the derivatives of $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }$ in their recurrent equations$.$ As consequence, we must control high order derivatives $\mathcal{D}\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }$. This requires to control the derivatives of the nonlinear term, which may be not smooth enough. To avoid any issue, we approximate the nonlinear term by polynomials in the following way (see step 7 in the proof of Proposition 3.1 of [@MerleRaphael]). For $z\in\mathbb{C}$, we consider the function $\mathbf{n}\left( z\right) =\left\vert 1+z\right\vert ^{p-1}\left( 1+z\right) .$ For $j\geq0,$ let $P_{j}\left( z\right) $ be the homogeneous term of order $j$ in the Taylor approximation of $\mathbf{n}\left( z\right) $ for $\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}.$ Then as $\left\vert \mathbf{n}\left( z\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert z\right\vert ^{p},$ for all $z\in\mathbb{C}$, we get$$\left\vert \mathbf{n}\left( z\right) -\sum_{j=0}^{m}P_{j}\left( z\right) \right\vert \leq C_{m}\left\vert z\right\vert ^{m+1},\text{ }z\in \mathbb{C}\text{, }m\geq0.$$ Using the last relation we get$$\left\vert \left\vert Q+T\right\vert ^{p-1}\left( Q+T\right) -Q^{p}\sum_{j=0}^{m}P_{j}\left( \frac{T}{Q}\right) \right\vert \leq C_{m}Q^{p-m-1}\left\vert T\right\vert ^{m+1}. \label{nonlinear0}$$ In particular$$\left\vert \mathcal{N}\left( T\right) -Q^{p}\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( \frac {T}{Q}\right) \right\vert \leq C_{m}Q^{p-m-1}\left\vert T\right\vert ^{m+1}. \label{nonlinear}$$ where we denote $$\mathbf{P}_{m}=\sum_{j=2}^{m}P_{j},\text{ }m\geq2.$$ Let us consider the equation $$L_{+}T^{\left( 0\right) }=\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q. \label{eq13}$$ Since the right-hand side is orthogonal to $\nabla Q,$ it follows from (\[ineq2\]) that there exists a solution $T^{\left( 0\right) }$ to (\[eq13\]) which satisfies$$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}T^{\left( 0\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{0}\left( \lambda\right) \left\vert V^{\left( k\right) }\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \mathbf{e},\text{ }k+k_{1}+k_{2}\geq0.\right. \label{T0}$$ By the parity symmetry of equation (\[eq13\]), $T^{\left( 0\right) }$ may be chosen even. Actually, since $L_{+}\left( \Lambda Q\right) =-2Q,$ $T^{\left( 0\right) }$ is given explicitly by $T^{\left( 0\right) }=-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \frac{\Lambda Q}{2}.$ For $j\geq1$ and $m\geq2,$ we define recursively $T_{j}$ as an even solution of the equation$$L_{+}T^{\left( j\right) }=F_{j}=\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) T^{\left( j-1\right) }+Q^{p}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{j-1}} T^{\left( i\right) }\right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=0}^{j-2}} T^{\left( i\right) }\right) \right) . \label{ap262}$$ Due to the parity of $T^{\left( 0\right) },$ for $j\geq1$ the right-hand side of (\[ap262\]) is orthogonal to $\nabla Q$ and hence, such $T^{\left( j\right) }$ exists. Observe that$$\left\vert \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( a+b\right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( a\right) \right\vert \leq C_{m}\left\langle a\right\rangle ^{m}\left\langle b\right\rangle ^{m}\left\vert b\right\vert \left( \left\vert b\right\vert +\left\vert a\right\vert \right) . \label{Pm}$$ Then, as $\left\vert V^{\left( k\right) }\right\vert \leq C\left( k\right) \left\vert V\right\vert ,$ for all $k\geq0,$ by induction in $j$ we estimate$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}T^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1},j}\left( \lambda\right) \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{1+j}\mathbf{e},\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}T^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1},j}\left( \lambda\right) \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{j}\mathbf{e},\text{ }k=1,\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}T^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1},j}\left( \lambda\right) \left( \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{j-1}\mathbf{e},\text{ }k\geq2. \end{array} \right. \label{t01}$$ Let $\mathbf{j}$ be such that $\mathbf{j}\rho\geq1.$ Then, by (\[p1\])$$\left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}T^{\left( \mathbf{j}\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{k,k_{1},\mathbf{j}}\left( \lambda\right) \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\mathbf{j}\rho}\mathbf{e}\leq CC_{k,k_{1},\mathbf{j}}\left( \lambda\right) \frac{\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\mathbf{e}. \label{t0j}$$ We put $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }=\sum_{i=0}^{\mathbf{j}}T^{\left( i\right) }$ and $B_{0}=M_{0}=0.$ By (\[t01\])$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}\boldsymbol{\tilde {T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right\vert \leq CC_{k,k_{1},\mathbf{j}}\left( \lambda\right) \left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \mathbf{e},\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{K,\mathbf{j}}\left( \lambda\right) \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \mathbf{e},\text{ }k=1,\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{K,\mathbf{j}}\left( \lambda\right) \left( \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \mathbf{e},\text{ }k\geq2. \end{array} \right. \label{T0bold}$$ In particular, we get (\[B\]) for $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }$. From (\[E7\]) we have $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) =\lambda^{2}\left( V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) \left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) +\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) T^{\left( \mathbf{j}\right) }\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) +Q^{p}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\sum_{i=0}^{\mathbf{j}-1}T^{\left( i\right) }\right) \right) +\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) -Q^{p}\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{tbold0}$$ Similarly to the proof of (\[estp1\]), by using (\[ap248\]) we show that $$\left\vert V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert e^{-\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert }{2}}\leq C\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l}\left( \left\vert V^{\prime }\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert +\frac{\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+e^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi \right\vert }{2\lambda}}\right) ,\text{ }i,l>0. \label{potentialprime}$$ Hence, by (\[nonlinear\]), (\[Pm\]), (\[t01\]), (\[t0j\]) and (\[tbold0\]) we obtain$$\left. \left\vert \mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi+\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{m+1}\right) \mathbf{e}.\right. \label{ap281}$$ Taking$$m=j+n \label{m}$$ in (\[ap281\]) and using (\[p1\]) we get $$\left\vert \mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) \right\vert \leq C\Psi\left( 1+\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{n}\right) \mathbf{e.}$$ In particular, we attain (\[eps2\]) for $n=0.$ Let us consider now the equation$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \tilde{T}_{1}=-\lambda^{3}\left( B\cdot y\right) \left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) +\lambda^{2}\left( V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) \\ +\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) T^{\left( \mathbf{j}\right) }+Q^{p}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\sum_{i=0}^{\mathbf{j}-1}T^{\left( i\right) }\right) \right) . \end{array} \right. \label{eq14}$$ Observe that$$\left( \left( B\cdot y\right) \left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) ,\nabla Q\right) =-B\left( \left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}-\left( y_{1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) },q^{\prime}\right) \right) .$$ Moreover, by (\[T0bold\]), for all $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C>0,$ with $C$ large enough,$$\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}-\left( y_{1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) },q^{\prime}\right) \geq\frac{\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}{2}.$$ Then, since $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }$ is even, taking$$\tilde{B}_{1}=-\frac{\left( \left( V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) \left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) ,\nabla Q\right) }{\lambda\left( \left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}-\left( y_{1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) },q^{\prime}\right) \right) }$$ we assure that the right-hand side of (\[eq14\]) is orthogonal to $\nabla Q.$ Using (\[estp1\]), (\[T0bold\]), (\[potentialprime\]) we deduce$$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\tilde{B}_{1}\right\vert & \leq C_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda ^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\Psi\\ \left\vert \partial_{\chi}^{k}\partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\tilde{B}_{1}\right\vert & \leq C_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) ,\text{ }k\geq1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, (\[B’\]) for $\tilde{B}_{1}$ follows. Moreover, similarly to (\[ap238\]), via (\[estp1\]) and (\[Pm\]), we estimate $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}\tilde{T}_{1}\right\vert \leq CC_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\Psi\mathbf{e}\\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}\tilde{T}_{1}\right\vert \leq CC_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \mathbf{e},\text{ }k\geq1.\text{ }\end{array} \right. \label{t1p}$$ We now consider the equation$$\left. \left( L_{-}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) \tilde{T}_{2}=-\lambda M\Lambda\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) +\lambda^{2}\left( \tilde{M}_{1}\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) +2\lambda^{2}\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 0\right) }+\tilde{T}_{1}\right) .\right. \label{eq15}$$ Since $\left( \Lambda Q,Q\right) \neq0,$ by (\[T0bold\]) and (\[t1p\]), for all $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C>0,$ with $C$ large enough,$$\left\vert \left( \Lambda\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) -\lambda\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }}{\partial\lambda},Q\right) \right\vert \geq\frac{\left\vert \left( \Lambda Q,Q\right) \right\vert }{2}.$$ Then, we define $\tilde{M}_{1}$ by $$\tilde{M}_{1}=\frac{2\lambda}{\left( \Lambda\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) -\lambda\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }}{\partial\lambda},Q\right) }\left( \beta\cdot \nabla_{\chi}\left( \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( 0\right) }+\tilde{T}_{1}\right) ,Q\right) . \label{ap311}$$ Using (\[T0bold\]) and (\[t1p\]) we see that $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}^{k_{1}}\partial_{y}^{k_{2}}\tilde{M}_{1}\right\vert \leq CC_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\Psi,\\ \\ \left\vert \mathcal{D}_{2}\tilde{M}_{1}\right\vert \leq CC_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{j,K}}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) ,\text{ }k\geq1, \end{array} \right. \label{ap312}$$ and thus, we get (\[B’\]) for $\tilde{M}_{1}.$ Moreover, we have$$\left\vert \mathcal{D}\tilde{T}_{2}\right\vert \leq CC_{1,K}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1,K}}\left\langle \lambda^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1,K}}\Psi\mathbf{e}. \label{t2p}$$ We set $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }=\tilde{T}_{1}+i\tilde {T}_{2}.$ By (\[t1p\]) and (\[t2p\]) we deduce (\[B\]) for $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }$. Using (\[ap262\]), (\[eq14\]) and (\[eq15\]) in (\[E7\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( T\right) =\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) =-i\lambda\tilde{M}_{1}\Lambda\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }-\lambda^{3}\left( \tilde{B}_{1}\cdot y\right) \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2i\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\tilde{T}_{2}+i\tilde{B}_{1}\cdot\nabla_{\beta}\tilde{T}_{2}+\tilde{M}_{1}\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left( \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) -Q^{p}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\left( \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) \right) \right) \\ +Q^{p}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\left( \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 1\right) }\right) \right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) \right) . \end{array} \right.$$ Therefore, as $m$ is given by (\[m\]), from (\[B\]), (\[nonlinear\]) and (\[Pm\]) we get $$\left\vert \mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( T\right) \right\vert \leq C_{1}\left\langle \lambda\right\rangle ^{i_{1}}\left\langle \lambda ^{-1}\right\rangle ^{l_{1}}\left\langle \left\vert \beta\right\vert \right\rangle ^{m_{1}}\Psi\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \left( 1+\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{n-1}\right) ,$$ and hence (\[eps2\]) with $n=2.$ We now proceed by induction. Suppose that we have constructed $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( j\right) },\tilde{B}_{j},\tilde{M}_{j},$ $j=0,...,n,$ for some $n\geq3,$ in such a way that (\[B\]), (\[B’\]) and (\[eps2\]) hold for all $j=0,...,n.$ Denote $$\tilde{\Upsilon}^{\left( n\right) }=\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }+i\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{2}^{\left( n\right) },\text{ with\ }\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{i}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\tilde {T}_{i}^{\left( j\right) },\text{ }i=1,2,$$ and $$\mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\tilde{B}_{j},\text{ \ }\mathcal{\tilde{M}}^{\left( n\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\tilde{M}_{j}.$$ Let us consider the equations$$\left( L_{+}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \tilde{T}_{1}^{\left( n+1\right) }=-\lambda^{3}\left( \tilde{B}_{n+1}\cdot y\right) \left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) +\tilde{f}_{2n+1} \label{eq16}$$ with$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\tilde{f}_{2n+1}=-\lambda^{3}\left( \mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n\right) }\cdot y\right) \tilde{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }-\lambda^{3}\left( \tilde{B}_{n}\cdot y\right) \mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{1}^{\left( n-1\right) }+\lambda\mathcal{\tilde{M}}^{\left( n\right) }\Lambda\tilde{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) }+\lambda\tilde{M}_{n}\Lambda\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{2}^{\left( n-1\right) }\\ \\ -2\lambda^{2}\left( \beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\tilde{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\lambda^{2}\left( \mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n\right) }\cdot\nabla_{\beta}\tilde{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) }+\mathcal{\tilde{M}}^{\left( n\right) }\frac{\partial\tilde{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) -\lambda^{2}\left( \tilde{B}_{n}\cdot\nabla _{\beta}\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{2}^{\left( n-1\right) }+\tilde{M}_{n}\frac{\partial\mathcal{T}_{2}^{\left( n-1\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) \\ \\ +Q^{p}\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\tilde{\Upsilon }^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\tilde{\Upsilon }^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right) , \end{array} \right. \label{f2n+1}$$ and $$\left( L_{-}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \tilde{T}_{2}^{\left( n+1\right) }=-\lambda\tilde{M}_{n+1}\Lambda\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) +\lambda^{2}\left( \tilde{M}_{n+1}\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\tilde{f}_{2n+2} \label{eq17}$$ with$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\tilde{f}_{2n+2}=-\lambda\mathcal{\tilde{M}}^{\left( n\right) }\Lambda \tilde{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }-\lambda\tilde{M}_{n}\Lambda\mathcal{\tilde {T}}_{1}^{\left( n-1\right) }-\lambda^{3}\left( \mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n\right) }\cdot y\right) \tilde{T}_{2}^{\left( n\right) }-\lambda^{3}\left( \tilde{B}_{n}\cdot y\right) \mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{2}^{\left( n-1\right) }\\ \\ +2\lambda^{2}\left( \beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\tilde{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }\right) +\lambda^{2}\left( \mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n\right) }\cdot\nabla_{\beta}\tilde{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }+\mathcal{\tilde{M}}^{\left( n\right) }\frac{\partial\tilde{T}_{1}^{\left( n\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) +\lambda^{2}\left( \tilde{B}_{n}\cdot\nabla _{\beta}\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{1}^{\left( n-1\right) }+\tilde{M}_{n}\frac{\partial\mathcal{\tilde{T}}_{1}^{\left( n-1\right) }}{\partial\lambda }\right) \\ \\ +Q^{p}\operatorname{Im}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\tilde{\Upsilon }^{\left( n\right) }\right) -\mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\tilde{\Upsilon }^{\left( n-1\right) }\right) \right) . \end{array} \right. \label{f2n+2}$$ We put $$\tilde{B}_{n+1}=-\frac{\left( \tilde{f}_{2n+1},\nabla Q\right) }{\lambda ^{3}\left( \left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}-\left( y_{1}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) },q^{\prime}\right) \right) }\text{ and }\tilde{M}_{n+1}=\frac{\left( \tilde{f}_{2n+2},Q\right) }{\lambda\left( \Lambda\left( Q+\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }\right) -\lambda\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( 0\right) }}{\partial\lambda},Q\right) }. \label{B3}$$ Using the hypothesis of induction we see that $B_{n+1}$ and $M_{n+1}$ satisfy (\[B’\]) with $j=n+1.$ We recursively define $T_{1}^{\left( n+1\right) }$ and $T_{2}^{\left( n+1\right) }$ as solutions to equations (\[eq11\]) and (\[eq12\]), which exist thanks to (\[B3\]) and Lemma \[Linv\]$.$ We put$$\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( n+1\right) }=T_{1}^{\left( n+1\right) }+iT_{2}^{\left( n+1\right) }.$$ As (\[B\]) holds for all $j=0,...,n,$ and (\[B’\]) is true for all $j=0,...,n+1,$ from (\[f2n+1\]) and (\[f2n+2\]) we deduce (\[B\]) for $j=n+1.$ Introducing $T=\Upsilon^{\left( n\right) }+\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( n+1\right) },$ $B=\mathcal{B}^{\left( n+1\right) }$, $M=\mathcal{M}^{\left( n+1\right) },$ into (\[E7\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{E}_{\operatorname*{apr}}\left( Q+T\right) =-i\lambda\mathcal{\tilde {M}}^{\left( n+1\right) }\Lambda\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( n+1\right) }-i\lambda\tilde{M}_{n+1}\Lambda\tilde{\Upsilon}^{\left( n\right) }-\lambda^{3}\left( \mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n+1\right) }\cdot y\right) \boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( n+1\right) }-\lambda^{3}\left( \tilde {B}_{n+1}\cdot y\right) \tilde{\Upsilon}^{\left( n\right) }\\ +i\lambda^{2}\left( 2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( n+1\right) }+\mathcal{\tilde{B}}^{\left( n+1\right) }\cdot\nabla_{\beta }\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( n+1\right) }+\tilde{B}_{n+1}\cdot \nabla_{\beta}\tilde{\Upsilon}^{\left( n\right) }+\mathcal{\tilde{M}}^{\left( n+1\right) }\frac{\partial\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( n+1\right) }}{\partial\lambda}+\tilde{M}_{n+1}\frac{\partial\tilde{\Upsilon }^{\left( n\right) }}{\partial\lambda}\right) \\ +\mathcal{N}\left( \left( \Upsilon^{\left( n+1\right) }\right) \right) -Q^{p}\left( \mathbf{P}_{m}\left( Q^{-1}\tilde{\Upsilon}^{\left( n\right) }\right) \right) . \end{array} \right.$$ From the validity of (\[B\]) and (\[B’\]), for any $j=0,...,n+1,$ using (\[nonlinear\]), we prove (\[eps2\]) with $n$ replaced by $n+1.$ Let us formulate the approximation result. Given a vector of parameters $\Xi=\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ consider the approximate solutions $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }$ and $\boldsymbol{\tilde{T}}^{\left( j\right) }$ of Lemmas \[Lemmaapp\] and \[Lemmaapp1\], respectively. For $j\geq0,$ we denote these solutions by $\boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }$ independently of the case. Let the approximate soliton solution to the perturbed NLS equation be$$\mathcal{W}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t,x;\Xi\right) =\lambda^{-\frac {2}{p-1}}W\left( \frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}. \label{w}$$ with$$W=Q+{\textstyle\sum_{j=0}^{N}} \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }. \label{w1}$$ We have the following. \[L1\]Let $\Xi\left( t\right) =\left( \chi\left( t\right) ,\beta\left( t\right) ,\lambda\left( t\right) \right) $ and $\gamma\left( t\right) $ be $C^{1}$ functions on a time interval $I=[t_{0},t_{1}],$ $t_{1}\leq\infty.$ Suppose that for $t\in I$$$\begin{aligned} 1 & \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\left( t_{0}\right) \right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert ,\text{ \ }\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq2\left\vert \beta\left( t_{0}\right) \right\vert ,\\ 0 & <\frac{\lambda\left( t_{0}\right) }{2}\leq\lambda\left( t\right) \leq2\lambda\left( t_{0}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Let $N\geq1.$ Then, $\mathcal{W=W}^{\left( N\right) }$ satisfies $$i\partial_{t}\mathcal{W}+\Delta\mathcal{W}+\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\mathcal{W}+V\mathcal{W}=\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( \mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }+R\left( W\right) \right) \left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}, \label{ap182}$$ where $R\left( W\right) $ is given by (\[E9\]) and the error term $\mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }$ satisfies the estimate$$\left\vert \mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{N,\lambda ,\beta}\mathbf{Y}\left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) \right) ^{A\left( N\right) }+\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) , \label{eps1}$$ with $A\left( N\right) =\min\{N\left( p_{1}-1\right) ,2\}$ and $C_{N,\lambda,\beta}>0.$ In addition, in the case when $V=V^{\left( 2\right) },$ the estimate$$\left\vert \mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq C_{N,\lambda ,\beta}\Psi\mathbf{Z}^{N}\mathbf{e} \label{eps1bis}$$ is true. The result follows from (\[calc1\]), (\[E6\]) and Lemmas \[Lemmaapp\], \[Lemmaapp1\]. Approximate modulation parameters.\[Sec1\] ------------------------------------------ We want to construct approximate modulation equations for $\Xi\left( t\right) $ and $\gamma\left( t\right) .$ For $\lambda^{\infty}\in \mathbb{R}^{+}$ let us consider the problem of the motion in the central field $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}^{\infty}=2\beta^{\infty},\\ \dot{\beta}^{\infty}=\dfrac{1}{2\lambda\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}\dfrac{\chi^{\infty}}{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }U_{V_{\lambda ^{\infty}}}^{\prime}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \end{array} \right. \label{syst1}$$ where we emphasize the dependence of $V$ on $\lambda$ (recall (\[vcall\])). The energy of the system is given by $$E_{0}=\frac{\left\vert \dot{\chi}^{\infty}\right\vert ^{2}}{2}-\frac {U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \frac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }{\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}} \label{energy}$$ where $r^{\infty}=\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert .$ The unbounded solutions $\chi^{\infty}$ of (\[syst\]) have the following behaviour for large $t$ depending on the regime. If $E_{0}>0$, for some $C_{\operatorname*{hyp}},C_{\operatorname*{hyp}}^{\prime}>0,$ we have $$r^{\infty}=C_{\operatorname*{hyp}}t+o\left( t\right) \text{ and }\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert =C_{\operatorname*{hyp}}^{\prime}+o\left( 1\right) . \label{ap200}$$ In the case $E_{0}=0,$ the unbounded solutions, if they exist behave as$$t=\frac{\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}}{\sqrt{2}}\int_{r_{0}}^{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }\frac{dr}{\sqrt{U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \frac{r}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) -\frac{\mu^{2}}{r^{2}}}}+t_{0} \label{ap192}$$ where $\mu\geq0$ is the angular momentum$,$ and $$\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert =\frac{\sqrt{U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \frac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) -\frac{\mu^{2}}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2}}}}{\sqrt{2}\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}}. \label{ap193}$$ Let $\lambda^{\infty}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\Xi^{\infty}\left( t\right) =\left( \chi^{\infty}\left( t\right) ,\beta^{\infty}\left( t\right) ,\lambda^{\infty}\right) $ be a solution to (\[syst\]) and $\gamma^{\infty }\left( t\right) $ be given by (\[gamma\]). \[Rem2\]Observe that in the case $E_{0}=0$, if the potential $U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) $ decays faster than the centrifugal energy term $\frac{\mu^{2}}{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert ^{2}},$ with $\mu>0$, all the solutions are bounded. Therefore, in that case, the unbounded solutions are possible only if $\mu=0.$ If the potential decays slower than $r^{2},$ for instance if $$\left\vert V_{\lambda^{\infty}}\left( r\right) \right\vert \geq c\left\langle r\right\rangle ^{-2+\nu}>0, \label{cond2}$$ for some $0<\nu<2,$ then the solution to (\[syst1\]) with $E_{0}=0$ is given by $$\chi^{\infty}\left( t\right) =r^{\infty}\left( t\right) \theta^{\infty }\left( t\right) , \label{chiinf}$$ with $r^{\infty}\left( t\right) $ solving $$\dot{r}^{\infty}=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{2}}U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \frac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) -\frac{\mu^{2}}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2}}}. \label{ap299}$$ and $\theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) $ satisfying $$\left\vert \dot{\theta}^{\infty}\left( t\right) \right\vert =\frac{\mu }{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2}}. \label{angular}$$ By (\[cond2\]), for any $\theta_{0}^{\infty}\in\mathbb{S}^{d-1},$ there is a solution $\theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) $ for (\[angular\]) such that $$\left\vert \theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) -\theta_{0}^{\infty}\right\vert \leq\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{\mu}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2}}d\tau\leq C\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{\dot{r}^{\infty}d\tau}{\sqrt{V\left( \frac{r^{\infty }}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2}}\leq C\int_{r^{\infty}}^{\infty}\frac{dr^{\infty}}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{1+\nu/2}}\leq C\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{-\nu/2}. \label{angular1}$$ We now define the approximate system of modulation parameters. The form of $R\left( W\right) $ in (\[ap182\]) suggests to define the approximate system as follows. For $j\geq1$, let $B_{j}$, $M_{j}$ and $\tilde{B}_{j}$, $\tilde{M}_{j}$ be defined by Lemmas \[Lemmaapp\] and \[Lemmaapp1\], respectively. We omit the tilde and write $B_{j}$, $M_{j}$ in both cases. Denote $$\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{N}B_{j}\text{ and }\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }=\sum_{j=1}^{N}M_{j}$$ Consider the system $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}^{\left( N\right) }=2\beta^{\left( N\right) },\\ \dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }=\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) },\\ \dot{\lambda}^{\left( N\right) }=\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }. \end{array} \right. \label{syst3}$$ Let us show that (\[syst3\]) may be solved from infinity with asymptotic behaviour given by $\Xi^{\infty}\left( t\right) .$ Observe that by Condition \[ConidtionPotential\] the potential is given either by $$V\left( r\right) =V^{\left( 1\right) }\left( r\right) , \label{cond8}$$ where $\left\vert V^{\left( 1\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-cr},$ for some $c>0,$ or else $V\left( r\right) =V^{\left( 2\right) }\left( r\right) .$ Also by Condition \[ConidtionPotential\]$$\left\vert U_{V^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert U_{V}^{\prime}\left( r\right) \right\vert . \label{Cond1}$$ By assumption (\[condpotin\]) there are constants $\mathcal{R}_{1},\mathcal{R}_{2}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $$U_{V_{\lambda}^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left( r\right) \mathcal{Y}\left( r,\lambda\right) =\mathcal{R}_{1}+o\left( 1\right) \text{ and }\frac{U_{V_{\lambda}}^{\prime}\left( r\right) }{r}\mathcal{Y}\left( r\right) =\mathcal{R}_{2}+o\left( 1\right) , \label{ap302}$$ as $r\rightarrow\infty,$ where we denote $$\mathcal{Y}\left( r,\lambda\right) =\left( \int_{r_{0}}^{r}\frac{d\tau }{\sqrt{U_{V_{\lambda}}\left( \frac{\tau}{\lambda}\right) }}\right) ^{2}.$$ \[approxsyst\]Let $V$ satisfy by Condition \[ConidtionPotential\]. For any $N\geq1$ there is a solution $\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) =\left( \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) ,\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) ,\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) $ to (\[syst3\]) on $[T_{0},\infty),$ with $T_{0}$ large enough. This solution satisfies the following asymptotics depending on the energy $E_{0}$ given by (\[energy\]). If $E_{0}>0,$ then $$\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) -\chi^{\infty}\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{-1}\left\vert \beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) -\beta^{\infty }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\infty}\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) . \label{beh1}$$ If $E_{0}=0,$ suppose in addition that $V\left( r\right) \geq0,$ for all $r$ large enough. Then $$\left\vert \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\left( t\right) \right\vert }-1\right\vert +\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{-1}\left\vert \beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) -\beta^{\infty }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\infty}\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) . \label{beh2}$$ The proof of (\[beh1\]) follows by a fixed point argument similarly to Lemma A.1 in [@Krieger]. We omit the proof. We turn to relation (\[beh2\])$.$ As we are interested in unbounded solutions, by Remark \[Rem2\] we put $$\mu=0,\text{ if \ }\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\langle r\right\rangle ^{-2}. \label{mu=0}$$ Suppose first that $V=V^{\left( 1\right) }.$ In this case we can precise the behaviour of $\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert .$ By the definition (\[ap190\]) and (\[ap191\]) of $U_{V}\left( \xi\right) $, integrating by parts, for $r_{0}$ large enough we show that$$C^{\prime}\frac{e^{r^{\infty}+\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}\ln r^{\infty}}}{\sqrt{C_{\pm}\left( r^{\infty}\right) }}\leq\int_{r_{0}}^{r^{\infty}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( r\right) }}\leq C\frac{e^{r^{\infty}+\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}\ln r^{\infty}}}{\sqrt{C_{\pm}\left( r^{\infty}\right) }},\text{ with some }C,C^{\prime}>0,$$ if $V\left( r\right) =V_{-}\left( r\right) \ $or $V\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) ,$ with $H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) .$ Moreover, if $V\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) ,$ with $0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) <2r,$ we estimate$$C^{\prime}e^{r^{\infty}+\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}\ln r^{\infty}-\frac{H\left( r^{\infty}\right) }{2}}\leq\int_{r_{0}}^{r^{\infty}}\frac {dr}{\sqrt{U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( r\right) }}\leq Ce^{r^{\infty }+\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}\ln r^{\infty}-\frac{H\left( r^{\infty }\right) }{2}},$$ Then, (\[mu=0\]) and (\[ap192\]) imply$$r^{\infty}=K\left( V\right) \left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) \ln t,\text{ as }t\rightarrow\infty, \label{ap199}$$ with $$K\left( V\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}1,\text{ if }V=V_{-}\ \text{ or }V=V_{+},\text{ with }H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,\\ \left( \lim_{\tau\rightarrow\infty}\left( 1-\frac{H\left( \tau\right) }{2\tau}\right) \right) ^{-1},\text{ }V=V_{+},\text{ with }0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) <2r. \end{array} \right. \label{K(V)}$$ Let us write $\chi^{\infty}=r^{\infty}\theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) ,$ with $r^{\infty}>0$ and $\theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) \in\mathbb{S}^{d-1}.$ Then, as in this case we put $\mu=0,$ we have $\theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) =\theta_{0}^{\infty}=$constant and $\left\vert \dot{\chi}^{\infty }\right\vert =\dot{r}^{\infty}.$ By Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] we can rewrite (\[syst3\]) as follows$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}=2\beta,\\ \dot{\beta}=B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) +f_{1}\left( \chi,\beta ,\lambda\right) ,\\ \dot{\lambda}=g_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) , \end{array} \right. \label{syst4}$$ (we omit the index $N$ in $\chi,\beta,\lambda$) where $$\left\vert f_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \left( \left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \Theta\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) ^{p_{1}}+\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{p_{1}}\right) , \label{f}$$ and$$\left\vert g_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \left( \left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \Theta\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) +\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) . \label{g}$$ Let us consider the intermediate system $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}_{\operatorname*{app}}=2\beta_{\operatorname*{app}},\\ \dot{\beta}_{\operatorname*{app}}=B\left( \chi_{\operatorname*{app}},\lambda^{\infty}\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{ap297}$$ Using Lemma \[L2 1\] we have$$B\left( \chi_{\operatorname*{app}},\lambda^{\infty}\right) =\frac {\chi_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }\frac{c_{0}}{4\lambda^{\infty}}\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi _{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right\vert \right)$$ with $c_{0}=2\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{-2}.$ Then, from (\[ap297\]) we deduce$$\frac{d}{dt}\left\vert \dot{\chi}_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ^{2}=c_{0}\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) \frac{d}{dt}U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty }}}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) . \label{ap300}$$ We take $\chi_{\operatorname*{app}}=r_{\operatorname*{app}}\theta_{0}^{\infty }$ of angular momentum $\mu=0$ such that $r_{\operatorname*{app}}\rightarrow\infty$, $\dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app}}\rightarrow0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty.$ Integrating (\[ap300\]) on $[t,\infty)$ and using Lemma \[L2 1\] we get$$\dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app}}=\left( c_{0}\left( \left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \tfrac {r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) \right) ^{1/2},$$ Hence $$t=c_{0}^{-1/2}\int_{r_{0}}^{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \tfrac {r}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }}+t_{0}. \label{ap303}$$ Similarly to (\[ap199\]) we show that $r_{\operatorname*{app}}=K\left( V\right) \left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) \ln t,$ as $t\rightarrow \infty.$ Then, $$\left\vert \frac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{r^{\infty}}-1\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) \text{ and }\left\vert \beta_{\operatorname*{app}}-\beta^{\infty }\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) \left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert . \label{rapp}$$ Let us decompose $\chi\left( t\right) =\chi_{_{\operatorname*{app}}}\left( t\right) +\delta\left( t\right) $ and $\lambda\left( t\right) =\lambda^{\infty}+\mu\left( t\right) .$ We aim to prove that for some $T_{0}>0$ sufficiently big the following a priori estimates are true $$\left\vert \delta\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}},\text{ }\left\vert \dot{\delta}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq t^{-\left( 1+\frac{p_{1}}{4}\right) },\text{ }\left\vert \mu\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq t^{-\frac{3}{4}} \label{boot1}$$ for all $t\in\lbrack T_{0},\infty).$ In view of relation (\[l2\]) we write $B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) =\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }b\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\lambda\right) .$ Linearizing $B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) $ around $\left( \chi_{\operatorname*{app}},\lambda^{\infty}\right) $ we get$$B\left( \chi,\lambda\right) =B\left( \chi_{\operatorname*{app}},\lambda^{\infty}\right) +\left( \theta_{0}^{\infty}\cdot\delta\right) \theta_{0}^{\infty}b^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ,\lambda^{\infty}\right) +f_{2}$$ where via (\[Cond1\]) $$\begin{aligned} f_{2} & =O\left( \left\vert \partial_{\lambda}B\left( \chi _{\operatorname*{app}},\lambda^{\infty}\right) \right\vert \left\vert \mu\right\vert +\frac{\left\vert \delta\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi _{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }\left\vert b\left( \left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ,\lambda^{\infty}\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \delta\right\vert ^{2}\left\vert b^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ,\lambda^{\infty}\right) \right\vert \right) \\ & =O\left( \left\vert U_{V}^{\prime}\left( r\right) \right\vert \left( \left\vert \mu\right\vert +\frac{\left\vert \delta\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }+\left\vert \delta\right\vert ^{2}\right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$ We use the Cartesian coordinates with the $x_{1}$-axis directed along the vector $\theta_{0}^{\infty}.$ We decompose $\delta=\sum_{j=1}^{d}\delta _{j}\vec{e}_{j},$ and $\vec{e}_{j},$ $j=1,...,d$ is the canonical basis in these coordinates. Then $\left( \theta_{0}^{\infty}\cdot\delta\right) \theta_{0}^{\infty}=\delta_{1}$ and by (\[syst4\]) we obtain $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\ddot{\delta}=b^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ,\lambda^{\infty}\right) \delta_{1}\vec{e}_{1}+2f_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) +2f_{2},\\ \dot{\lambda}=g_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{syst5}$$ It follows from (\[ap299\]) that $\dot{r}^{\infty}=\mathcal{X},$ where $$\mathcal{X=}\sqrt{U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}\left( \frac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }. \label{x}$$ Using (\[f\]), (\[g\]), (\[boot1\]) and (\[ap199\]) we estimate$$\left\vert f_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \mathcal{X}^{p_{1}}\leq Ct^{-2-p_{1}},$$$$\left\vert f_{2}\right\vert \leq\frac{C}{t^{2}}\left( t^{-\frac{3}{4}}+t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\left( \ln t\right) ^{-1}+t^{-p_{1}}\right)$$ and $$\left\vert g_{1}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \mathcal{X}\leq Ct^{-2}.$$ Then, from (\[syst5\]), for some $T_{0}>0$ big enough we get$$\left. \left\vert \delta_{j}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2t^{\frac{p_{1}}{4}}},\text{ }\left\vert \delta_{j}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2t^{1+\frac{p_{1}}{4}}},\text{ }j=2,...,d,\right. \label{delta}$$ and $$\left\vert \mu\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2t^{\frac{3}{4}}}, \label{mu}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T_{0},\infty).$ Let us estimate $\delta_{1}.$ Using Lemma \[L2 1\] with $V^{\prime}$ instead of $V,$ we have$$b^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ,\lambda^{\infty}\right) =c_{0}\left( \lambda^{\infty}\right) \left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) U_{V^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left( \tfrac {r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) .$$ Then $$\ddot{\delta}_{1}=c_{0}\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) U_{V^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \delta_{1}+O\left( t^{-2-p_{1}}\right) .$$ By (\[ap302\]) and (\[ap303\]) we deduce $U_{V^{\prime}}^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) =\left( \mathcal{R}_{1}+o\left( 1\right) \right) c_{0}^{-1}\left( \lambda^{\infty }\right) t^{-2}.$ Thus$$\ddot{\delta}_{1}=\mathcal{R}_{1}t^{-2}\delta_{1}+O\left( o\left( 1\right) t^{-2}\left\vert \delta_{1}\right\vert +t^{-2-p_{1}}\right) . \label{ap304}$$ If $\mathcal{R}_{1}=0,$ we improve the estimate on $\delta_{1}$ and $\dot{\delta}_{1}$ (\[boot1\]) directly by integrating (\[ap304\]). If $\mathcal{R}_{1}\neq0,$ the linear equation $\ddot{\delta}_{1}=\mathcal{R}_{1}t^{-2}\delta_{1}$ has two linearly independent solutions $\delta _{1}^{\left( 1\right) },\delta_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }$ such that $\left\vert \delta_{1}^{\left( 1\right) }\delta_{1}^{\left( 2\right) }\right\vert \leq Ct.$ By variation of parameters we solve (\[ap304\]) and via (\[boot1\]) we estimate the solution as $$\left\vert \delta_{1}\right\vert \leq Co\left( 1\right) \int_{t}^{\infty }\left( \tau^{-1}\left\vert \delta_{1}\right\vert +\tau^{-1-p_{1}}\right) \text{ and }\left\vert \dot{\delta}_{1}\right\vert \leq Co\left( 1\right) \left( t^{-1}\left\vert \delta_{1}\right\vert +t^{-1-p_{1}}\right)$$ Hence, for $T_{0}>0$ big enough we obtain the bound $\left\vert \delta _{1}\right\vert \leq\left( 2t^{\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) ^{-1}$ and $\left\vert \dot{\delta}_{1}\right\vert \leq\left( 2t^{1+\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) ^{-1}$ for $t\in\lbrack T_{0},\infty).$ Combining the last relation with (\[delta\]) and (\[mu\]) we strictly improve (\[boot1\]). Then, by a contraction argument, via (\[rapp\]), we prove the existence of a solution $\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) $ for (\[syst4\]) with the asymptotics (\[beh2\]). Let now $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }.$ First we suppose that the potential $V$ decays faster than $\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-2}.$ Namely,$$\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\langle r\right\rangle ^{-2}. \label{cond4}$$ We consider the intermediate system$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}_{\operatorname*{app}}=2\beta_{\operatorname*{app}},\\ \dot{\beta}_{\operatorname*{app}}=\frac{\chi_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }\left( \frac{1}{2\lambda^{\infty}}V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) +\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi _{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert \right) \right) . \end{array} \right. \label{syst9}$$ Recall that $$\left\vert h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Cr^{-1}h_{1}^{\left( k-1\right) }\left( r\right) ,\text{ }k\geq1. \label{cond3}$$ Then$$\left\vert \mathbf{r}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \left( \left( \left\vert h^{\prime }\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert +\tfrac{1}{\left\vert \chi _{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }\right) V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac {\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) +\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ^{-2}V\left( \tfrac {\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) .$$ Thus, it follows from (\[syst9\]) that$$\frac{d}{dt}\left\vert \dot{\chi}_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert ^{2}=\frac{d}{dt}\left( 2V\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \left( 1+O\left( h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app}}\right\vert \right) \right) \right) \right) . \label{ap314}$$ We take $\chi_{\operatorname*{app}}=r_{\operatorname*{app}}\theta_{0}^{\infty }$ of angular momentum $\mu=0$ such that $r_{\operatorname*{app}}\rightarrow\infty$, $\dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app}}\rightarrow0$ as $t\rightarrow\infty.$ Integrating (\[ap314\]) we get$$\dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app}}=\sqrt{2V\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \left( 1+O\left( h^{\prime}\left( r_{\operatorname*{app}}\right) \right) \right) }.$$ Then, $$t=\int_{r_{0}}^{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{2V\left( \tfrac {r}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \left( 1+O\left( h^{\prime}\left( r\right) \right) \right) }}+t_{0} \label{ap315}$$ Let $z\left( t\right) =\frac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\left( t\right) }{r^{\infty}\left( t\right) }.$ We introduce $$F\left( z\right) =\int_{r_{0}}^{zr^{\infty}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{2V\left( \tfrac{r}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \left( 1+O\left( h^{\prime}\left( r\right) \right) \right) }}.$$ and $$F_{0}=\int_{r_{0}}^{r^{\infty}}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{2V\left( \tfrac{r}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }}.$$ Expanding $F\left( z\right) $ around $z=1$ we have$$F\left( z\right) =F_{0}+O\left( \left( V\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right) +F^{\prime}\left( 1\right) \left( z-1\right) +O\left( F^{\prime\prime}\left( 1\right) \left( z-1\right) ^{2}\right) .$$ By (\[ap192\]) $t=F_{0}+t_{0}.$ Then, using (\[ap315\]) we deduce$$\frac{F\left( z\right) }{F_{0}}=1=1+\frac{O\left( \left( V\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right) +r^{\infty}F^{\prime}\left( 1\right) \left( z-1\right) +O\left( \left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2}F^{\prime\prime}\left( 1\right) \left( z-1\right) ^{2}\right) }{F_{0}}.$$ Hence, $$\left\vert z-1\right\vert =\frac{O\left( \left( V\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right) }{r^{\infty }F^{\prime}\left( 1\right) }=O\left( \frac{1}{r^{\infty}}\right) .$$ Thus, we obtain $$\left\vert \frac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}\left( t\right) }{r^{\infty}\left( t\right) }-1\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) \text{ and }\left\vert \beta_{\operatorname*{app}}-\beta^{\infty}\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) \left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert .$$ Then, arguing similarly to (\[boot1\]), we prove the existence of a solution $\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) $ for (\[syst4\]) with the asymptotics (\[beh2\]) in the case when $V$ decay faster than $\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-2}$. Now, we consider the case of potentials that decay slower than $\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-2}.$ We suppose that (\[cond2\]) holds. Let $\chi^{\infty }=r^{\infty}\theta^{\infty}$ and $\theta_{0}^{\infty}=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\theta^{\infty}\left( t\right) .$ Recall the definition (\[ap311\]) of $M_{1}$ and estimate (\[ap312\]). Let us consider the intermediate system$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}_{\operatorname*{app1}}=2\beta_{\operatorname*{app1}},\\ \dot{\beta}_{\operatorname*{app1}}=\frac{1}{2\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\frac{\chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right\vert }V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right\vert }{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) ,\\ \dot{\lambda}_{\operatorname*{app1}}=M_{1}\left( \lambda _{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) =O\left( \left\vert \beta _{\operatorname*{app1}}\right\vert \Psi\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{syst6}$$ Denote$$F_{\mu}\left( \xi\right) =\sqrt{2V\left( \tfrac{\xi}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) -\frac{\mu^{2}}{\xi^{2}}}.$$ We search a solution to (\[syst6\]) in the form$$\chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}=r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\theta_{0}^{\infty}.$$ We denote $\mu_{\operatorname*{app1}}=\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}-\lambda^{\infty}.$ Using (\[cond3\]) we get $O\left( \mu _{\operatorname*{app1}}\left( V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) +r_{\operatorname*{app}}V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda _{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) \right) \right) =O\left( \mu _{\operatorname*{app1}}V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) \right) $ and system (\[syst6\]) reads $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\ddot{r}_{\operatorname*{app1}}=\frac{1}{\lambda^{\infty}}V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) +O\left( \mu_{\operatorname*{app1}}V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) \right) ,\\ \dot{\lambda}_{\operatorname*{app1}}=M_{1}\left( \lambda _{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) =O\left( \dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app1}}\Psi\right) , \end{array} \right. \label{syst8}$$ Let us prove that for some $r_{\operatorname*{app1}}$ there is $T_{0}>0$ such that $$\left\vert z\left( t\right) -1\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{\left( r^{\infty }\right) ^{\frac{\rho}{4}}}\text{ and }\left\vert \mu_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right\vert \leq\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{-\frac{\rho}{2}},\text{ for }t\in\lbrack T_{0},\infty), \label{boot2}$$ where we denote $z\left( t\right) =\frac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\left( t\right) }{r^{\infty}\left( t\right) }.$ Integrating the first equation we get$$\dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app1}}=F_{0}\left( r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) +O\left( \mu_{\operatorname*{app1}}\sqrt{V\left( \tfrac {r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) }\right)$$ From (\[ap299\]) we get$$\dot{r}^{\infty}=F_{\mu}\left( r^{\infty}\right) .$$ Then$$\begin{aligned} \dot{z} & =\frac{1}{r^{\infty}}\left( \dot{r}_{\operatorname*{app1}}-z\dot{r}^{\infty}\right) =\frac{1}{r^{\infty}}\left( F_{0}\left( zr^{\infty}\right) -zF_{\mu}\left( r^{\infty}\right) \right) \\ & =\frac{1}{r^{\infty}}\left( \left( F_{0}\left( zr^{\infty}\right) -zF_{0}\left( r^{\infty}\right) \right) +z\left( F_{0}\left( r^{\infty }\right) -F_{\mu}\left( r^{\infty}\right) \right) +O\left( \mu _{\operatorname*{app1}}\sqrt{V\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) }\right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$ We put $w=z-1.$ Linearizing $F_{0}\left( zr^{\infty}\right) $ around $z=1$ we have$$\dot{w}=\left( F_{0}^{\prime}\left( r^{\infty}\right) -\frac{F_{0}\left( r^{\infty}\right) }{r^{\infty}}\right) w+\mathbf{w}\left( r^{\infty }\right) \label{ap305}$$ with$$\mathbf{w}\left( r^{\infty}\right) =O\left( r^{\infty}F_{0}^{\prime\prime }\left( r^{\infty}\right) w^{2}+\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{-3}F_{0}^{\prime}\left( r^{\infty}\right) +\frac{\sqrt{V\left( \tfrac {r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{1+\frac{\rho}{2}}}\right) .$$ Using (\[cond2\]) we see that $\left\vert h_{1}\left( r^{\infty}\right) \right\vert \leq c\ln r^{\infty}.$ Then, by (\[boot2\]), by (\[cond3\]) we get $$\mathbf{w}\left( r^{\infty}\right) =O\left( \frac{\dot{r}^{\infty}}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{1+\frac{\rho}{2}}}\right) . \label{ap310}$$ By variation of parameters we get$$w\left( t\right) =w_{0}^{-1}\left( t\right) \int_{t}^{\infty}w_{0}\left( \tau\right) \mathbf{w}\left( r^{\infty}\left( \tau\right) \right) d\tau$$ with$$w_{0}\left( t\right) =e^{\int_{T_{0}}^{t}\left( F_{0}^{\prime}\left( r^{\infty}\right) -\frac{F_{0}\left( r^{\infty}\right) }{r^{\infty}}\right) }.$$ For any $0<\delta<1,$ there exists $T_{0}>0$ sufficiently big, such that $$\ln\left( \frac{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{1-\delta}}{V^{1+\delta}}\right) \leq-\int_{T_{0}}^{t}\left( F_{0}^{\prime}\left( r^{\infty}\right) -\frac{F_{0}\left( r^{\infty}\right) }{r^{\infty}}\right) \leq\ln\left( \frac{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{1+\delta}}{V^{1-\delta}}\right) . \label{ap308}$$ Then, using (\[ap310\]) and (\[p1\]), and taking $\delta$ small enough we obtain $$\left\vert w\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( Vr^{\infty}\right) ^{2\delta}\int_{t}^{\infty}\frac{\dot{r}^{\infty}}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{1+\frac{\rho}{2}}}d\tau\leq C\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{2\delta\left( 1-\rho\right) -\frac{\rho}{2}}\leq\frac{1}{2\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{\frac{\rho}{4}}}. \label{ap324}$$ Integrating the second equation in (\[syst8\]) we deduce $\left\vert \mu_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}\left( r^{\infty }\right) ^{-\frac{\rho}{2}}.$ Therefore, we strictly improve (\[boot2\]). Thus, we show that there is a solution $\chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}$ to (\[syst6\]) such that $$\left\vert \frac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\left( t\right) }{r^{\infty}\left( t\right) }-1\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{\frac{\rho }{4}}},\text{ }\left\vert \beta_{\operatorname*{app1}}-\beta^{\infty }\right\vert =o\left( 1\right) \left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert \text{ and }\left\vert \mu_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right\vert \leq\left( r^{\infty }\right) ^{-\frac{\rho}{2}},\text{ for }t\in\lbrack T_{0},\infty)\text{.} \label{ap313}$$ Let us now return to the full system (\[syst3\]). By Lemmas \[L2 1\] and \[Lemmaapp1\] we have$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}=2\beta,\\ \dot{\beta}=\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( \frac{1}{2\lambda }V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) \right) +f_{2}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) ,\\ \dot{\lambda}=M_{1}\left( \lambda\right) +g_{2}\left( \chi,\beta ,\lambda\right) , \end{array} \right. \label{syst7}$$ (we omit the index $N$ in $\chi,\beta,\lambda$) where $$\left\vert f_{2}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \left( \Psi^{2}+\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) +\left\vert \beta\right\vert \left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert +e^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}\right) ,$$ and$$\left\vert g_{2}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \Psi^{2}.$$ We write $\chi=\chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}+\tilde{\delta}$ and $\lambda =\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}+\mu.$ Then, as $\chi_{\operatorname*{app1}}$ and $\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}$ solve (\[syst6\]), from (\[syst7\]) we deduce$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\tilde{\delta}^{\prime\prime}=-\tfrac{1}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\frac{1}{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\left( \left( \delta\cdot\theta _{0}^{\infty}\right) \theta_{0}^{\infty}+\delta\right) V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) +\left( \delta\cdot\theta_{0}^{\infty}\right) \theta_{0}^{\infty}\left( \lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) ^{-2}V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\right) +f_{3}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \\ \\ \dot{\mu}=M_{1}^{\prime}\left( \lambda_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) \mu+O\left( \Psi^{2}\right) . \end{array} \right.$$ where$$\begin{aligned} f_{3}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) & =f_{2}\left( \chi,\beta ,\lambda\right) +O\left( \left( V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac {r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) r_{\operatorname*{app1}}+V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) \left\vert \mu\right\vert \right) \\ & +O\left( V^{\prime\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) +\left( r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) ^{-1}V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty }}\right) +\left( r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) ^{-2}V^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right) \left\vert \delta\right\vert ^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that for some $T_{0}>0$ sufficiently big, $$\left\vert \delta\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq r_{\operatorname*{app1}}^{-\rho/4},\text{ }\left\vert \dot{\delta}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq r_{\operatorname*{app1}}^{-\left( 1+\rho/4\right) },\text{ }\left\vert \mu\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq r_{\operatorname*{app1}}^{-\left( 1+\rho/4\right) }. \label{boot4}$$ Observe that by (\[cond2\]) $\left\vert h_{1}\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq C\ln r.$ Then, using (\[p1\]), (\[cond3\]) and (\[boot4\]) we estimate$$\Psi\leq C\frac{\ln r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}\left\vert V\left( \tfrac{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert$$ and$$\left\vert f_{3}\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \right\vert \leq C\frac{\left( \ln^{3}r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) \left\vert V\left( r_{\operatorname*{app1}}\right) \right\vert }{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}^{2}}\left( \frac{1}{r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}+\left\vert V\left( \tfrac {r_{\operatorname*{app1}}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert ^{1/2}\right) .$$ Arguing similarly to the case of (\[syst5\]) we show (\[boot4\]). Therefore, using (\[ap313\]), we prove the existence of a solution $\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) $ for (\[syst3\]) with the asymptotics (\[beh2\]). Proof of Theorem \[T1\].\[Sec2\] ================================ For a solution $\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) $ given by Lemma \[approxsyst\] and $$\dot{\gamma}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) =-\frac{1}{\left( \lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) ^{2}}+\left\vert \beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\dot{\beta }^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \cdot\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) ,$$ we define $\mathcal{W}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) $ by (\[w\]) and (\[w1\]). For $n\in \mathbb{N}$ let a sequence $T_{n}\rightarrow\infty,$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $u_{n}\in H^{1}$ be the solution to the NLS equation with initial data $u_{n}\left( T_{n},x\right) =\mathcal{W}^{\left( N\right) }\left( T_{n},x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( T_{n}\right) \right) $. That is $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}i\partial_{t}u_{n}+\Delta u_{n}+\left\vert u_{n}\right\vert ^{p-1}u_{n}+V\left( x\right) u_{n}=0\\ u_{n}\left( T_{n},x\right) =\mathcal{W}^{\left( N\right) }\left( T_{n},x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( T_{n}\right) \right) . \end{array} \right. \label{appsys}$$ Recall that for a given vector $\Xi=\left( \chi,\beta,\lambda\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\gamma \in\mathbb{R}$ (see (\[w\]) and (\[w1\]))$$\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi\right) =\mathcal{W}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t,x;\Xi\right) =\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}W\left( \frac{x-\chi}{\lambda }\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}. \label{ap350}$$ By using the implicit function theorem in the following lemma we show that as long as the solution evolves close to the solitary-wave solution for the free NLS equation, it may be decomposed as$$u_{n}\left( t,x\right) =\mathcal{W}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t,x;\tilde{\Xi}\left( t\right) \right) +\varepsilon\left( t,x\right) . \label{ap223}$$ where the modulation parameters $\Xi\left( t\right) \in C^{1}\left( T_{n}-T,T_{n}+T\right) ,$ for some $T>0,$ are chosen in such a way that the remainder $\varepsilon$ satisfies the orthogonal conditions $$\left( \zeta,W\right) =\left( \zeta,yW\right) =\left( \zeta,i\Lambda W\right) =\left( \zeta,i\nabla W\right) =0 \label{ap208}$$ with $$\zeta\left( t,y\right) =\left( \lambda\left( t\right) \right) ^{\frac {2}{p-1}}\varepsilon\left( t,\lambda\left( t\right) y+\chi\left( t\right) \right) e^{i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{-i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot\left( \lambda\left( t\right) y+\chi\left( t\right) \right) }. \label{epsilonbar}$$ \[L5\]Given $\Xi_{0}=\left( \chi_{0},\beta_{0},\lambda_{0}\right) \in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $\gamma_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$, let $u\left( t,x\right) $ be a solution for the NLS equation with a potential (\[NLS\]) defined on the interval $[T,T_{\operatorname*{in}}]$, with some $0<T<T_{\operatorname*{in}},$ with the initial value $u\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}},x\right) \in H^{2}$ satisfying $$\left\Vert u\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}},x\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}},x;\Xi_{0}\right) \right\Vert \leq\delta, \label{initial}$$ with $\delta>0$. Suppose that $\varepsilon\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}},x\right) =u\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}},x\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi_{0}\right) $ satisfies (\[ap208\]). Then, there exist $A>0$ sufficiently big and $\delta_{0}>0$ small enough such that for all $\left\vert \chi_{0}\right\vert \geq A$ and $\delta\leq\delta_{0}$ the following affirmation is true. There is an open interval $I\left( \delta\right) \ni T_{\operatorname*{in}}$, a unique vector $\Xi\left( t\right) =\left( \chi\left( t\right) ,\beta\left( t\right) ,\lambda\left( t\right) \right) \in C^{1}\left( I\left( \delta\right) \right) $ and $\gamma\left( t\right) \in C^{1}\left( I\left( \delta\right) \right) $ satisfying $\Xi\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}}\right) =\Xi_{0}$ and $\gamma\left( T_{\operatorname*{in}}\right) =\gamma_{0},$ such that $u$ decomposes as $$u\left( t,x\right) =\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi\left( t\right) \right) +\varepsilon\left( t,x\right) , \label{decomp}$$ where the error $\varepsilon$ satisfies (\[ap208\]) for any $t\in I\left( \delta\right) $. Lemma \[L5\] is proved similarly to Lemma 3 of [@MartelMerle] or Lemma 3 of [@Nguyen]. We omit the details. We now aim to compare the solution $\left( \Xi\left( t\right) ,\gamma\left( t\right) \right) $ given by Lemma \[L5\] with the solution $\left( \Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) ,\gamma^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) $ of the approximate system (\[syst3\]). We have the following a priori estimates. \[L6\]Let $\lambda^{\infty}\geq\lambda_{0}>0$ satisfy $\left( \lambda^{\infty}\right) ^{2}\sup_{r\in\mathbb{R}}V\left( r\right) <1.$ Suppose that $\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-cr},$ for some $c>0.$ There exists $T_{0}>0$ large enough such that for all $t\in\lbrack T_{0},T_{n}],$ the estimates $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\Vert \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq t^{-2},\\ \left\vert \beta\left( t\right) -\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq t^{-\left( 1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}\right) }\\ \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) -\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}\\ \left\vert \gamma\left( t\right) -\gamma^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{8}}. \end{array} \right. \label{boot}$$ are satisfied. If $V=V^{\left( 2\right) },$ for some $T_{0}>0$ large enough the following a priori estimates are true$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\Vert \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq \mathcal{X}^{N},\\ \\ \left\vert \beta\left( t\right) -\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime \prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2},\\ \\ \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) -\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \gamma\left( t\right) -\gamma^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1}\end{array} \right. \label{bootbis}$$ for all $t\in\lbrack T_{0},T_{n}].$ The condition on $\lambda^{\infty}$ in Lemma \[L6\] is made in order to assure, via Lemma \[approxsyst\], that the assumptions of Lemmas \[Linv\], \[Lemmaapp\] and \[Lemmaapp1\] are satisfied. Lemma \[L6\] is proved in Section \[Secproof\] below. We now use the following corollary to prove Theorem \[T1\]. \[L7\]For $n\in\mathbb{N}$ let a sequence $T_{n}\rightarrow\infty,$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and $u_{n}\in H^{1}$ be a solution to (\[appsys\]). Then there exists $T_{0}$ independent of $n$ such that for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$ and $t\in\lbrack T_{0},T_{n}],$ $$\left\Vert u_{n}\left( t\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq C\Theta _{\infty} \label{l7}$$ where$$\Theta_{\infty}=\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{8}},\text{ if }\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-cr},\text{ }c>0,\\ \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1},\text{ if }V=V^{\left( 2\right) }. \end{array} \right.$$ We have $$\left\Vert u_{n}\left( t\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq\left\Vert u_{n}\left( t\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}+\left\Vert \mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi\left( t\right) \right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq C\Theta_{\infty}.$$ By a compactness argument (see page 1525 of [@Krieger]) we now show that Theorem \[T1\] is a direct consequence of the uniform backward estimate for the sequence $u_{n}$ presented in Corollary \[L7\]. By (\[l7\]) there is $C>0$ such that for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$,$$\left\Vert u_{n}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq C,$$ for $t\in\lbrack T_{0},T_{n}].$ Then, by Lemma 3.4 of [@Krieger] there exists $U_{0}\in H^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ and a subsequence $\{u_{n_{k}}\}$ of $\{u_{n}\}$ such that $u_{n_{k}}\left( T_{0}\right) \rightarrow U_{0}$ in $L^{2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) ,$ as $n_{k}\rightarrow\infty.$ We consider the solution $u$ to the initial value problem $$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\left. i\partial_{t}u+\Delta u+\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-1}u+\mathcal{V}\left( x\right) u=0,\right. \\ \text{ }(t,x)\in\mathbb{R\times R}^{d},\text{ }u\left( T_{0}\right) =U_{0}. \end{array} \right.$$ Fix $t\geq T_{0}.$ There is $n_{0}$ large enough such that $T_{n}\geq t,$ for $n\geq n_{0}.$ By the continuous dependence of the solution of (\[NLS\]) on the initial data in $L^{2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ (see Theorem 4.6.1 of [@Cazenave]) $u\left( t\right) $ is global and $$u_{n_{k}}\left( t\right) \rightarrow u\left( t\right) \text{ in }L^{2}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) ,\text{ as }n\rightarrow\infty.$$ Since $u_{n_{k}}\left( t\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) $ is uniformly bounded in $H^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) ,$ it converges weakly to $u\left( t\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) $ in $H^{1}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) ,$ as $n\rightarrow\infty.$ Thus, by (\[l7\]) we prove that $$\left\Vert u_{n_{k}}\left( t\right) -\mathcal{W}\left( t,x;\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq C\Theta _{\infty},$$ for all $t\geq T_{0}.$ Therefore, Theorem \[T1\] follows from the definition (\[w\]) of $\mathcal{W}$, Lemmas \[Lemmaapp\] and \[Lemmaapp1\], the properties of $\Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) $ described by Lemma \[approxsyst\] and the relation $U_{V_{\lambda^{\infty}}}=\mathbf{U}_{\lambda^{\infty},\mathcal{V}},$ that follows from Definition \[Def1\] and (\[vcall\]). A priori estimates. Proof of Lemma \[L6\].\[Secproof\] ====================================================== Control of the Modulation Parameters.\[ModPar\] ----------------------------------------------- ### Case I: Fast decaying potentials. {#case-i-fast-decaying-potentials. .unnumbered} Let the potential $\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-cr},$ for some $c>0.$ Suppose that (\[boot\]) is true for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ with $T_{0}\leq T^{\ast}<T_{n}.$ Observe that by (\[boot\]), (\[beh1\]) and (\[beh2\])$$\frac{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi^{\infty }\left( t\right) \right\vert }=1+o\left( 1\right) \text{, }\frac {\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \beta^{\infty }\left( t\right) \right\vert }=1+o\left( 1\right) \text{ and }\lambda\left( t\right) =\lambda^{\infty}+o\left( 1\right) , \label{beh3}$$ as $t\rightarrow\infty.$ Let $\Phi\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ satisfy the estimate $\left\vert \Phi\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert y\right\vert ^{m}Q\left( y\right) +\mathbf{Y}\right) $ with some $m\geq$ $0.$ We denote $$\Phi_{1}\left( t,x\right) =\lambda\left( t\right) ^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\Phi\left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}.$$ Let $N\geq1.$ For $1\leq j\leq N$ and $\Xi\left( t\right) ,$ let $B_{j}=B_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $, $M_{j}=M_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $ be the approximated modulation equations given by Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] corresponding to $\Xi\left( t\right) .$ Let $$\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }=\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) =\sum_{j=1}^{N}B_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) \text{ \ and \ }\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }=\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) =\sum_{j=1}^{N}M_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) .$$ We put$$\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) =\left\vert \dot{\chi}\left( t\right) -2\beta\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \dot{\gamma}\left( t\right) +\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}\left( t\right) }-\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\left( t\right) \cdot\chi\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \dot{\beta}\left( t\right) -\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert +\left\vert \dot{\lambda}\left( t\right) -\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert .$$ Let us write the equation for $\varepsilon.$ Introducing the decomposition (\[decomp\]) into (\[NLS\]) and using (\[ap182\]) we obtain$$i\partial_{t}\varepsilon=-\Delta\varepsilon-\mathcal{V}\left( x\right) \varepsilon-\left( \lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( t\right) \left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) \mathcal{N}_{0}\left( W,\zeta\right) +\mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }+R\left( W\right) \right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}\right) \label{eqeps}$$ where we denote $$\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( W,\zeta\right) =\left\vert W+\zeta\right\vert ^{p-1}\left( W+\zeta\right) -\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}W\text{.} \label{n0}$$ with $W$ given by (\[w1\]) and $\zeta$ defined by (\[epsilonbar\]). Using (\[eqeps\]) we have$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\frac{d}{dt}\operatorname{Im}\int\varepsilon\overline{\Phi_{1}}=-\operatorname{Re}\int i\partial_{t}\varepsilon\overline{\Phi_{1}}+\operatorname{Re}\int\varepsilon\overline{\left( i\partial_{t}\Phi _{1}\right) }\\ =\operatorname{Re}\int\varepsilon\left( \overline{i\partial_{t}\Phi _{1}+\Delta\Phi_{1}+\mathcal{V}\left( x\right) \Phi_{1}}\right) +\operatorname{Re}\int\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W},\varepsilon\right) \overline{\Phi_{1}\left( t,x\right) }+\lambda^{-\frac{4}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}\int\left( \mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }+R\left( W\right) \right) \overline{\Phi}. \end{array} \right. \label{ap243}$$ Similarly to (\[calc1\]) we calculate$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left( i\partial_{t}+\Delta+\mathcal{V}\left( x\right) \right) \Phi _{1}=\lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( -\mathcal{\tilde{L}}\Phi+\lambda ^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \Phi-i\lambda\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\Lambda\Phi-\lambda^{3}\left( \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\cdot y\right) \Phi\right. \\ -\frac{p+1}{2}\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}\Phi-\frac{p-1}{2}\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-3}W^{2}\Phi-i\lambda\left( \dot{\lambda}-\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right) \Lambda\Phi-\lambda^{3}\left( \left( \dot{\beta }-\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right) \cdot y\right) \Phi\\ \left. +\lambda^{2}\left( \dot{\gamma}+\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}. \end{array} \right.$$ where we define$$\mathcal{\tilde{L}}f:=-\Delta f+f-\frac{p+1}{2}\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}f-\frac{p-1}{2}\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-3}W^{2}{\overline{f}},\text{ \ \ }f\in H^{1}. \label{Ltilde}$$ Then, using (\[BM\]) to estimate the modulation equations $\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) },\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }$ and relation (\[eps1\]) from (\[ap243\]) we get$$\left. \frac{d}{dt}\operatorname{Im}{\displaystyle\int} \varepsilon\overline{\Phi_{1}}=\lambda^{-\frac{4}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} R\left( W\right) \overline{\Phi}-\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \varepsilon\lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( \left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\tfrac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma }e^{i\beta\cdot x}+E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}+E_{0}\right. \label{ap271}$$ where$$\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) =\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( W,\zeta\right) -\dfrac{p+1}{2}\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}\zeta-\dfrac{p-1}{2}\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-3}W^{2}\overline{\zeta} \label{n1}$$$$E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}=\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}$$ and$$E_{0}=O\left( \Theta\left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) ^{A\left( N\right) }+U\right) +\left( \left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) ^{2}+U\right) +\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right)$$ with $\Theta=\Theta\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda }\right) $ and $U=\left\vert U_{V}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right\vert .$ Let us estimate $E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}$. Observe that $$\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \right\vert =O\left( \left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{p}+\left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{p-\delta }+\left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}\right) ,\text{ }\delta>0, \label{ap352}$$ for $p\neq2$ ($\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) =O\left( \left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}\right) $, $p=2$). If we estimate $E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}$ by using (\[ap352\]) we have $E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}=O\left( \left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p-\delta}+\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) .$ By (\[boot\]) this gives the decay $E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}\sim t^{-p+\delta}+t^{-2}.$ In order to obtain the a priori estimates on modulation parameters in (\[boot\]), we need $\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) $ to be integrable twice on $[T_{0},\infty).$ But, in the case when $p<2,$ we only have $E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}\sim t^{-p+\delta}.\ $Hence, we need to obtain a better estimate on $E_{\mathcal{N}_{1}}.$ We use an argument of [@Nguyen] (see the proof of Proposition 10 on page 41). Let $$\Omega=\left\{ y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}:\max_{1\leq j\leq N}\left\vert \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq\frac {1}{2N}Q\left( y\right) \right\} . \label{ap244}$$ Then, as by (\[ap14\]) $\left\vert \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C\mathbf{Y,}$ $1\leq j\leq N,$ we estimate $$\left\vert \Phi\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert y\right\vert ^{M}Q\left( y\right) +\mathbf{Y}\right) \leq C_{N}\inf_{0<\delta<1}\left( C\left( \delta\right) Q^{1-\delta}\left( y\right) \left\vert y\right\vert ^{M}e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }\right) +C\mathbf{Y}\leq C\mathbf{Y},\text{ }y\in\Omega,$$ Thus, using the relation (\[ap352\]) and Sobolev embedding theorem to control the $L^{p}$ norm of $\zeta,$ we estimate $${\displaystyle\int_{y\in\Omega}} \left\vert \left( \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \Phi\right) \left( y\right) \right\vert dy\leq C_{N}C\left( \delta\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{0}}\Theta^{1-\delta},\text{ }p_{0}=\min\{p-\delta,2\}, \label{ap292}$$ for all $0<\delta<1.$ Suppose now that $y\notin\Omega$. Using (\[ap352\]) we estimate$$\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \right\vert =O\left( \left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-2}\left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}\right) . \label{ap301}$$ Thus, by Sobolev embedding theorem, we get $${\displaystyle\int_{y\notin\Omega}} \left\vert \left( \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \Phi\right) \left( y\right) \right\vert dy\leq C\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{ap293}$$ Hence, from (\[ap292\]) and (\[ap293\]) we estimate$$\left\vert \operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}\right\vert \leq C_{N}C\left( \delta\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{0}}\Theta^{1-\delta}+C\left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2} \label{ap294}$$ for all $0<\delta<1.$ Let us now calculate $\mathcal{\tilde{L}}\Phi$ for $\Phi=$ $iW,$ $iyW,$ $\Lambda W,$ $\nabla W.$ We use (\[E7\]) and Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] to derive$$\Delta W-W+\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}W+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) W=O\left( E_{1}\right) \label{ap284}$$ where$$E_{1}=\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta+U\right) e^{-\delta \left\vert y\right\vert },\text{ }\delta>0.$$ Letting act the group of symmetries of the free NLS equation on (\[ap284\]) and differentiating with respect to the symmetry parameters the resulting relation we calculate$$\left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}-}\lambda^{2}\left( V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \right) \left( iW\right) =O\left( E_{1}\right) , \label{lb1}$$$$\left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}-}\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \left( iyW\right) =-2\nabla W+O\left( E_{1}\right) \label{lb2}$$$$\left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}-}\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \left( \Lambda W\right) =-2W+2\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) W+O\left( \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \left( yW\left( y\right) \right) \right\vert \right) +O\left( E_{1}\right) , \label{lb3}$$$$\left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}-}\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \left( \nabla W\right) =O\left( \left\vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) W\right\vert \right) +O\left( E_{1}\right) . \label{lb4}$$ We now use (\[ap271\]) with $\Phi=$ $iW,$ $iyW,$ $\Lambda W,$ $\nabla W.$ By the orthogonal conditions (\[ap208\]), using (\[lb1\])-(\[lb4\]) and (\[ap294\]) we obtain $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\Theta\left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) ^{A\left( N\right) }+U\right) +C\left( \delta\right) \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta+U+\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{0}}\Theta^{1-\delta}+\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\\ +C\left( \left\Vert \left( V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) W\right\Vert _{L^{2}}+\left\Vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \left( yW\left( y\right) \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}}\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}, \end{array} \right. \label{ap273}$$ for all $0<\delta<1.$ By (\[estp\]) we estimate$$\left\Vert \left( V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) W\right\Vert _{L^{2}}+\left\Vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) yW\left( y\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq Cr^{\infty}\sqrt{U}. \label{ap274}$$ Thus, from (\[ap273\]) we get$$\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\Theta\left( \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta\right) ^{A\left( N\right) }+U\right) +C\left( \delta\right) \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\Theta+r^{\infty}\sqrt{U}+\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{0}}\Theta^{1-\delta}+\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}. \label{Mt}$$ By assumption, (\[boot\]) is true for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ From (\[syst1\]) $\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X},$ with $\mathcal{X}=\sqrt{U_{V}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }.$ Let $N\geq\frac{2}{\left( p_{1}-1\right) },$ so that $A\left( N\right) \geq2.$ Relation (\[ap302\]) implies that $\mathcal{X}\leq Ct^{-1}.$ Then, as $\Theta\leq C\mathcal{X}$, from (\[beh3\]) and (\[Mt\]) with $\delta<\frac{p_{1}-1}{2}$ $$\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq Ct^{-5/2} \label{estmod1}$$ for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ We are now in position to improve (\[boot\]) for the modulation parameters by using (\[estmod1\]). By (\[estmod1\]) and (\[BM\]) the vector $\Xi\left( t\right) $ solves$$\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\dot{\chi}\left( t\right) =2\beta\left( t\right) +O\left( t^{-5/2}\right) ,\\ \dot{\beta}\left( t\right) =B_{1}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) +O\left( t^{-5/2}+t^{-2p_{1}}\right) ,\\ \dot{\lambda}\left( t\right) =M_{1}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) +O\left( t^{-5/2}+t^{-2p_{1}}\right) ,\\ \dot{\gamma}\left( t\right) =-\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}\left( t\right) }+\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\dot{\beta}\left( t\right) \cdot\chi\left( t\right) +O\left( t^{-5/2}\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{syst10}$$ As $\Xi\left( t\right) $ is only $C^{1},$ we cannot proceed directly as when we considered (\[boot1\]). We argue slightly different. Using (\[l2\]) we write $B_{1}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) =\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }b\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\lambda\right) .$ By (\[boot1\]) we deduce $\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) -r_{\operatorname*{app}}\theta_{0}^{\infty}\right\vert \leq t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}},$ for some constant vector $\theta_{0}^{\infty}\in\mathbb{S}^{d-1}.$ Using (\[BM\]) and (\[beh3\]) we estimate $\left\vert B_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla_{\chi}B_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}B_{1}\right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X}^{2}\leq Ct^{-2}.$ Then, the equation for $\dot{\beta}\left( t\right) $ in (\[syst10\]) takes the form$$\dot{\beta}\left( t\right) =\theta_{0}^{\infty}b\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right) +O\left( \left( \left\vert \lambda-\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\frac{\left\vert \chi-\chi^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert }+t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) t^{-2}\right) +O\left( t^{-5/2}+t^{-2p_{1}}\right) . \label{ap318}$$ Similarly, we have$$\dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) =\theta_{0}^{\infty}b\left( \left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert ,\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right) +O\left( t^{-2-\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) . \label{ap320}$$ As in (\[syst5\]), we use the Cartesian coordinates with the $x_{1}$-axis directed along the vector $\theta_{0}^{\infty}\ $and for a vector $\mathbf{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ we decompose $\mathbf{A}=\sum_{j=1}^{d}A_{j}\vec{e}_{j},$ and $\vec{e}_{j},$ $j=1,...,d$ is the canonical basis in these coordinates. Then, from (\[ap318\]) and (\[ap320\]) we deduce$$\dot{\beta}_{1}=b\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right) +O\left( \left( \left\vert \mu\right\vert +\frac {\left\vert \delta\right\vert }{r^{\infty}}+t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) t^{-2}+t^{-5/2}+t^{-2p_{1}}\right) , \label{beta1}$$$$\dot{\beta}_{1}^{\left( N\right) }=b\left( \left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert ,\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right) +O\left( \left( \frac{\left\vert \delta\right\vert }{r^{\infty}}+t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) t^{-2}+t^{-5/2}+t^{-2p_{1}}\right) \label{beta1N}$$ and$$\dot{\beta}_{j}-\dot{\beta}_{j}^{\left( N\right) }=O\left( \left( \frac{\left\vert \delta\right\vert }{r^{\infty}}+t^{-\frac{p_{1}}{4}}\right) t^{-2}+t^{-5/2}+t^{-2p_{1}}\right) ,\text{ }j=2,...,d, \label{betaj}$$ where we denote by $\delta\left( t\right) =\chi\left( t\right) -\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) $ and $\mu\left( t\right) =\lambda\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) .$ Then, integrating (\[betaj\]) and using (\[boot\]) we show that for any constant $A>0$ there is $T_{0}>0$ such that $$\left\vert \delta_{j}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{1}{At^{\frac {p_{1}-1}{4}}}\text{ and }\left\vert \dot{\delta}_{j}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{1}{At^{1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}},\text{ }t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],\text{ }T^{\ast}\geq T_{0}, \label{ap322}$$ for $j=2,...,d.$ From (\[beta1\]) and (\[beta1N\]), by using the equation for $\dot{\chi}\left( t\right) $ in (\[syst10\]) and integrating, via (\[boot\]) and (\[ap322\]) we deduce$$\dot{\delta}_{1}=\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) \left( 2\dot {r}^{\infty}\right) ^{-1}b\left( r^{\infty},\lambda^{\infty}\right) \delta_{1}+O\left( \frac{1}{At^{1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}}\right) . \label{ap321}$$ By (\[l2\]) and (\[ap302\]) $\left( \dot{r}^{\infty}\right) ^{-1}b\left( r^{\infty},\lambda^{\infty}\right) =\frac{K_{1}}{t}\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) ,$ with $K_{1}>1.$ Then$$\dot{\delta}_{1}=\frac{K_{2}}{t}\delta_{1}+\frac{o\left( 1\right) }{t^{1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}}+O\left( \frac{1}{At^{1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}}\right) . \label{ap326}$$ where $K_{2}>1.$ Thus, similarly to (\[ap324\]) we deduce that for some $T_{0}>0$ $$\left\vert \delta_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{K_{3}}{A}t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}},\text{ }t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],\text{ }K_{3}>1.$$ Moreover, from (\[ap326\]) we get$$\left\vert \dot{\delta}_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{K_{4}}{A}t^{-\left( 1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}\right) },\text{ }K_{4}>1.$$ Taking $A\geq2K_{3}K_{4}$ we deduce $$\left\vert \delta_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}\text{ and }\left\vert \dot{\delta}_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}t^{-\left( 1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}\right) },\text{ }t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$$ Combining the last inequalities with (\[ap322\]) we prove$$\left\vert \delta\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}\text{ and }\left\vert \dot{\delta}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}t^{-\left( 1+\frac {p_{1}-1}{4}\right) },\text{ }t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}]. \label{imp1}$$ By (\[BM\]) and (\[beh3\]) we estimate $\left\vert M_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla_{\chi}M_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}M_{1}\right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X}^{2}\leq Ct^{-2}.$ Moreover, by (\[BM\])$$\dot{\lambda}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) =M_{1}\left( \Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) +O\left( t^{-2p_{1}}\right) .$$ Then, by (\[boot\]) $$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \dot{\lambda}-\dot{\lambda}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert & \leq\left\vert M_{1}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) -M_{1}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert +O\left( t^{-2p_{1}}\right) \\ & \leq\left\vert \nabla_{\chi}M_{1}\right\vert \left\vert \delta\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}M_{1}\right\vert \left\vert \mu\right\vert +O\left( t^{-2p_{1}}\right) \leq Ct^{-2-\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using (\[boot\]), as $\left\vert \dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X}^{2}\leq Ct^{-2}$ and by (\[beh2\]), (\[ap199\]) $\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\ln t,$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \dot{\gamma}\left( t\right) -\dot{\gamma}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert & \leq C\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +C\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) -\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +C\left\vert \dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) -\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \\ & +C\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \left( \left\vert \dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \dot{\beta}\left( t\right) \right\vert \right) +Ct^{-5/2}\leq Ct^{-\left( 1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}\right) }.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, there is $T_{0}>0$ such that $$\left\vert \lambda-\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq\frac {t^{-\left( 1+\frac{p_{1}-1}{4}\right) }}{2}\text{ and }\left\vert \dot{\gamma}\left( t\right) -\dot{\gamma}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{t^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{8}}}{2}, \label{imp2}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ Therefore, from (\[imp1\]) and (\[imp2\]) we improve (\[boot\]) for the modulation parameters $\left( \Xi\left( t\right) ,\gamma\left( t\right) \right) $ on $[T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ By a continuity argument, we show that (\[boot\]) for $\left( \Xi\left( t\right) ,\gamma\left( t\right) \right) $ is satisfied on $[T_{0},T_{n}].$ \[Rem1\]In the case when $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }$ the best bound on the error term in (\[eps1\]) that we are able to obtain by following the construction provided by Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] is $\mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }\sim V^{\prime}\dot{r}^{\infty}.$ For potentials that behave as $V\left( r\right) \sim r^{-\rho}$, $0<\rho\leq2,$ we cannot even integrate $V^{\prime}\dot{r}^{\infty}$ two times on $[t,\infty)$. Then, the proof of (\[boot\]) fails for the approximate modulations equations given in Lemma \[Lemmaapp\]. Therefore, we use a different approximated modulation equations constructed in Lemma \[Lemmaapp1\] to cover this case. ### Case II: Slow decaying potentials. {#case-ii-slow-decaying-potentials. .unnumbered} We let now the potential $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }.$ In this case we suppose that (\[bootbis\]) is true for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ with $T_{0}\leq T^{\ast}<T_{n}.$ By (\[bootbis\]), (\[beh1\]) and (\[beh2\]) we see that (\[beh3\]) is true. Let $N\geq1.$ For $1\leq j\leq N$ and $\Xi\left( t\right) ,$ let $\tilde{B}_{j}=\tilde{B}_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $, $\tilde{M}_{j}=\tilde{M}_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $ be the approximated modulation equations given by Lemma \[Lemmaapp1\] corresponding to $\Xi\left( t\right) .$ We omit the tilde and denote these equations by $B_{j}=B_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $, $M_{j}=M_{j}\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) $. Let $\Phi\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ satisfy the estimate $\left\vert \Phi\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert y\right\vert ^{m}Q\left( y\right) +\Psi\mathbf{e}\right) $ with some $m\geq$ $0.$ We denote $$\Phi_{1}\left( t,x\right) =\lambda\left( t\right) ^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\Phi\left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}.$$ By using (\[B’\]) and (\[eps1bis\]) instead of (\[BM\]), (\[eps1\]), relation (\[ap271\]) takes the form $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\frac{d}{dt}\operatorname{Im}{\displaystyle\int} \varepsilon\overline{\Phi_{1}}=\lambda^{-\frac{4}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{R}\overline{\Phi}-\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \varepsilon\lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( \left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma }e^{i\beta\cdot x}\\ \\ +\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}+O\left( \Psi\mathbf{Z}^{N}+\Psi\left\Vert \varepsilon \right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{ap323}$$ By (\[ap352\]) and Sobolev embedding theorem we get$$\left\vert {\displaystyle\int} \lambda^{-\frac{2p}{p-1}}\left( \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \Phi\right) \left( t,\tfrac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\gamma}e^{i\beta\cdot x}\right\vert \leq C\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p-\delta}. \label{ap325}$$ Using (\[E7\]) and Lemma \[Lemmaapp1\] we obtain (\[ap284\]) with $E_{1}$ replaced by $O\left( \mathbf{Z}\Psi\right) .$ Then, (\[lb1\])-(\[lb4\]) are true with $O\left( \mathbf{Z}\Psi\right) $ instead of $E_{1}.$ Therefore, similarly to (\[ap273\]), by using (\[ap323\]) with $\Phi=$ $iW,$ $iyW,$ $\Lambda W,$ $\nabla W,$ via (\[ap325\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\Psi\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}+C\left( \delta\right) \left( \Psi ^{1-\delta}\left( \Psi^{p-1}+\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p-1}\right) +C\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\\ \\ +C\left( \left\Vert \left( V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) W\right\Vert _{L^{2}}+\left\Vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) W\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}. \end{array} \right.$$ By (\[estp1\]) and (\[potentialprime\]) $$\left\Vert \left( V\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) -V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right) W\right\Vert _{L^{2}}+\left\Vert V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert y+\tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) W\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq C\Psi.$$ Hence, we obtain$$\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\Psi\mathbf{Z}^{N}+C\left( \delta\right) \left( \Psi^{1-\delta}\left\Vert \zeta \right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p-1}+\Psi+\left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) \left\Vert \zeta\right\Vert _{H^{1}} \label{Mtbis}$$  By assumption, (\[bootbis\]) is true for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast },T_{n}].$ Recall that $\left\vert \beta^{\infty}\right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X}$, where $\mathcal{X}=\sqrt{U_{V}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) }=\sqrt{V\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi^{\infty}\right\vert }{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) },$ and$$\mathbf{Z}\leq C\mathcal{X}\text{.}$$ Taking $[N-8]\rho>4,$ we estimate $$\mathcal{X}^{N/4}\leq\Psi. \label{Z}$$ Then$$\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi\mathcal{X}^{N}+\mathcal{X}^{2N}\right) \leq C\Psi\mathcal{X}^{N}. \label{estmod2}$$ We now use (\[estmod2\]) to improve (\[bootbis\]). By (\[B’\]) we estimate $$\left\vert \nabla_{\chi}\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla_{\chi}\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi ^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \label{ap307}$$ and $$\left\vert \nabla_{\beta}\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla_{\beta}\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq C\Psi. \label{ap316}$$ From the equations for $\beta^{\left( N\right) },\lambda^{\left( N\right) }$ we get $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \dot{\lambda}-\dot{\lambda}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) -\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi\left( t\right) \right) -\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \Xi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert \\ \\ \leq\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert +C\left( \left\vert \nabla_{\chi}\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla_{\chi}\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) \left\vert \chi-\chi^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \\ \\ +C\left( \left\vert \nabla_{\beta}\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \nabla_{\beta}\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) \left\vert \beta-\beta^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +C\left( \left\vert \partial_{\lambda}\mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \partial_{\lambda}\mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) \left\vert \lambda-\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \end{array} \right. \label{ap347}$$ Recall that by (\[cond5\]) there is $N_{0}>0$ such that $\mathcal{X}^{2N_{0}}\leq C\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert .$ Taking $N>4\left( N_{0}+1\right) $ we get$$\mathcal{X}^{N}\leq\mathcal{X}^{2N_{0}}\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}\leq C\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}. \label{ap344}$$ Then, by (\[estmod2\])$$\left\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi ^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \Psi \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}. \label{ap346}$$ Thus, using (\[ap307\]) and (\[ap316\]), by (\[bootbis\]) and (\[Z\]) from (\[ap347\]) we have$$\left\vert \dot{\lambda}-\dot{\lambda}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \dot{\beta}-\dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac {r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1}. \label{ap209}$$ As $V,V^{\prime}$ are monotone, $V^{\prime},V^{\prime\prime}$ are of a definite sign. Integrating (\[ap209\]) on $[t,\infty)$ we deduce$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) -\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \\ \leq C\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \left( \left\vert \int_{r^{\infty}}^{\infty}V^{\prime}\left( r\right) V^{\frac {N}{4}}\left( r\right) dr\right\vert +\left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{\rho \frac{N}{4}}\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}\int_{r^{\infty}}^{\infty}\frac {dr}{r^{1+\rho\frac{N}{4}}}\right) \\ \leq\frac{C}{\rho N}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \right) \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}, \end{array} \right. \label{ap342}$$ for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ Using (\[ap346\]) and (\[ap342\]) we obtain$$\left\vert \dot{\chi}-\dot{\chi}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \leq C\Psi\mathcal{X}^{N}+C\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) -\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \right) \Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}+\frac{C}{\rho N}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda ^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \right) \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2},$$ and then,$$\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) -\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\rho N}\Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1}. \label{ap348}$$ for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ Finally, by (\[ap346\]), (\[ap209\]), (\[ap342\]) and (\[ap348\]) we deduce$$\begin{aligned} \left\vert \dot{\gamma}\left( t\right) -\dot{\gamma}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert & \leq C\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}+\frac{C}{\rho N}\left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \right) \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2}+\frac{C}{\rho N}\Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1}\left\vert \dot{\beta}^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \\ & +C\left\vert \chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \left( \Psi^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) \Psi \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\left\vert \gamma\left( t\right) -\gamma^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\rho N}\Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2},\text{ }t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}]. \label{ap349}$$ Therefore, by (\[ap342\]), (\[ap348\]) and (\[ap349\]), taking $N$ sufficiently large we prove that $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) -\lambda^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) -\beta^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}\left( \Psi ^{2}+\left\vert V^{\prime\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{\lambda^{\infty}}\right) \right\vert \right) \mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+2},\\ \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) -\chi^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \gamma\left( t\right) -\gamma^{\left( N\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}\Psi\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N}{2}+1}, \end{array} \right.$$ on $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ which strictly improve (\[bootbis\]) for the modulation parameters $\left( \Xi\left( t\right) ,\gamma\left( t\right) \right) $. Again, by a continuity argument, we show that (\[bootbis\]) for $\left( \Xi\left( t\right) ,\gamma\left( t\right) \right) $ is true on $[T_{0},T_{n}].$ Control of the error $\varepsilon$.\[Sectionepsilon\] ----------------------------------------------------- Let us consider the energy, the mass and the momentum of $u_{n}$. By using the orthogonal conditions (\[ap208\]) we have$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}E\left( u_{n}\right) =E\left( \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right) =E\left( \mathcal{W}\right) +\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{V}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\dfrac{1}{1+p}\left( {\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right\vert ^{p+1}-{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p+1}\right) \\ -\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{\Delta W}\overline{\varepsilon}-\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{VW}\overline{\varepsilon}, \end{array} \right. \label{ap210}$$$$M\left( u_{n}\right) =\operatorname{Im}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\left( \mathcal{W+}\varepsilon\right) \left( \overline{\mathcal{W+}\varepsilon }\right) =\operatorname{Im}\int\mathcal{\nabla W}\overline{\mathcal{W}}+\operatorname{Im}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\overline{\varepsilon} \label{ap211}$$ and$$\int\left\vert u_{n}\right\vert ^{2}=\int\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{2}+\int\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}. \label{ap212}$$ Moreover, by (\[ap182\]) and (\[ap208\]) we have$$\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \mathcal{\Delta W+V}\left( \cdot\right) \mathcal{W}\right) \overline{\varepsilon}=-\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\mathcal{W}+\lambda^{-\frac {2}{p-1}}\mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}\right) \overline{\varepsilon}.$$ Then, from (\[ap210\])$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}E\left( u_{n}\right) =E\left( \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right) =E\left( \mathcal{W}\right) +\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{V}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}\\ -\dfrac{1}{1+p}\left( {\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right\vert ^{p+1}-{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left( p+1\right) \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{W}\overline{\varepsilon}\right) +\operatorname*{Er}, \end{array} \right. \label{ap319}$$ with$$\operatorname*{Er}=\operatorname{Re}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }\left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\gamma\left( t\right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}\right) \overline{\varepsilon}.$$ Note that by Lemma \[L1\] $\operatorname*{Er}$ is small. ### Case I: Fast decaying potentials. {#case-i-fast-decaying-potentials.-1 .unnumbered} Let the potential $\left\vert V\left( r\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-cr},$ for some $c>0.$ Suppose that (\[boot\]) is true for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ with $T_{0}\leq T^{\ast}<T_{n}.$ Let $\psi_{\lambda^{\infty }}\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ be such that $0\leq\psi \leq1,$ $\psi\left( x\right) =1$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \leq\frac {1}{2\lambda^{\infty}}$ and $\psi\left( x\right) =0$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \geq\frac{1}{\lambda^{\infty}}.$ Set $$\psi_{\chi}\left( x\right) =\psi_{\lambda^{\infty}}\left( \frac{8\left( x-\chi\left( t\right) \right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) \ln t}\right) .$$ We introduce the following conserved quantity of $u_{n}$ which is a combination of the three conservation laws (\[ap210\])-(\[ap212\]) for the NLS equation with a potential (\[NLS\])$$K_{\operatorname*{tot}}=E\left( u_{n}\right) -\beta\left( t\right) \cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}u_{n}\overline{u_{n}}+\frac{1}{2}\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) {\displaystyle\int} \left\vert u_{n}\right\vert ^{2}.$$ Observe that we localize the momentum in a neighborhood of the potential. We compare $K_{\operatorname*{tot}}$ with $$K_{\operatorname*{sol}}=E\left( \mathcal{W}\right) -\beta\left( t\right) \cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla W}\overline{\mathcal{W}}+\frac{1}{2}\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \int\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{2}.$$ Then, from (\[ap211\]), (\[ap212\]), (\[ap319\]) we deduce$$\left. K_{\operatorname*{tot}}-K_{\operatorname*{sol}}=\mathcal{G}\left( t\right) +\operatorname*{Er}\right.$$ where$$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) =\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{W}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) = & \frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \int\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{V}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}\\ & -\dfrac{1}{1+p}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \left\vert \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left( 1+p\right) \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{W}\overline{\varepsilon }\right) \right) \\ & -\beta\left( t\right) \cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\overline{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ ($\mathcal{V}$ is related to $V$ by (\[vcall\])). We now study the properties of $\mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) .$ We have the following result. \[Lemmaenergy\]There exist $T_{0}$ large enough such that for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ $T^{\ast}\geq T_{0},$ the following hold. i\) (Coercivity of the linearized energy) There is a constant $c_{0}>0$ such that$$\mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) \geq c_{0}\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{estbelow1}$$ ii\) (Energy estimate on $\varepsilon$) For some $N$ large enough$$\left\vert \frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert \leq\frac{C}{t^{3}\ln t}. \label{estbelow}$$ Before proving Lemma \[Lemmaenergy\] we improve (\[boot\]) for $\varepsilon\left( t\right) .$ Integrating (\[estbelow\]) we have$$\mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) \leq\frac{C}{t^{2}\ln t}.$$ Then, using (\[estbelow1\]) we prove $$\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\leq\frac{C}{c_{0}t^{2}\ln t}. \label{ap388}$$ Thus, taking $T_{0}>e^{2C/c_{0}}$ we strictly improve (\[boot\]) for $\varepsilon\left( t\right) .$ By a continuity argument, we conclude that (\[bootbis\]) for $\varepsilon\left( t\right) $ is true on $[T_{0},T_{n}].$ \[Proof of Lemma \[Lemmaenergy\]\]*Proof of item i.* We decompose $\mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) $ as $$\mathcal{G}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) =\mathcal{G}_{1}+\mathcal{G}_{2}+\mathcal{G}_{3}, \label{ap383}$$ where$$\mathcal{G}_{1}=\tfrac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \left\vert \mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}+\lambda ^{-2}\left( t\right) \left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\mathcal{V}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\tfrac{p+1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\tfrac{p-1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-3}\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{W}\overline{\varepsilon}\right) ^{2}\right) {,}$$$$\mathcal{G}_{2}=-\dfrac{1}{1+p}\left( {\displaystyle\int} \left( \left\vert \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left( 1+p\right) \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{W}\overline{\varepsilon }\right) \right) -\frac{1+p}{2}\operatorname{Re}\left( \tfrac{p+1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{p-1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-3}\left( \mathcal{W}\overline{\varepsilon}\right) ^{2}\right) \right)$$ and$$\mathcal{G}_{3}=-\beta\left( t\right) \cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi }\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\overline{\varepsilon}+\tfrac{1}{2}\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\int\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}=O\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) . \label{ap384}$$ By Sobolev embedding theorem we estimate$$\mathcal{G}_{2}=O\left( \left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p+1-\delta}\right) ,\text{ }0<\delta<1. \label{ap385}$$ Using (\[epsilonbar\]) and (\[w\]) we have$$\mathcal{G}_{1}=\tfrac{1}{2}\left( \lambda\left( t\right) \right) ^{d-\frac{2\left( p+1\right) }{p-1}}\left( \mathcal{L}_{V}\zeta ,\zeta\right) +\mathcal{G}_{11}$$ with $\mathcal{L}_{V}$ defined by (\[Lv\]) and$$\mathcal{G}_{11}=-\left( \lambda\left( t\right) \right) ^{d-\frac{2\left( p+1\right) }{p-1}}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \tfrac{p+1}{2}\left( \left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-1}-Q^{p-1}\right) \left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{p-1}{2}\operatorname{Re}\left( \left( \left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-3}W^{2}-Q^{p-1}\right) \overline{\zeta }^{2}\right) \right) .$$ By Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] we show that $\mathcal{G}_{11}=O\left( \Theta ^{1-\delta}\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) $ and$$\left\vert \left( \zeta,W-Q\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( \zeta,x\left( W-Q\right) \right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( \zeta,i\Lambda\left( W-Q\right) \right) \right\vert =O\left( \Theta^{1-\delta}\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) .$$ Then, from (\[ineqpert1\]), by using (\[ap208\]) we conclude that there is $c>0$ such that$$\mathcal{G}_{1}\geq c\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+O\left( \Theta^{1-\delta}\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) .$$ Hence, from (\[ap383\]), (\[ap384\]), (\[ap385\]), via (\[boot\]), we conclude that for $T_{0}$ large enough there is $c_{0}>0$ such that for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ $T^{\ast}\geq T_{0}$ (\[estbelow1\]) is true. *Proof of item ii.* Let us make the change of variables $\varepsilon _{1}=e^{-i\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) }\varepsilon$ and $\mathcal{W}_{1}=e^{-i\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) }\mathcal{W}$, with $$\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) =\int_{T_{0}}^{t}\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( \tau\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) d\tau.$$ Then $\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{W}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) =\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{W}_{1}}\left( \varepsilon_{1}\left( t\right) \right) .$  Differentiating $\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{W}_{1}}\left( \varepsilon_{1}\left( t\right) \right) $ we have$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{G}_{\mathcal{W}_{1}}\left( \varepsilon_{1}\left( t\right) \right) =\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) +\mathcal{G}_{12}\left( t\right) +\mathcal{G}_{13}\left( t\right) , \label{dtG}$$ where$$\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) =-\left( \mathcal{\dot{W}}_{1},\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right) ,$$$$\mathcal{G}_{12}\left( t\right) =\left( \dot{\varepsilon}_{1},-\Delta\varepsilon_{1}+\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{V}\varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right) .$$ and$$\mathcal{G}_{13}\left( t\right) =-\dot{\beta}\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int \psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}-\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\dot{\psi}_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}+\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\psi_{\chi}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}+2\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}.$$ Let us consider $\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) .$ By (\[w\]) we have$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{\dot{W}}_{1}=-\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( \frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\Lambda W+\left( \frac{\dot{\chi}}{\lambda}\cdot\nabla W+2i\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}W\right) \right) \left( \frac{x-\chi }{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}\\ -\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( i\left( \dot{\gamma}+\lambda^{-2}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) W-i\lambda\left( \dot{\beta}\cdot y\right) W+\dot{W}\right) \left( \frac{x-\chi}{\lambda }\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}. \end{array} \right. \label{ap357}$$ Let $\phi$ be the indicator function of the complement of the set $\Omega$ defined by (\[ap244\]). In particular, $\left\vert T\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{1}{2}Q\left( y\right) $ when $\phi=1.$ Moreover, as by (\[ap14\]) $\left\vert \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert \leq C\mathbf{Y,}$ $Q\left( y\right) \leq C\mathbf{Y}$ whereas $\phi=0.$ Using (\[ap357\]) we decompose$$\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) =\operatorname{Re}\int\mathbf{W}\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) dx+\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) , \label{g11'}$$ with$$\mathbf{W=}\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( \phi\left( \frac{\dot{\chi}}{\lambda}\cdot\nabla W+2i\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}W\right) \right) \left( \frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\cdot x}, \label{wbold}$$$$\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) =-\lambda^{-\frac {2}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}\int\left( 1-\phi\right) \mathcal{\dot{W}}_{1}\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) dx$$ and$$\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) =\lambda^{-\frac {2}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}\int\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \mathbf{W}_{1}dx,$$ with$$\mathbf{W}_{1}=\left( \phi\left( \frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\Lambda W+i\left( \dot{\gamma}+\lambda^{-2}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) W-i\lambda\left( \dot{\beta}\cdot y\right) W+\dot{W}\right) \right) \left( \tfrac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\cdot x}.$$ Note that $$\dot{W}=2\beta\cdot\nabla_{\chi}W+B\cdot\nabla_{\beta}W+M\frac{\partial W}{\partial\lambda}. \label{wdot}$$ Therefore, using (\[ap357\]), and Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] to control $\Lambda W,W,yW,\dot{W},$ we get $$\left\vert \mathcal{\dot{W}}_{1}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \delta_{1}\right) \left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) \left( Q^{1-\delta_{1}}\left( y\right) +\mathbf{Y}\right) ,\text{ }y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}, \label{ap353}$$ for $0<\delta_{1}<1.$ Thus, by (\[ap352\]), (\[ap353\]), Sobolev embedding theorem and (\[boot\]), as $Q\left( y\right) \leq C\mathbf{Y}$ on the support of $1-\phi,$ taking $\delta_{1}$ and $\delta$ small enough, we estimate $$\left\vert \mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert +\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) \mathbf{Y}^{1-\delta_{1}}\left( \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p-\delta}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) \leq Ct^{-3-\frac{\left( p_{1}-1\right) }{2}}, \label{g110'}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ On the support of $\phi$ we have $$\left\vert W\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq2^{-1}Q\left( y\right) . \label{ap317}$$ Using (\[ap301\]) and (\[ap317\]), and taking $\delta<\frac{p_{1}-1}{2}$ we estimate$$\phi e^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }\left\vert W\right\vert ^{p-2}\left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}\leq Ce^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }Q^{p_{1}-2}\left( y\right) \left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}\leq Ce^{-\frac{p_{1}-1}{2}\left\vert y\right\vert }\left\vert \zeta\right\vert ^{2}. \label{ap270}$$ (Here $\zeta$ is related to $\varepsilon_{1}$ by (\[epsilonbar\])). By Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] we get $$\left\vert \frac{\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\Lambda W+i\left( \dot{\gamma }+\lambda^{-2}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) W-i\lambda\left( \dot{\beta}\cdot y\right) W+\dot{W}\right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \Theta^{\nu}+\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) e^{-\left( 1-\nu -\delta_{1}\right) \left\vert y\right\vert },$$ with $0<\nu+\delta_{1}<1.$ Then, from (\[ap270\]) and (\[boot\]), for $\nu+\delta_{1}<\frac{p_{1}-1}{2}$ we get $$\left\vert \mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \Theta^{\nu}+\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\leq Ct^{-3-\nu}, \label{g111'}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ with $0<\nu<\frac{p_{1}-1}{2}.$ If $\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert }{2}$ we expand $$\left. \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{-1+\delta}\left\vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\vert ^{p+1-\delta}\right) ,\text{ }\delta>0,\right. \label{expnon}$$ where$$\mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\frac{p-1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\overline{\mathcal{W}_{1}}\varepsilon_{1}^{2}+\frac{p^{2}-1}{4}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\mathcal{W}_{1}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}+\frac{\left( p-1\right) \left( p-3\right) }{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-5}\mathcal{W}_{1}\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1}\overline {\varepsilon_{1}}\right) ^{2}.$$ If $\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert \geq\frac{\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert }{2}$ then $\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert =O\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{-1+\delta}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{p+1-\delta}\right) $, $\delta>0.$ Hence $$\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{-1+\delta}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{p+1-\delta}\right) ,\text{ }\delta>0. \label{ap309}$$ Using (\[ap309\]) in (\[g11’\]) we obtain$$\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) =\operatorname{Re}\int\mathbf{WN}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) , \label{g11'bis}$$ where$$\mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) =O\left( \int\mathbf{W}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{-1+\delta }\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{p+1-\delta}\right) dx\right) .$$ Using Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] and (\[boot\]) we control$$\left\vert \mathbf{W}\right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \dot{\chi }\right\vert +\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}\right) e^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }\leq Ct^{-1}e^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert },$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ Then, from (\[ap317\]), via Sobolev embedding theorem, taking $\delta$ sufficiently small we deduce$$\left\vert \mathcal{G}_{11}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq Ct^{-1}\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p+1-\delta}\leq Ct^{-3-\frac{p-1}{2}}. \label{g112'}$$ Gathering (\[g110’\]), (\[g111’\]) and (\[g112’\]), from (\[g11’bis\]) we get$$\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) =\operatorname{Re}\int\mathbf{WN}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( t^{-3-\nu}\right) ,\text{ }0<\nu<\frac{p_{1}-1}{2} \label{ap378}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ We turn now to $\mathcal{G}_{12}\left( t\right) .$ Using (\[eqeps\]) we obtain the equation for $\varepsilon_{1}$ $$i\partial_{t}\varepsilon_{1}=-\Delta\varepsilon_{1}+\left( \lambda ^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{V}\varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) -\left( \lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( t\right) \left( \mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }+R\left( W\right) \right) \left( t,\frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\left( t\right) \cdot x}\right) . \label{eqeps2}$$ Then$$\mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) =-\left( \mathbf{R},i\left( -\Delta\varepsilon_{1}+\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{V}\varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right) \right) ,$$ with $$\mathbf{R=}\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( t\right) \left( \mathcal{E}^{\left( N\right) }+R\left( W\right) \right) \left( t,\frac {x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) }\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta \left( t\right) \cdot x}.$$ Using (\[epsilonbar\]) and (\[eps1\]), as$$\left\vert R\left( W\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) , \label{ap360}$$ we get$$\mathcal{G}_{12}\left( t\right) =\mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right)$$ where$$\mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) =-\lambda^{-2-\frac {4}{p-1}}\left( t\right) \left( R\left( W\right) ,i\left( -\Delta \zeta+\zeta-\lambda^{2}\left( t\right) V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi }{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \zeta-\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( W,\zeta\right) \right) \right)$$ and$$\mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) =O\left( \left( \Theta^{3-\delta}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) +\left\vert \beta\right\vert \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) .$$ We decompose $$\mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) =-\lambda^{-2-\frac {4}{p-1}}\left( t\right) \left( \left( \mathcal{\tilde{L}}-\lambda ^{2}\left( t\right) V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi}{\lambda }\right\vert \right) \right) R\left( W\right) ,i\zeta\right) +\lambda^{-2-\frac{4}{p-1}}\left( t\right) \left( R\left( W\right) ,i\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( W,\zeta\right) \right)$$ where $\mathcal{\tilde{L}}$ is defined by (\[Ltilde\]). Using (\[ap352\]) and Sobolev embedding theorem, we estimate the second term in the right-hand side of the last relation as $O\left( \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{1}-\delta}\right) .$ By the orthogonal conditions (\[ap208\]), using (\[lb1\])-(\[lb4\]) and (\[ap274\]) we control$$\left\vert \mathcal{G}_{12}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq Cr^{\infty}\sqrt{U}\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}.$$ Hence, by (\[boot\]), we get$$\left\vert \mathcal{G}_{12}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left( \ln t\right) t^{-1}\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +t^{-3+\delta}\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}. \label{ap379}$$ Next, we consider $\mathcal{G}_{13}\left( t\right) .$ The first term in the right-hand side of $\mathcal{G}_{13}\left( t\right) $ is estimated by Cauchy-Schwartz as $$\left\vert \dot{\beta}\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla }\varepsilon_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}\right\vert \leq C\left\vert \dot{\beta}\right\vert \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{ap377}$$ Since $$\left\vert \dot{\psi}_{\chi}\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq\left( 1+\left\vert \tfrac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right\vert \right) \tfrac{\left\vert \dot{\chi}\left( t\right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\vert \psi^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \right\vert \label{ap267}$$ and $$\left\vert \mathcal{\nabla}\psi_{\chi}\right\vert \leq\tfrac{1}{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\vert \psi^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \right\vert \label{ap266}$$ we estimate$$\left\vert \beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\dot{\psi}_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla }\varepsilon\overline{\varepsilon}\right\vert \leq C\left\vert \beta \right\vert \tfrac{\left\vert \dot{\chi}\left( t\right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2} \label{ap374}$$ and$$\left\vert \beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\psi_{\chi}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}\right\vert \leq C\frac {\left\vert \beta\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{ap375}$$ Using (\[eqeps2\]), (\[ap360\]), (\[eps1\]) and integrating by parts we have$$\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}=I_{1}+I_{2}+I_{3}+O\left( \left( \Theta^{3-\delta }\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\lambda}\right) +\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) . \label{ap371}$$ where$$I_{1}=\operatorname{Re}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\psi_{\chi}\overline{\varepsilon _{1}}\left( -\Delta\varepsilon_{1}+\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \varepsilon _{1}-\mathcal{V}\varepsilon_{1}\right) ,$$$$I_{2}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla V}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}$$ and$$I_{3}=\operatorname{Re}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon _{1}}\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) .$$ By (\[ap266\]) we have$$\left\vert I_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{I1'}$$ By (\[boot\]), there is $T_{0}>0$ such that $\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq2\lambda^{\infty},$ $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ $T^{\ast}\geq T_{0}.$ Then $\left\Vert \psi\left( \frac{8\left( \left( \cdot\right) -\chi\left( t\right) \right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) \ln t}\right) \mathcal{\nabla V}\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime}\left( \frac{3}{4}\ln t\right) \right\vert \leq Ct^{-\frac{3}{2}K\left( V\right) }$ ($K\left( V\right) $ given by (\[K(V)\])). Hence, by (\[boot\]) we get$$\left\vert I_{2}\right\vert \leq Ct^{-\frac{3}{2}K\left( V\right) }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\leq Ct^{-2-\frac{3}{2}K\left( V\right) }, \label{I2'}$$ $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ By (\[n1\]) we write$$\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\mathcal{N}_{L}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) ,$$ where $$\mathcal{N}_{L}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\tfrac{p+1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-1}\varepsilon_{1}+\tfrac{p-1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\mathcal{W}_{1}^{2}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}.$$ We decompose$$I_{3}=I_{31}+I_{32} \label{I3'}$$ with $$I_{31}=\operatorname{Re}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline {\varepsilon_{1}}\mathcal{N}_{L}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon _{1}\right)$$ and$$I_{32}=\operatorname{Re}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline {\varepsilon_{1}}\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon _{1}\right) .$$ Integrating by parts we have$$I_{31}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\psi_{\chi}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +I_{31}^{\left( 1\right) }, \label{ap372}$$ with$$I_{31}^{\left( 1\right) }=-\operatorname{Re}\int\left( \mathcal{\nabla}\psi_{\chi}\right) \left( \tfrac{p+1}{4}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-1}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac {p-1}{4}\operatorname{Re}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\mathcal{W}_{1}^{2}\left( \overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right) \right) .$$ By (\[ap352\]) we estimate$$\left\vert I_{32}\right\vert \leq C\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{1}+1-\delta}. \label{I32}$$ Using that (\[ap266\]) we control$$\left\vert I_{31}^{\left( 1\right) }\right\vert \leq C\tfrac{1}{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{ap373}$$ By Lemma \[Lemmaapp\] we have $$Q\left( y\right) -\max_{1\leq j\leq N}\left\vert \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq Q\left( y\right) \left( 1-t^{-1/2}\right) ,\text{ }\left\vert y\right\vert \leq\tfrac{\ln t}{4}.$$ Then, there is $T_{0}>0$ such that $$\max_{1\leq j\leq N}\left\vert \boldsymbol{T}^{\left( j\right) }\left( y\right) \right\vert <\left( 2N\right) ^{-1}Q\left( y\right) , \label{ap370}$$ for all $\left\vert y\right\vert \leq\tfrac{\ln t}{4}$ and $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ $T^{\ast}\geq T_{0}.$ In particular, $\psi_{\chi}\phi =\psi_{\chi}$ and then$$\int\psi_{\chi}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\int\phi\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\int\phi\left( \psi_{\chi}-1\right) \left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) .$$ From (\[ap370\]) we get $\left\vert W\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq2^{-1}Q\left( y\right) .$ Then, as$$\left\vert \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-2}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2} \label{ap382}$$ we obtain $$\left\vert \phi\left( \psi_{\chi}-1\right) \left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert \leq Ct^{-\frac{p-1}{8}}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}.$$ Hence$$\int\psi_{\chi}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\int\phi\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( t^{-\frac{p-1}{8}}\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) .$$ Using the last relation in (\[ap372\]), from (\[ap373\]) we deduce $$I_{31}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\phi\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \left( t^{-\frac{p-1}{8}}+\tfrac{1}{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) .$$ Then, by (\[I3’\]) and (\[I32\]) we get$$I_{3}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\phi\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \left( t^{-\frac{p-1}{8}}+\tfrac{1}{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{1}+1-\delta}\right) ,$$ with $0<\delta<1.$ Thus, from (\[ap371\]), (\[I1’\]) and (\[I2’\]), via (\[boot\]) it follows that$$\operatorname{Im}\int\psi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\phi\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \frac{1}{t^{2}\ln t}\right) . \label{ap376}$$ From (\[w\]) we have$$\nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}=\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( \lambda^{-1}\nabla W+i\beta W\right) \left( \frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta \left( t\right) \cdot x}. \label{ap381}$$ Then, using (\[ap370\]) and (\[ap382\]) we get$$2\beta\cdot\int\phi\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\int\mathbf{WN}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right)$$ Therefore, by (\[ap377\]), (\[ap374\]), (\[ap375\]), (\[ap376\]), (\[boot\]) taking into account (\[wbold\]) we derive$$\mathcal{G}_{13}\left( t\right) =-\int\mathbf{WN}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +O\left( \frac{1}{t^{3}\ln t}\right) . \label{ap380}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}].$ Finally, gathering together (\[ap378\]), (\[ap379\]), (\[ap380\]), from (\[dtG\]) we attain (\[estbelow\]). ### Case II: Slow decaying potentials. {#case-ii-slow-decaying-potentials.-1 .unnumbered} Let now the potential $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }\ $and suppose that (\[bootbis\]) is true for all $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ with $T_{0}\leq T^{\ast}<T_{n}.$Let $\varphi\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ be such that $0\leq\varphi\leq1,$ $\varphi\left( x\right) =1$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{4\lambda^{\infty}}$ and $\varphi\left( x\right) =0$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \geq\frac{1}{2\lambda^{\infty}}.$ Set $$\varphi_{\chi}\left( x\right) =\varphi\left( \frac{x-\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) .$$ We consider $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{\tilde{G}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) =\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{\mathcal{W}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) = & \tfrac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{1}{2}\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \int\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}-\tfrac{1}{2}{\displaystyle\int} \mathcal{V}\left\vert \varepsilon\right\vert ^{2}\\ & -\tfrac{1}{1+p}{\displaystyle\int} \left( \left\vert \mathcal{W+\varepsilon}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p+1}-\left( 1+p\right) \left\vert \mathcal{W}\right\vert ^{p-1}\operatorname{Re}\left( \mathcal{W}\overline{\varepsilon }\right) \right) \\ & -\beta\left( t\right) \cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\varphi_{\chi }\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon\overline{\varepsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ As in the case of Lemma \[Lemmaenergy\] we show that for some $T_{0}>0$ there is a constant $c_{0}>0$ such that$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) \geq c_{0}\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2} \label{ap389}$$ for any $t\geq T_{0}.$ Suppose that for some $N$ large enough$$\left\vert \frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{\tilde{G}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \mathcal{X}\left( \left( r^{\infty }\right) ^{-1}+\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{r^{\infty}}{4}\right) \right\vert \right) +\Psi\right) \mathcal{X}^{2N} \label{dtGbis}$$ for $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast},T_{n}],$ $T^{\ast}\geq T_{0},$ with constant $C$ independent on $N.$ Integrating (\[dtGbis\]) and using (\[ap389\]) we get$$\left\Vert \varepsilon\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\leq\frac{C}{c_{0}N}\mathcal{X}^{2N}.$$ with some constant $C$ independent on $N.$ Then for some $N$ big enough we strictly improve (\[bootbis\]) for $\varepsilon.$ Hence, by continuity we conclude that (\[bootbis\]) for $\varepsilon\left( t\right) $ is true on $[T_{0},T_{n}].$ Therefore we need to prove (\[dtGbis\]). Similarly to (\[dtG\]) we decompose$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{\mathcal{W}_{1}}\left( \varepsilon _{1}\left( t\right) \right) =\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}\left( t\right) +\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{12}\left( t\right) +\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{13}\left( t\right) , \label{dtG1}$$ where$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}\left( t\right) =-\left( \mathcal{\dot{W}}_{1},\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right) ,$$$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{12}\left( t\right) =\left( \dot{\varepsilon}_{1},-\Delta\varepsilon_{1}+\left( \lambda^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{V}\varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right) .$$ and$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{13}\left( t\right) =-\dot{\beta}\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\varphi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\varepsilon_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}-\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\dot{\varphi}_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla }\varepsilon_{1}\overline{\varepsilon}_{1}+\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\varphi_{\chi}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}\overline{\varepsilon }_{1}+2\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\varphi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}. \label{g13tilde}$$ Let us consider $\mathcal{G}_{11}\left( t\right) .$ We define$$\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( y\right) =\varphi\left( \frac{y}{4\ln\mathcal{X}^{-2N}}\right) . \label{psi}$$ Using (\[ap357\]) we split$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}\left( t\right) =\operatorname{Re}\int \mathbf{\tilde{W}}\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon _{1}\right) dx+\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) , \label{g11}$$ with$$\mathbf{\tilde{W}=}\lambda^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\left( \tilde{\psi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( \frac{\dot{\chi}}{\lambda}\cdot\nabla W+2i\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}W\right) \right) \left( \frac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\cdot x},$$$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) =-\lambda ^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}\int\left( 1-\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\right) \mathcal{\dot{W}}_{1}\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) dx$$ and$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) =\lambda ^{-\frac{2}{p-1}}\operatorname{Re}\int\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \mathbf{\tilde{W}}_{1}dx,$$ where$$\mathbf{\tilde{W}}_{1}=\left( \tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( \frac {\dot{\lambda}}{\lambda}\Lambda W+i\left( \dot{\gamma}+\lambda^{-2}-\left\vert \beta\right\vert ^{2}-\dot{\beta}\cdot\chi\right) W-i\lambda \left( \dot{\beta}\cdot y\right) W+\dot{W}\right) \right) \left( \tfrac{x-\chi}{\lambda}\right) e^{-i\left( \gamma\left( t\right) +\gamma_{1}\left( t\right) \right) }e^{i\beta\cdot x}.$$ Using (\[ap357\]) and Lemma \[Lemmaapp1\] we obtain (\[ap353\]). Thus, by (\[ap352\]), (\[ap353\]), Sobolev embedding theorem and (\[bootbis\]) we estimate $$\left\vert \mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X}^{N}\left( \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p-\delta}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) \leq C\mathcal{X}^{N}\left( \mathcal{X}^{\left( p-\delta\right) N}+\mathcal{X}^{2N}\right) . \label{g110}$$ Using (\[ap309\]) in (\[g11\]) we obtain$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}\left( t\right) =\operatorname{Re}\int \mathbf{\tilde{W}N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 0\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) +\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) , \label{ap358}$$ where$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) =O\left( \int\mathbf{\tilde{W}}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{-1+\delta}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{p+1-\delta}\right) dx\right) .$$ By (\[bootbis\]), there is $T_{0}>0$ such that $\left\vert \lambda\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq\frac{3}{2}\lambda^{\infty},$ $t\in\lbrack T^{\ast },T_{n}],$ $T^{\ast}\geq T_{0}.$ From Lemma \[Lemmaapp1\] it follows $$\left\vert W\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq Q\left( y\right) -\left\vert T\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq Q\left( y\right) \left( 1-\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \mathcal{X}^{-8\delta N}\right) ,\text{ }\left\vert y\right\vert \leq 4\ln\mathcal{X}^{-2N}.$$ From (\[bootbis\]) it follows that $\left\vert V\left( \left\vert \tfrac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\vert \mathcal{X}^{-8\delta N}\leq C\mathcal{X}$, for $\delta<\left( 8N\right) ^{-1}.$ Then, there is $C_{0}>0$ such that $$\left\vert W\left( y\right) \right\vert \geq2^{-1}Q\left( y\right) , \label{ap354}$$ for all $\left\vert y\right\vert \leq4\ln\mathcal{X}^{-2N}$ and $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C_{0}.$ Using (\[ap301\]) and (\[ap354\]) we estimate$$e^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-2}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}\leq Ce^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert y\right\vert }Q^{p_{1}-2}\left( y\right) \left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}\leq C\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2},$$ for all $\left\vert y\right\vert \leq4\ln\mathcal{X}^{-2N}.$ By (\[wdot\]), using Lemma \[Lemmaapp1\] to control $\Lambda W,W,yW,\dot{W},$ we get $$\left\vert \mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 1\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \beta\right\vert \Psi\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2} \label{g111}$$ Moreover, via Sobolev embedding theorem we deduce$$\left\vert \mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}^{\left( 2\right) }\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert \dot{\chi}\right\vert \left( \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2+\delta}+\left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p+1-\delta}\right) , \label{g112}$$ with $0<\delta<p-1$. Using (\[g110\]), (\[g111\]) and (\[g112\]) in (\[ap358\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{11}\left( t\right) =\operatorname{Re}\int \mathbf{\tilde{W}N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +C\mathcal{X}^{N}\left( \mathcal{X}^{\left( p-\delta\right) N}+\mathcal{X}^{2N}\right) \\ +O\left( \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \beta\right\vert \Psi\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+\left\vert \dot{\chi}\right\vert \left( \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2+\delta}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p+1-\delta}\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{g11bis}$$ Using (\[ap360\]), $\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\vert \ $and (\[eps1bis\]), via Sobolev theorem we control$$\left\vert \mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{12}\left( t\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \Psi\mathcal{X}^{N}+\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}. \label{g12}$$ Next, we consider $\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{13}\left( t\right) .$ Let us estimate the last term in the right-hand side of (\[g13tilde\]). Using (\[eqeps2\]), (\[ap360\]), (\[eps1bis\]) and integrating by parts we have$$\operatorname{Im}\int\varphi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}=\tilde{I}_{1}+\tilde{I}_{2}+\tilde{I}_{3}+O\left( \left( \Psi\mathcal{X}^{N}+\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) . \label{mom}$$ where$$\tilde{I}_{1}=\operatorname{Re}\int\mathcal{\nabla}\varphi_{\chi}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\left( -\Delta\varepsilon_{1}+\left( \lambda ^{-2}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \beta\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \varepsilon_{1}-\mathcal{V}\varepsilon_{1}\right) ,$$$$\tilde{I}_{2}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\varphi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla V}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}$$ and$$\tilde{I}_{3}=\operatorname{Re}\int\varphi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) .$$ By (\[ap266\]) we have$$\left\vert \tilde{I}_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{C}{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{I1}$$ Noting that $\left\Vert \varphi\left( \frac{\left( \cdot\right) -\chi\left( t\right) }{\lambda\left( t\right) \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \mathcal{\nabla V}\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq C\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }{4}\right) \right\vert ,$ we get$$\left\vert \tilde{I}_{2}\right\vert \leq C\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime }\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }{4}\right) \right\vert \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{I2}$$ Observe that there is $C_{0}>0$ such that $\varphi_{\chi}\tilde{\varphi }_{\mathcal{X}}=\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}},$ with $\tilde{\varphi }_{\mathcal{X}}$ given by (\[psi\]). By (\[n1\]) we write$$\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\mathcal{N}_{L}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) ,$$ where $$\mathcal{N}_{L}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) =\tfrac{p+1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-1}\varepsilon_{1}+\tfrac{p-1}{2}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\mathcal{W}_{1}^{2}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}.$$ We decompose$$\tilde{I}_{3}=\tilde{I}_{31}+\tilde{I}_{32}$$ with$$\tilde{I}_{31}=\operatorname{Re}\int\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\mathcal{N}_{L}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right)$$ and$$\tilde{I}_{32}=\operatorname{Re}\int\varphi_{\chi}\left( 1-\tilde{\varphi }_{\mathcal{X}}\right) \mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\operatorname{Re}\int\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) .$$ Integrating by parts we have$$\tilde{I}_{31}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon _{1}\right) +\tilde{I}_{31}^{\left( 1\right) },$$ with$$\tilde{I}_{31}^{\left( 1\right) }=-\operatorname{Re}\int\left( \mathcal{\nabla}\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\right) \left( \tfrac{p+1}{4}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-1}\left\vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{p-1}{4}\operatorname{Re}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\mathcal{W}_{1}^{2}\left( \overline {\varepsilon_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right) \right) .$$ Using that $\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{0}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon _{1}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p}+\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{p}\right) ,$ as $\left\vert \left( \mathcal{\nabla}\tilde{\psi}_{\mathcal{X}}\right) \mathcal{W}_{1}\left( y\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( 1-\tilde{\psi }_{\mathcal{X}}\right) \mathcal{W}_{1}\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C\mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) N}$ and $\left\vert \mathcal{N}_{1}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left( \left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{p_{1}}+\left\vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\vert ^{p_{1}-\delta}\right) ,$ $\delta>0,$ ($p_{1}=\min\{p,2\}$) we get $$\begin{aligned} & \left\vert \int\left( \mathcal{\nabla}\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\right) \left( \tfrac{p+1}{4}\left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-1}\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{p-1}{4}\operatorname{Re}\left( \left\vert \mathcal{W}_{1}\right\vert ^{p-3}\mathcal{W}_{1}^{2}\left( \overline{\varepsilon_{1}}\right) ^{2}\right) \right) \right\vert +\left\vert I_{32}\right\vert \\ & \leq C\left( \mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) Np}+\mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) N\left( p-1\right) }\left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{1}-\delta}\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence$$\tilde{I}_{3}=-\operatorname{Re}\int\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon _{1}\right) +O\left( \left( \mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) Np}+\mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) N\left( p-1\right) }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{1}-\delta}\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) . \label{I3}$$ Using (\[I1\]), (\[I2\]) and (\[I3\]) in (\[mom\]) we get $$2\beta\cdot\operatorname{Im}\int\varphi_{\chi}\mathcal{\nabla}\overline {\varepsilon_{1}}\dot{\varepsilon}_{1}=-2\beta\cdot\operatorname{Re}\int \tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{1} \label{mom1}$$ with$$\begin{aligned} \operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{1} & =O\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \left( \left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{-1}+\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime}\left( \tfrac{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }{4}\right) \right\vert \right) \left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) \\ & +O\left( \left\vert \beta\right\vert \left( \mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) Np}+\Psi\mathcal{X}^{N}+\mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\mathcal{X}^{2\left( 1-\delta\right) N\left( p-1\right) }\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p_{1}-\delta}\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to (\[ap377\]), (\[ap374\]) and (\[ap375\]) we estimate the first three terms in (\[g13tilde\]) by $O\left( \left( \left\vert \dot{\beta}\right\vert +\frac{\left\vert \beta\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) .$ Therefore, from (\[mom1\]) we obtain$$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{13}\left( t\right) =-2\beta\cdot\operatorname{Re}\int\tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\left( \nabla\mathcal{W}_{1}\right) \mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{2}$$ with$$\operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{2}=\operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{1}+O\left( \left( \left\vert \dot{\beta}\right\vert +\frac{\left\vert \beta\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\left( t\right) \right\vert }\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) .$$ By (\[ap354\]) $\left\vert \tilde{\varphi}_{\mathcal{X}}\mathbf{N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) \right\vert \leq C\left\vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\vert ^{2}.$ Then, using (\[ap381\]) we get $$\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{13}\left( t\right) =-\operatorname{Re}\int \mathbf{\tilde{W}N}\left( \mathcal{W}_{1},\varepsilon_{1}\right) +\operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{2}+O\left( \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) . \label{g13}$$ Using (\[g11bis\]), (\[g12\]), (\[g13\]) in (\[dtG1\]) we arrive to$$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{\mathcal{W}}\left( \varepsilon\left( t\right) \right) & =\frac{d}{dt}\mathcal{\tilde{G}}_{\mathcal{W}_{1}}\left( \varepsilon_{1}\left( t\right) \right) =\operatorname*{Er}\nolimits_{2}+C\mathcal{X}^{N}\left( \mathcal{X}^{\left( p-\delta\right) N}+\mathcal{X}^{2N}\right) \\ & +\left( \mathcal{M}\left( t\right) +\left\vert \mathbf{B}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \mathbf{M}^{\left( N\right) }\right\vert +\left\vert \beta\right\vert \Psi\right) \left\Vert \varepsilon _{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+\left\vert \dot{\chi}\right\vert \left( \left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2+\delta}+\left\Vert \varepsilon_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{p+1-\delta}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using (\[Mtbis\]) and (\[bootbis\]), for $N$ sufficiently big such that $\mathcal{X}^{\frac{N\left( p-1\right) }{2}}\leq C\left( \left( r^{\infty}\right) ^{-1}+\left\vert \mathcal{V}^{\prime}\left( \tfrac {r^{\infty}}{4}\right) \right\vert +\Psi\right) $ we prove (\[dtGbis\]). Asymptotics of $\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) $.\[AppendixA\] =============================================================== Let us study the asymptotics as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$ of the integral $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\int G\left( \left\vert y+\chi\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( y\right) dy={\displaystyle\int} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz \label{ap28}$$ where $G\in C^{\infty}$. We consider $G\in C^{\infty}$ of the form (\[potential\]). That is $$G\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) \text{ or }G\left( r\right) =V_{-}\left( r\right) . \label{ap171}$$ Recall that $\upsilon\left( d\right) $ and $C_{\pm}\left( \lambda\right) $ are defined by (\[ap142\]) and (\[ap167\]), respectively. First we study the case when $\nabla Q^{2}$ determines the behavior of (\[ap28\]), as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty.$ That is $$G\left( r\right) =V_{-}\left( r\right) ,\text{ }H\geq0. \label{ap154}$$ We denote by $K$ the limit $e^{-H}\rightarrow K.$ We prove the following. \[L3\]Let $G\in C^{\infty}\ $be as in (\[ap154\])$,$ where $H,H^{\prime }$ are monotone. Then, the following is true. If $d\geq4,$ the asymptotics $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \int\left( \mathcal{A}^{2}G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) +K\kappa Q^{2}\left( z\right) \right) e^{2\frac {\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz+o\left( 1\right) \right) \label{ap150}$$ as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$ holds. Suppose that $d=2$ or $d=3.$ If $r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\in L^{1}\left( [1,\infty)\right) ,$ then$$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \mathcal{A}^{2}\int G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz+o\left( 1\right) \right) \label{ap151}$$ as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$. In the case when $r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\notin L^{1}\left( [1,\infty )\right) ,$ the expansion $$\left. \mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi \right\vert }\kappa\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) \left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) C_{-}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) },\right. \label{ap152}$$ as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$ takes place. First, we note that $\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) $ is directed along the vector $\chi.$ Indeed, we introduce the polar coordinate system, where the $x_{1}-$axis is directed along the vector $\chi.$ Then, $\chi=\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left( 1,0,...,0\right) $ and $y=\left\vert y\right\vert \left( \cos\theta,\sin\theta\cos\theta_{1},...,\sin\theta\sin\theta _{1}...\cos\theta_{d-2}\right) ,$ where $\theta$ is the angle between $\chi$ and $z.$ Thus $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty}\left( \int_{0}^{\pi }...\int_{0}^{\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}G\left( \left\vert \sqrt{\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{2}+r^{2}+2\left\vert \chi\right\vert r\cos\theta}\right\vert \right) \left( q^{2}\right) ^{\prime}\left( r\right) r^{d-1}y_{\Theta }d\Omega\right) dr\\ \\ =C\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\pi }G\left( \left\vert \sqrt{\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{2}+r^{2}+2\left\vert \chi\right\vert r\cos\theta}\right\vert \right) \cos\theta\left( q^{2}\right) ^{\prime}\left( r\right) r^{d-1}d\theta dr, \end{array} \right. \label{coord}$$ with $y_{\Theta}:=\left( \cos\theta,\sin\theta\cos\theta_{1},...,\sin \theta\sin\theta_{1}...\cos\theta_{d-2}\right) $ and $d\Omega=\sin ^{d-2}\theta\sin^{d-3}\theta_{1}...\sin\theta_{d-3}d\theta d\theta _{1}...d\theta_{d-2}.$ Using (\[ap29\]) we estimate $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\right\vert \leq C{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-2\left\vert z\right\vert -\left( d-1\right) \ln\left\vert z\right\vert -H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) \right\vert dz\\ \\ \leq Ce^{-3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( {\displaystyle\int} \left\vert \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) \right\vert dz\right) . \end{array} \right.$$ Therefore$$\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\right\vert \leq Ce^{-3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }. \label{ap36}$$ Next, we consider the region $\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}.$ Since for $\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2},$ the inequality $\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}$ holds, we write$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz=-{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\\ \\ =-\kappa e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-2\left( \left\vert z-\chi\right\vert -\left\vert \chi\right\vert +\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) }\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }e^{2\left\vert z\right\vert }\partial _{\left\vert z\right\vert }q^{2}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right) dz\\ \\ -{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz. \end{array} \right. \label{ap122}$$ We now present the following estimates.  Using the coordinate system in (\[coord\]) we have$$\left\vert \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }-\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C\left( \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) +\sin\theta\right) . \label{ap123}$$ By $$\left\vert y+\chi\right\vert -\left\vert \chi\right\vert +\left\vert y\right\vert =\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert y\right\vert \left( 1+\frac{\chi\cdot y}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert y\right\vert }\right) }{\left\vert y+\chi\right\vert +\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert y\right\vert } \label{ap118}$$ we get$$\left\vert e^{-2\left( \left\vert z-\chi\right\vert -\left\vert \chi\right\vert +\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }-e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\right\vert \leq Ce^{-\left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert ^{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) ^{2}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }. \label{ap115}$$ Also, note that$$\left\vert \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert ^{-1}-\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-1}\right\vert \leq C\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{2}},\text{ for }\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}. \label{ap116}$$ Suppose first that $d\geq4.$ Let $e^{-H}\rightarrow K\ $and $\psi\in L^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}\right) $ such that $\psi\left( r\right) =1,$ for $0\leq r\leq1,$ and $\psi\left( r\right) =0,$ for $r>1.$ Using (\[ap29\]), (\[ap115\]) and (\[ap116\]) we have$$\left. \left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-2\left( \left\vert z-\chi\right\vert -\left\vert \chi\right\vert +\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) }\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }e^{2\left\vert z\right\vert }\partial _{\left\vert z\right\vert }q^{2}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right) dz-I_{1}\right\vert \leq r_{1}\right. \label{ap117}$$ with$$I_{1}=K{\displaystyle\int} \psi\left( \frac{2\left\vert z\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right) e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }e^{2\left\vert z\right\vert }\partial_{\left\vert z\right\vert }q^{2}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right) dz$$ and $$\left. r_{1}=C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \sup_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}\left\vert e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) }-K\right\vert +\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-1}\right) \int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz.\right.$$ By (\[ap29\])$$\psi\left( \frac{2\left\vert z\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right) e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{2\left\vert z\right\vert }\partial _{\left\vert z\right\vert }q^{2}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }.$$ Let us show that $e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos \theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }$ is integrable if $d\geq4.$ Using the polar coordinate system in (\[coord\]) we have$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\leq C{\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}} \left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi}} e^{-\frac{r}{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr\\ \\ \leq C{\displaystyle\int_{0}^{1}} \left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi}} e^{-\frac{r}{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr+C{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\infty}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi\sqrt{r}}} e^{-\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}}\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr\\ \\ \leq C+C\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\infty}} e^{-\frac{\theta^{2}}{2}}\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) {\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\infty}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}dr\leq C. \end{array} \right. \label{polar}$$ Thus, by the dominated convergence theorem$$I_{1}=K\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int} \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\partial_{\left\vert z\right\vert }q^{2}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) dz+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }o\left( 1\right) ,$$ as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$. Integrating by parts we get$$I_{1}=-K\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int} e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }o\left( 1\right) . \label{ap121}$$ Also from (\[polar\]) it follows that$$r_{1}=\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }o\left( 1\right) . \label{ap120}$$ To estimate the last term in the right-hand side of (\[ap122\]) we decompose$$\begin{aligned} & {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\\ & ={\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\\ & +{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[ap29\]) and passing to the polar system as in (\[coord\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \\ \leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\\ \leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi\sqrt{r}}} e^{-\frac{1}{2}\theta^{2}}\theta^{-\left( d-2\right) }d\theta\right) dr\leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}-\frac{d-1}{2}}\end{array} \right. \label{ap155}$$ and$$\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi \right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }e^{-\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}}}.$$ Hence $$\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi \right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}-\frac{d-1}{2}}. \label{ap119}$$ Making use of (\[ap117\]), (\[ap121\]), (\[ap120\]) and (\[ap119\]) in (\[ap122\]) we arrive to$$\left. {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz=K\kappa\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int} e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz+o\left( e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\right) .\right. \label{ap143}$$ Next, we consider the cases $d=2$ and $d=3.$ If $H^{\prime}\left( r\right) $ does not tend to $0,$ as $r\rightarrow\infty,$ then as $H\geq0,$ we see that $H\left( r\right) \geq cr,$ for some $c>0.$ In this case by (\[ap29\]) we have $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\right\vert \\ \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-\frac{c\left\vert z\right\vert }{4}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{c\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}}\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-\frac{c\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{4}}. \end{array} \right.$$ Suppose now that $H^{\prime}\rightarrow0.$ We take the following estimate into account$$\left\vert e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) }-e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\right\vert \leq C\left\vert H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right\vert e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) . \label{ap134}$$ Using (\[ap2\]), (\[ap123\]), (\[ap115\]), (\[ap116\]) and (\[ap134\]) we estimate$$\left. \left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-2\left( \left\vert z-\chi\right\vert -\left\vert \chi\right\vert +\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) }\left( \frac{z}{\left\vert z\right\vert }e^{2\left\vert z\right\vert }\partial _{\left\vert z\right\vert }q^{2}\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right) dz+I_{2}\right\vert \leq r_{2}\right. \label{ap124}$$ with$$I_{2}=\mathcal{A}^{2}\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz$$ and $$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}r_{2}=C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right\vert e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\\ +C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left( \left( 1+\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-1}+\theta\right) \left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz. \end{array} \right.$$ Passing to the polar system as in (\[coord\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\right. \\ \left. -\sigma{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) }\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert r\theta^{2}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -r}}\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr\right\vert \\ \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }\left( 1+{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\theta\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{ap125}$$$$\sigma=\frac{2\pi^{\frac{d-1}{2}}}{\Gamma\left( \frac{d-1}{2}\right) },$$ Making the change $\theta\rightarrow\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -r}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert r}\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\eta$ we obtain$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) }\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert r\theta^{2}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -r}}\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr=\upsilon\left( d\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr\\ -\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) }\left( {\displaystyle\int_{\pi\sqrt{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert r}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -r}}}^{\infty}} e^{-2\eta^{2}}\eta^{d-2}d\eta\right) dr. \end{array} \right. \label{ap126}$$ where $\upsilon\left( d\right) $ is given by (\[ap142\]). The second term in the right-hand side of (\[ap126\]) is estimated by using$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}\left( {\displaystyle\int_{\pi\sqrt{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert r}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -r}}}^{\infty}} e^{-2\eta^{2}}\eta^{d-2}d\eta\right) dr\\ \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\infty}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\frac{\pi^{2}}{2}r}dr\leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }. \end{array} \right. \label{ap129}$$ From (\[ap126\]) and (\[ap129\]) we get$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) }\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert r\theta^{2}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -r}}\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr\\ =\upsilon\left( d\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr+O\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }\right) . \end{array} \right. \label{ap130}$$ Passing to the polar system as in (\[coord\]) we estimate$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right\vert e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\\ \leq C\left\vert H^{\prime}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) \right\vert {\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) }\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi\sqrt{r}}} e^{-\frac{\theta^{2}}{4}}\theta^{d-2}d\theta\right) dr\\ \leq C\left\vert H^{\prime}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) \right\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr \end{array} \right. \label{ap135}$$ and$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left( \left( 1+\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-1}+\theta\right) \left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\\ \leq C\left( 1+{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d}{2}}\left( {\displaystyle\int_{0}^{\pi\sqrt{r}}} e^{-\frac{\theta^{2}}{4}}\left( 1+\theta\right) ^{d-1}d\theta\right) dr\right) \leq C\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\ln\left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\text{ \ }d=2,\\ 1,\text{ \ }d=3. \end{array} \right. \end{array} \right. \label{ap136}$$ Thus, using (\[ap130\]) and (\[ap136\]) in (\[ap125\]) we obtain$$\left. \left\vert I_{2}-\mathcal{A}^{2}\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\upsilon\left( d\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr\right\vert \leq C\left\vert \chi \right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\allowbreak e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\ln\left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\text{ \ }d=2,\\ 1,\text{ \ }d=3. \end{array} \right. .\right. \label{ap137}$$ Moreover (\[ap135\]) and (\[ap136\]) imply $$\left. r_{2}\leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \left\vert H^{\prime}\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) \right\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr+e^{-H\left( \frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\right) }\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\ln\left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\text{ \ }d=2,\\ 1,\text{ \ }d=3. \end{array} \right. \right) \right. \label{ap131}$$ Therefore, since$$\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}dr\geq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\sqrt{\left\vert \chi\right\vert },\text{ \ }d=2,\\ \ln\left\vert \chi\right\vert ,\text{ \ }d=3, \end{array} \right. \label{ap146}$$ via (\[ap122\]), (\[ap119\]), (\[ap124\]), (\[ap137\]) and (\[ap131\]) we arrive to$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\\ =\kappa\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) \left( \frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+o\left( 1\right) \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr. \end{array} \right. \label{ap138}$$ Let us consider now the region $\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}.$ Note that$$\left\vert \frac{\chi-z}{\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert }-\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) +\left\vert z\right\vert \sin\theta}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }. \label{ap156}$$ Then, using (\[ap2\]), (\[ap115\]) and (\[ap116\]) we have$$\left. \left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz-\kappa\mathcal{A}^{2}\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\right\vert \leq r_{3},\right. \label{ap140}$$ with$$r_{3}=Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-d+\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }dz. \label{ap139}$$ If $d\geq4,$ by (\[polar\]) the integral in the right-hand side of (\[ap139\]) exists. Then by the dominated convergence theorem $${\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz=\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\int e^{-2\left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos \theta\right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }dz+o\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\right) .$$ Thus, from (\[ap140\]) it follows$${\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz=\mathcal{A}^{2}\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\int G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) e^{2\frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}dz+o\left( e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\right) . \label{ap141}$$ In the case of dimensions $d=2$ or $d=3.~$If $r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\in L^{1}\left( [1,\infty)\right) ,$ $r_{3}=O\left( e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-d+\frac{1}{2}}\right) ,$ similarly to the case $d\geq4$ we obtain (\[ap141\]). If $r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\notin L^{1}\left( [1,\infty )\right) $ similarly to (\[ap137\]) via (\[ap136\]), (\[ap129\]), (\[ap142\]) we have$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz-\upsilon\left( d\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr\right\vert \\ \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr. \end{array} \right. \label{ap157}$$ Moreover $$r_{3}\leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-d+\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr\leq Ce^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }.$$ Then as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr\geq\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr,$ (\[ap140\]) implies$$\left. {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz=\kappa\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) \left( \frac{\chi }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+o\left( 1\right) \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }dr.\right. \label{ap144}$$ We now conclude as follows. If $d\geq4,$ gathering together (\[ap36\]), (\[ap143\]) and (\[ap141\]) we get (\[ap150\]). In the case of dimensions $d=2$ or $d=3,$ suppose first that $r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\in L^{1}\left( [1,\infty)\right) .$ Then, (\[ap138\]) implies that $$\left. {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz=o\left( e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}\right) .\right.$$ Therefore, from (\[ap36\]) and (\[ap141\]) we attain (\[ap151\]). If $r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-H\left( r\right) }\notin L^{1}\left( [1,\infty )\right) ,$ by (\[ap36\]), (\[ap138\]) and (\[ap144\]) we deduce (\[ap152\]). We now turn to the study of the case when $G$ determines the behavior of (\[ap28\])$.$ We consider bounded function $G\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ of the form $$G\left( r\right) =V_{+}\left( r\right) ,\text{ }H\geq0. \label{ap166}$$ We prove the following. \[L4\]Let $G\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ be bounded and of the form (\[ap166\])$,$ where $H,H^{\prime}$ are monotone. If $H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,$ as $r\rightarrow\infty,$ the asymptotics $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\kappa\mathcal{A}^{2}\upsilon\left( d\right) \left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) C_{+}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) } \label{ap168}$$ as $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty$ are valid with $C_{+}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) $ given by (\[ap167\]). If $0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) <2r$ suppose in addition that $H^{\prime\prime}\left( r\right) $ is bounded. Then $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =\mathcal{I}\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( 1+O\left( \tfrac{\left\vert K^{\prime}-H^{\prime }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right) \right) \left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) G\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) , \label{ap169}$$ where $K^{\prime}=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}H^{\prime}\left( r\right) $ and $\mathcal{I}$ is defined by (\[ap184\]). Finally, if $V=V^{\left( 2\right) },$ $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =-\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( \left( \int Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right) V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +e^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}\right) , \label{ap306}$$ with$$\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) =O\left( \left( \left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert \left( \left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert ^{2}+\tfrac{\left\vert h^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi \right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+\left\vert h^{\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert +\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-2}\right) +\tfrac{\left\vert h^{\prime\prime }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }+\left\vert h^{\prime\prime\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert \right) V\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) . \label{Rcal}$$ Suppose first that $H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,$ as $r\rightarrow\infty.$ In this case, as $H^{\prime}$ is monotone, $H^{\prime }\left( r\right) =o\left( 1\right) ,$ as $r\rightarrow\infty.$ Similarly to (\[ap36\]) we estimate $$\left. \left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq Ce^{-3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int} \left\vert G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \right\vert dz\leq Ce^{-3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }.\right. \label{ap161}$$ Next, we decompose$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz=-{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\\ =-{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz-r_{4}, \end{array} \right. \label{ap158}$$ with$$r_{4}={\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz.$$ To estimate $r_{4}$ we write$$\begin{aligned} r_{4} & ={\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+A}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\\ & +{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+A\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\left\vert \chi\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz\\ & +{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2};\left\vert \chi\right\vert \leq\left\vert z\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz.\end{aligned}$$ where $A=\max\left\{ \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{\frac{1}{4}},H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\} .$ Using (\[ap29\]) and (\[ap118\]), as $H\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,$ similarly to (\[ap155\]) we get $$\left\vert r_{4}\right\vert \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}+A}} r^{-\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr\leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }o\left( 1\right) {\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{\left( d-1\right) }{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr. \label{ap159}$$ Introduce the polar coordinate system as in (\[coord\])$.$ By (\[ap2\]), (\[ap115\]), (\[ap116\]) and (\[ap156\]) we have$$\left. \left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz-\mathcal{A}^{2}\kappa\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}e^{H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz\right\vert \leq r_{5}\right.$$ with$$r_{5}=C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{\left\vert z\right\vert }{2}\left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }e^{H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left( 1+\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz.$$ Proceeding similarly to (\[ap157\]) and (\[ap136\]) we obtain$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} e^{-\frac{2\left\vert \chi\right\vert \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert }}e^{H\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) }\left\vert z\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) ^{-\left( d-1\right) }dz-\upsilon\left( d\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr\right\vert \\ \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr\leq Co\left( 1\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr \end{array} \right.$$ and$$r_{5}\leq Co\left( 1\right) \left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} r^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr.$$ Hence$${\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( \chi-z\right) dz=\upsilon\left( d\right) \mathcal{A}^{2}\kappa\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr \label{ap160}$$ and thus from (\[ap158\]) and (\[ap159\]) we deduce$$\left. {\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}\leq\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{3\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz=-\upsilon\left( d\right) \mathcal{A}^{2}\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{1}^{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr.\right. \label{ap162}$$ Note that$$\left\vert H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) -H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) \right\vert \leq CH^{\prime }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -\left\vert z\right\vert \right) \left\vert z\right\vert \left( 1-\cos\theta\right) .$$ Then, similarly to (\[ap160\]) (see also the proof of (\[ap138\])) we show that$${\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz=-\upsilon\left( d\right) \mathcal{A}^{2}\kappa\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) e^{-2\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}{\displaystyle\int_{\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}^{\left\vert \chi\right\vert -1}} \left( r\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert -r\right) \right) ^{-\frac {d-1}{2}}e^{H\left( r\right) }dr. \label{ap163}$$ Therefore, as $$\mathcal{J}\left( \chi\right) =-{\displaystyle\int} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz \label{ap170}$$ by (\[ap161\]), (\[ap162\]), (\[ap163\]) we prove (\[ap168\]). Suppose now $0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) \leq2r+o\left( r\right) $ for all $r\ $sufficiently large$.$ First we note that$$\left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }} e^{-\left\vert z\right\vert }dz\leq C\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }e^{-\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }, \label{ap165}$$ for some $1-\frac{c}{2}<\delta<1$. We consider the following estimates$$\left\vert \left\vert \chi+y\right\vert -\left\vert \chi\right\vert -\frac{\chi\cdot y}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right\vert \leq C\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert ^{2}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }, \label{ap249}$$ and$$\left\vert \left\vert \chi+y\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }-\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{-\left( d-1\right) }\right\vert \leq C\frac{\left\vert y\right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{d}}. \label{ap250}$$ Since $0<cr\leq H\left( r\right) <2r$ and $H^{\prime}$ is monotone, we have $c_{1}\leq H^{\prime}\left( r\right) <2,$ $0<c_{1}<c,$ for all $r\ $sufficiently large$.$ Then, using that $H^{\prime\prime}$ is bounded we get$$\left\vert H\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) -H\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \left( \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\right) \right\vert \leq C\frac{1+\left\vert z\right\vert ^{4}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert } \label{ap251}$$ for $\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert .$ In particular, (\[ap249\])-(\[ap251\]) imply $$\left\vert G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) -G\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi \right\vert }}\right\vert \leq\left\vert G\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\frac{1+\left\vert z\right\vert ^{4}}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert },\text{ as }\left\vert \chi\right\vert \rightarrow\infty.$$ Using the last estimate we deduce $$\left. \left\vert {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }} G\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz-G\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) {\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }} e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq C\frac{\left\vert G\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert }{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }r_{6}\right. \label{ap164}$$ where$$r_{6}={\displaystyle\int} e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\left( 1+\left\vert z\right\vert ^{4}\right) \left\vert \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) \right\vert dz.$$ Integrating by parts we have$${\displaystyle\int} e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz=-\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{\displaystyle\int} e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz.$$ $\ $Since $\left\vert 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert \leq\max\{2-c_{1},1\}<2,$ for all $\left\vert \chi\right\vert $ sufficiently large, it follows from (\[ap29\]) that $r_{6}<\infty$, $${\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\delta\left\vert \chi\right\vert }} e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\leq Ce^{-c_{1}\delta^{\prime}\left\vert \chi\right\vert },\text{ \ }0<\delta^{\prime}<\delta,$$ and $$\left\vert {\displaystyle\int} \left( e^{\left( 2-H^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}-e^{\left( 2-K^{\prime}\right) \frac{\chi\cdot z}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }}\right) Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq C\left\vert K^{\prime}-H^{\prime }\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right\vert .$$ Then, from (\[ap170\]), (\[ap165\]) and (\[ap164\]) we attain (\[ap169\]). Finally, we consider the case $V=V^{\left( 2\right) }.$ Recall that in this case $V\left( r\right) =e^{-h_{1}\left( r\right) },$ with $h_{1}\left( r\right) \geq0$, $h_{1}\left( r\right) =o\left( r\right) ,$ $h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }$ monotone for all $k\geq0$ and satisfying $$\left\vert h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }\left( \frac{r}{2}\right) \right\vert \leq C_{k}\left\vert h_{1}^{\left( k\right) }\left( r\right) \right\vert ,\text{ }k\geq0,$$ for all $r.$ Then, expanding the potential $V^{\prime}$ we have$$V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) =V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +V_{1}\left( z,\chi\right) +\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \left\vert z\right\vert ^{2},$$ for $\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2},$ where $V_{1}\left( z,\chi\right) $ denotes the linear in $z$ polynomial in the Taylor expansion of $V^{\prime}.$ Since $Q^{2}\left( z\right) $ is even, we get $\int V_{1}\left( z,\chi\right) Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz=0.$ Then, we have $${\displaystyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} \nabla V\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz=\frac{\chi}{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }\left( V^{\prime}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \int Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz+\mathbf{r}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \right) .$$ Hence, as $\left\vert {\textstyle\int_{\left\vert z\right\vert \geq\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}}} V\left( \left\vert \chi-z\right\vert \right) \nabla Q^{2}\left( z\right) dz\right\vert \leq Ce^{-\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert }{2}},$ we attain (\[ap306\]). Invertibility of $\mathcal{L}_{V}.$ Proof of Lemma \[Linv\]\[Invertibility\] ============================================================================ The second statement of Lema \[Linv\] is a direct consequence of (\[ineqpert\]). Indeed, assuming (\[ineqpert\]), the invertibility of the operators $L_{\pm}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) $ follows from Fredholm alternative applied to $\left( -\Delta+1\right) ^{-1}\left( L_{\pm}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right) $. The regularity and exponential decay of the solution follow from the properties of the elliptic operators ([@Agmon]). See Lemma 2.4 of [@Krieger] for the proof in the case of the Hartree equation. Therefore, we need to prove (\[ineqpert\]). We recall the positivity estimates for $L_{\pm},$ $$\ker L_{+}=\operatorname*{span}\{\nabla Q\},\left. L_{+}\right\vert _{\left\{ Q\right\} ^{\perp}}\geq0\text{ and }\left. L_{-}\right\vert _{\left\{ Q\right\} ^{\perp}}>0$$ (see, for example, Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 of [@Nakanishi]). Then, from (\[tw78\]) we get$$\left( \mathcal{L}f,f\right) \geq c\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2},\text{ }c>0, \label{ineq1}$$ for all $f\in H^{1}$ such that $\left\vert \left( f,Q\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( f,iQ\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( f,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert =0.$ We claim that (\[ineq1\]) and identity $$L_{+}Q=-\left( p-1\right) \left( -\Delta+1\right) Q \label{idL+}$$ imply$$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\leq C\left( \left\Vert \mathcal{L}f\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}+\left\vert \left( f,iQ\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( f,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert \right) , \label{ineq2}$$ for all $f\in H^{1}$. Indeed, let $f=h+ig,$ with real $h\ $and $g.$ We write $h=\left( h,Q\right) \left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{-1}Q+\left( h,\nabla Q\right) \left\Vert \nabla Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{-1}\nabla Q+h^{\perp}$ and $g=\left( g,Q\right) \left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{-1}+g^{\perp},$ $\left( h^{\perp},Q\right) =\left( h^{\perp},\nabla Q\right) =0$ and $\left( g^{\perp},Q\right) =0.$ Then$$L_{+}h=\left( h,Q\right) \left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{2}}^{-1}L_{+}Q+L_{+}h^{\perp}\text{ and }L_{-}g=L_{-}g^{\perp}.$$ Since $$\left( Q,\nabla Q\right) =\left( h^{\perp},\nabla Q\right) =0\text{ and }\ker L_{+}=\operatorname*{span}\{\nabla Q\}, \label{cond}$$ $L_{+}Q$ and $L_{+}h^{\perp}$ are linearly independent. Moreover, there is $0<\delta<1,$ such that $$\left\vert \left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert \leq\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\left\Vert L_{+}h^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}, \label{cauchy}$$ uniformly on $h.$ Otherwise, there is a sequence $\{h_{n}^{\perp}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}},$ $\left\Vert h_{n}^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}=1,$ satisfying $\left( h_{n}^{\perp},Q\right) =\left( h_{n}^{\perp},\nabla Q\right) =0$, such that$$\left\vert \left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h_{n}^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert =\mu_{n}\left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\left\Vert L_{+}h_{n}^{\perp }\right\Vert _{H^{-1}},$$ with $\mu_{n}\rightarrow1,$ as $n\rightarrow\infty.$ Since $h_{n}^{\perp}$ converges weakly to a function $h_{\infty}^{\perp}\in H^{1},$ we have $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h_{n}^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}=\left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}$ and $\left\Vert L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\leq\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty }\left\Vert L_{+}h_{n}^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}.$ Then$$\left\vert \left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert =\left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\left( \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty }\left\Vert L_{+}h_{n}^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\right) .$$ Hence, as $\left\vert \left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert \leq\left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\left\Vert L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}$, we get $$\left\vert \left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert =\left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}\left\Vert L_{+}h_{\infty}^{\perp }\right\Vert _{H^{-1}},$$ which means that $L_{+}\left( \gamma Q-h_{\infty}^{\perp}\right) =0,$ for some $\gamma\neq0.$ Then by (\[cond\]), $\gamma Q-h_{\infty}^{\perp}=0.$ Multiplying the last equality by $Q,$ we get $\gamma=0,$ a contradiction. Hence, (\[cauchy\]) holds. Then, by (\[ineq1\]) and (\[idL+\])$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert L_{+}h\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2} & =\left( h,Q\right) ^{2}\left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+\left\Vert L_{+}h^{\perp }\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+2\left( h,Q\right) \left( L_{+}Q,L_{+}h^{\perp }\right) _{H^{-1}}\\ & \geq c\left( \left( h,Q\right) ^{2}\left\Vert L_{+}Q\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+\left\Vert L_{+}h^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}\right) \geq b\left\Vert h\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{1}{b}\left\vert \left( h,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2},\end{aligned}$$ and$$\left\Vert L_{-}g\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}=\left\Vert L_{-}g^{\perp }\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}\geq\left\Vert g^{\perp}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\geq b\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{1}{b}\left( g,Q\right) ^{2}$$ for some $b>0.$ Therefore, (\[ineq2\]) follows. Let us show that (\[ineq2\]) remains true for the perturbed operator $$\mathcal{L}_{V}=\mathcal{L}-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right)$$ for all $\lambda\geq\lambda_{0}>0\ $such that $\lambda^{2}\sup_{r\in \mathbb{R}}V\left( r\right) <1$ and $\left\vert \chi\right\vert $ sufficiently big. Let $\rho\in C^{\infty}\left( \mathbb{R}^{d}\right) $ be such that $0\leq\rho\leq1,$ $\rho\left( x\right) =1$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{4}$ and $\rho\left( x\right) =0$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \geq\frac{1}{2}.$ For $f\in H^{1}$ and $\sigma>0,$ we decompose $f=f_{1}+f_{2},$ where $f_{1}\left( y\right) =\rho_{1}\left( \frac {y}{\sigma}\right) f\left( y\right) $, $f_{2}\left( y\right) =\rho _{2}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) f\left( y\right) ,$ $\rho_{1}\left( y\right) =1-\rho\left( y\right) $ and $\rho_{2}\left( y\right) =\rho\left( y\right) .$ We estimate$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}f\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}=\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}f_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}f_{2}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+2\left( \mathcal{L}_{V}f_{1},\mathcal{L}_{V}f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}\\ \geq\left\Vert \left( -\Delta+1-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) \right) f_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+\left\Vert \mathcal{L}f_{2}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+2\left( \mathcal{L}_{V}f_{1},\mathcal{L}_{V}f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}+r, \end{array} \right. \label{ap230}$$ with$$\left. r=-2\left\vert \left( \left( -\Delta+1-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right) f_{1},-\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{1}-\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{1}}}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert -2\lambda^{2}\left\vert \left( \mathcal{L}f_{2},V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}\right\vert \right.$$ Observe that$$\int Q^{p-1}\left\vert f_{1}\right\vert \left\vert g\right\vert \leq\int Q^{p-1}\left( y\right) \rho_{1}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) \left\vert f\left( y\right) \right\vert \left\vert g\left( y\right) \right\vert dy\leq q^{p-1}\left( \frac{\sigma}{4}\right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert \left\Vert g\right\Vert \label{es1}$$ and$$\int\left\vert V\left( y+\tilde{\chi}\right) \right\vert \left\vert f_{2}\right\vert \left\vert g\right\vert \leq\int\left\vert V\left( y+\tilde{\chi}\right) \right\vert \rho_{2}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) \left\vert f\left( y\right) \right\vert \left\vert g\right\vert dy\leq\left\Vert V\left( y+\tilde{\chi}\right) \rho_{2}\left( \frac {y}{\sigma}\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert f\right\Vert \left\Vert g\right\Vert . \label{es2}$$ Then$$\left\vert r\right\vert \leq K_{1}\left( V\right) \left( \left\Vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \rho_{2}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}+q^{p-1}\left( \frac {\sigma}{4}\right) \right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2},\text{ }K_{1}\left( V\right) >0. \label{r0}$$ Using that $\nabla f_{j}\left( y\right) =\frac{y}{\sigma\left\vert y\right\vert }\rho_{j}^{\prime}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) f\left( y\right) +\rho_{j}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) \nabla f\left( y\right) $, $j=1,2\ $we have$$\left( \mathcal{L}_{V}f_{1},\mathcal{L}_{V}f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}=\left( \rho_{1}\left( \frac{\cdot}{\sigma}\right) \nabla f,\rho_{2}\left( \frac{\cdot}{\sigma}\right) \nabla f\right) +\left( f_{1},f_{2}\right) +r_{1}+r_{2}+r_{3} \label{ap231}$$ where$$r_{1}=\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}\left( \rho_{1}^{\prime}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma }\right) f\left( y\right) ,\rho_{2}^{\prime}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma }\right) f\left( y\right) \right) +\frac{1}{\sigma}\left( \frac {y}{\left\vert y\right\vert }\rho_{1}^{\prime}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) f\left( y\right) ,\rho_{2}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) \nabla f\left( y\right) \right) -\frac{1}{\sigma}\left( \rho_{1}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma }\right) \nabla f\left( y\right) ,\frac{y}{\left\vert y\right\vert }\rho_{2}^{\prime}\left( y\right) f\left( y\right) \right)$$$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}r_{2}=-\left( \left( -\Delta+1\right) f_{1},\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{2}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{2}}}+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}\\ -\left( \frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{1}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{1}}}+\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{1},\left( -\Delta+1\right) f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}\\ +\left( \frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{1}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{1}}},\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{2}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{2}}}+\lambda ^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}\\ +\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{1},\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{2}\right) _{H^{-1}}\end{array} \right.$$$$r_{3}=\left( \lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) f_{1},\frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{2}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{2}}}\right) _{H^{-1}}.$$ We estimate $r_{1}$ as $$\left\vert r_{1}\right\vert \leq\frac{1}{\sigma}\left( 2+\sigma^{-1}\right) \left( 1+\left\Vert \rho^{\prime}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}^{2}\right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{r1}$$ Using (\[es1\]) and (\[es2\]) we control $r_{2}$ by$$\left. \begin{array} [c]{c}\left\vert r_{2}\right\vert \leq2pq^{p-1}\left( \frac{\sigma}{4}\right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}+2\lambda^{2}\left\Vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \rho_{2}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma }\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\\ +\frac{p+1}{2}q^{p-1}\left( \frac{\sigma}{4}\right) \left( p\left\Vert Q\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}^{p-1}+\lambda^{2}\left\Vert V\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\\ +\lambda^{2}\left\Vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \rho_{2}\left( \frac{y}{\sigma}\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert V\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \end{array} \right. \label{r2}$$ Finally, we estimate $r_{3}.$ We have $$\left\vert r_{3}\right\vert \leq\lambda^{2}\left\Vert V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \left\langle \cdot\right\rangle ^{-2}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}\left\Vert \frac{\left\langle \cdot\right\rangle ^{2}}{1-\Delta}\left( \frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{2}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{2}}}\right) \right\Vert .$$ Since $$\left\Vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \left\langle \cdot\right\rangle ^{-2}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq\left\Vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}\left( \left\vert y\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2}\right) }+\left( 1+\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert ^{2}}{4}\right) ^{-1}\left\Vert V\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}$$ and$$\left\Vert \frac{\left\langle \cdot\right\rangle ^{2}}{1-\Delta}\left( \frac{p+1}{2}Q^{p-1}f_{2}+\frac{p-1}{2}Q^{p-1}{\overline{f_{2}}}\right) \right\Vert \leq K_{2}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}},\text{ }K_{2}>0,$$ we deduce$$\left\vert r_{3}\right\vert \leq K_{2}\lambda^{2}\left( \left\Vert V\left( \left\vert y+\tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}\left( \left\vert y\right\vert \leq\frac{\left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert }{2}\right) }+\left( 1+\frac{\left\vert \chi\right\vert ^{2}}{4}\right) ^{-1}\left\Vert V\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}. \label{r3}$$ As by assumption $\lambda^{2}\sup_{r\in\mathbb{R}}V\left( r\right) <1,$ we have$$\left( \left( -\Delta+1-\lambda^{2}V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\tilde{\chi }\right\vert \right) \right) f_{1},f_{1}\right) \geq\left( \left( -\Delta+c_{1}\right) f_{1},f_{1}\right) \geq b_{1}\left\Vert f_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2},$$ with some $b_{1},c_{1}>0.$ Then, using (\[ineq2\]) and (\[ap231\]) in (\[ap230\]) we have$$\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}f\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}\geq b_{3}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{2}{b_{3}}\left( \left\vert \left( f_{2},iQ\right) \right\vert +\left\vert \left( f_{2},\nabla Q\right) \right\vert \right) +r+2\left( r_{1}+r_{2}+r_{3}\right) ,\text{ }b_{3}>0. \label{in2}$$ Since$$\left\vert \left( f_{1},iQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( f_{1},\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}\leq2\left( q+\left\vert q^{\prime }\right\vert \right) \left( \frac{\sigma}{4}\right) \left( \int Q+\left\vert \nabla Q\right\vert \right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}$$ we estimate $$\left\vert \left( f_{2},iQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( f_{2},\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}\leq2\left\vert \left( f,iQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+2\left\vert \left( f,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}+r_{4}. \label{ap227}$$ with$$r_{4}=4\left( q+\left\vert q^{\prime}\right\vert \right) \left( \frac{\sigma}{4}\right) \left( \int Q+\left\vert \nabla Q\right\vert \right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}.$$ Then, (\[in2\]) takes the form $$\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}f\right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}\geq b_{3}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{4}{b_{3}}\left( \left\vert \left( f,iQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( f,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) +r+2\left( r_{1}+r_{2}+r_{3}\right) -\frac{2}{b_{3}}r_{4}. \label{in3}$$ We choose $\sigma>0$ and $C\left( V\right) >0$ in (\[r0\]), (\[r1\]), (\[r2\]), (\[r3\]) such that $\left\vert r\right\vert +2\left( \left\vert r_{1}\right\vert +\left\vert r_{2}\right\vert +\left\vert r_{3}\right\vert \right) +\frac{2}{b_{3}}\left\vert r_{4}\right\vert \leq\frac{3b_{3}}{4}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2},$ for all $\left\vert \chi\right\vert \geq C\left( V\right) .$ Therefore, from (\[in2\]) we deduce (\[ineqpert\]). In order to complete the proof, we need to show that (\[ineqpert1\]) holds. We use the coercivity property of the unperturbed operator $\mathcal{L}$ that follows, for example, from Lemma 2.2 of [@Nakanishi] (see also [@Martel]) $$\left( \mathcal{L}f,f\right) \geq c\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}-\frac{1}{c}\left( \left( f,Q\right) ^{2}+\left\vert \left( f,xQ\right) \right\vert ^{2}+\left( f,i\Lambda Q\right) ^{2}\right) ,\text{ }f\in H^{1},$$ for some $c>0$ independent of $f.$ Then, decomposing $\left( \mathcal{L}_{V}f,f\right) $ similarly to (\[ap230\]) and arguing as in the proof of (\[ineqpert\]), we deduce (\[ineqpert1\]). This completes the proof of Lemma \[Linv\]. Appendix. ========= ### Proof of Lemma \[L8\]. {#proof-of-lemma-l8. .unnumbered} Recall that the kernel $G\left( x\right) $ of the Bessel potential $\left( 1-\Delta\right) ^{-1}$ behaves asymptotically as (see pages 416-417 of [@Aronszajn]) $$\left. G\left( x\right) =2^{\frac{d+1}{2}}\pi^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\left\vert x\right\vert ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left\vert x\right\vert }\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) ,\text{ as }\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow \infty,\right. \label{Bessel}$$ and$$G\left( x\right) =\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c}\frac{1}{2\pi}\ln\frac{1}{\left\vert x\right\vert }\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) ,\text{ }d=2,\\ \frac{\Gamma\left( \frac{d-2}{2}\right) }{4\pi\left\vert x\right\vert ^{d-2}}\left( 1+o\left( 1\right) \right) ,\text{ }d\geq3, \end{array} \right. \text{ as }\left\vert x\right\vert \rightarrow0, \label{Bessel1}$$ where $\Gamma$ denotes the gamma function. For $0<\delta<1,$ let $G_{\delta }\left( x\right) =e^{\delta\left\vert x\right\vert }G\left( x\right) .$ Using (\[Bessel\]) and (\[Bessel1\]) we estimate$$\left\vert G_{\delta}\left( x\right) \right\vert \leq Ce^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert x\right\vert }\left\langle x\right\rangle ^{-\frac{d-1}{2}}\left\langle \left\vert x\right\vert ^{-\left( d-2\right) -\nu}\right\rangle ,\text{ }\nu>0. \label{Bessel0}$$ We decompose$$\left\vert e^{-\delta\left\vert y\right\vert }T\left( y\right) \right\vert \leq C_{0}\left( I_{1}+I_{2}+I_{3}\right) , \label{ap277}$$ where $$I_{1}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}G_{\delta}\left( y-z\right) e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }Q^{p-1}\left( z\right) \left\vert T\left( z\right) \right\vert dz,$$$$I_{2}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}G_{\delta}\left( y-z\right) e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }V\left( \left\vert z+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \left\vert T\left( z\right) \right\vert dz$$ and$$I_{3}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}G_{\delta}\left( y-z\right) e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }\left\vert f\left( z\right) \right\vert dz,$$ for some $C_{0}>0.$ Let $\psi\in C^{\infty}$ be such that $\left\Vert \psi\right\Vert _{L\infty}\leq1,$ $\psi=1$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \leq1$ and $\psi=0$ for $\left\vert x\right\vert \geq2.$ For $a>0$ we decompose$$I_{1}=I_{11}+I_{22},$$ with$$I_{11}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}G_{\delta}\left( y-z\right) e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }Q^{p-1}\left( z\right) \psi\left( \frac{z}{a}\right) \left\vert T\left( z\right) \right\vert dz$$ and$$I_{12}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}G_{\delta}\left( y-z\right) e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }Q^{p-1}\left( z\right) \left( 1-\psi\left( \frac{z}{a}\right) \right) \left\vert T\left( z\right) \right\vert dz.$$ By (\[ineqpert\])$$\left\Vert \psi T\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\leq C_{1}\left( \left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{V}\left( \psi T\right) \right\Vert _{H^{-1}}^{2}+\left\vert \left( \psi T,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) ,\text{ }C_{1}>0.$$ Noting that $[\mathcal{L}_{V},\psi\left( \frac{\cdot}{a}\right) ]=-a^{-2}\left( \Delta\psi\right) \left( \frac{\cdot}{a}\right) -a^{-1}\left( \nabla\psi\right) \left( \frac{\cdot}{a}\right) \nabla,$ as $\left( T,\nabla Q\right) =0,$ we have$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert \psi T\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2} & \leq C_{1}\left( \left\Vert \psi f\right\Vert ^{2}+a^{-1}\left\Vert \left( \nabla\psi\right) \nabla T\right\Vert ^{2}+a^{-2}\left\Vert \Delta\psi T\right\Vert ^{2}+\left\vert \left( \left( 1-\psi\right) T,\nabla Q\right) \right\vert ^{2}\right) \\ & \leq C_{1}\left( \left\Vert \psi f\right\Vert ^{2}+C_{2}a^{-1}\left\Vert T\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) ,\text{ }C_{2}>0.\end{aligned}$$ Then, taking $a\geq A_{0}^{-2}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +1$ and using (\[ap290\]) we get$$\left\Vert \psi T\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\leq C_{1}\left( \left\Vert \psi e^{\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }e^{-\delta\left\vert z\right\vert }f\right\Vert ^{2}+C_{2}A_{0}^{2}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) \left\Vert T\right\Vert _{H^{1}}^{2}\right) \leq C_{3}A_{0}^{2}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right)$$ with $C_{3}>0.$ Thus, by (\[Bessel0\]) and Young’s inequality we get$$\left\Vert I_{11}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq C_{0}\left\Vert G_{\delta}\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{1}}\left\Vert \psi T_{1}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq C_{4}\left( \delta\right) A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) ,\text{ }C_{4}\left( \delta\right) >0.$$ Moreover, we have $$\left\Vert I_{12}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq Ca^{-1}\left\Vert G_{\delta}\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{1}}\left\Vert \left\vert z\right\vert Q^{p-1}\left( z\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert T\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq Ca^{-1}\leq CC_{4}\left( \delta\right) A_{0}^{2}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) .$$ Hence, $\left\Vert I_{1}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq CC_{4}\left( \delta\right) A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) .$ By (\[estp\]) and (\[ap235\])$$\begin{aligned} \left\Vert I_{2}\right\Vert _{L^{2}} & \leq C\left\Vert T\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert e^{-\delta\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}}\left\Vert \left\vert \cdot\right\vert ^{\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert \cdot\right\vert }\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\\ & \leq C\left\Vert T\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\left\Vert V\left( \left\vert \cdot+\frac{\chi}{\lambda}\right\vert \right) Q\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}^{\delta^{\prime}}\left\Vert \left\vert \cdot\right\vert ^{\delta^{\prime}\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left( \delta -\delta^{\prime}\right) \left\vert \cdot\right\vert }\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\left\Vert \left\vert \cdot\right\vert ^{\frac{d-1}{2}}e^{-\left( 1-\delta\right) \left\vert \cdot\right\vert }\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\\ & \leq CC_{5}\left( \delta,\delta^{\prime}\right) \left\Vert T\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\Theta\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) ^{\delta^{\prime}},\text{ }C_{5}\left( \delta,\delta^{\prime}\right) >0,\end{aligned}$$ for any $\delta^{\prime}<\delta.$ By using (\[ap290\]) we control $\left\Vert I_{3}\right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq C_{6}\left( \delta\right) A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) ,$ $C_{6}\left( \delta\right) >0.$ Using the estimates for $I_{1},I_{2},I_{3}$ in (\[ap277\]) we deduce$$\left\Vert e^{-\delta\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }T\left( \cdot\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}}\leq C\left( \delta,\delta^{\prime}\right) \left( A_{0}\left( \left\vert \chi\right\vert \right) +\left\Vert T\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\Theta\left( \left\vert \tilde{\chi}\right\vert \right) ^{\delta^{\prime}}\right) . \label{ap330}$$ Since $G_{\delta}\in L^{p},$ for any $1<p<\frac{d}{d-2},$ from the equation (\[eq18\]), via Young’s inequality, we control the $L^{\frac{2p}{2-p}}$ norm of $e^{-\delta\left\vert \cdot\right\vert }T\left( \cdot\right) $ by the right-hand side of (\[ap330\]). Note that $\frac{2p}{2-p}>2.$ Iterating the last argument a finite number of times, we attain (\[ap291\]). Lemma \[L8\] is proved. [99]{} Agmon S., *Lectures on exponential decay of solutions of second-order elliptic equations: bounds on eigenfunctions of N-body Schrödinger operators.* Mathematical Notes, 29. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1982. Aronszajn, N; Smith, K. T., *Theory of Bessel potentials. I.* Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) **11** (1961), 385–475. D. J. Benney and A. C. Newell, *The propagation of nonlinear wave envelopes*, J. Math. Phys., **46**, (1967), 133-139 L. Bergé, *Wave collapse in physics: principles and applications to light and plasma waves,* Phys. Rep., **303** (1998) 259-370. V. I. Bespalov and V. I. Talanov, *Filamentary structure of light beams in nonlinear liquids,* JETP Lett., **3** (1966), 307-310 Buslaev, V. S.; Perel’man, G. S. *On the stability of solitary waves for nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Nonlinear evolution equations,* 75–98, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Series 2, 164, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1995. Cazenave T., *Semilinear Schrödinger equations,* Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 10. New York University, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York; American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. Cazenave T. and Naumkin I., *Modified scattering for the critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation,* J. Funct. Anal. **274** 2 (2018) 402–432. J.M. Combes, R. Schrader and R. Seiler, *Classical bounds and limits for energy distributions of Hamilton operators in electromagnetic fields,* Ann. Phys., **111** 1 (1978), 1–18 S. Cuccagna, V. Georgiev, and N. Visciglia. *Decay and scattering of small solutions of pure power NLS in* $R$ *with* $p>3$ *and with a potential.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math., **67** 6 (2014) 957–981. P. G. deGennes, *Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys*, NewYork: Benjamin, (1966) P. Deift and J. Park, *Long-time asymptotics for solutions of the NLS equation with a delta potential and even initial data,* Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN **24** (2011) 5505–5624 O. J. P. Eboli and G. C. Marques, *Solitons as Newtonian particles,* Phys. Rev. B, **28** 2 (1983), 689-696. A. Floer and A. Weinstein, *Nonspreading wave packets for the cubic Schrödinger equation with a bounded potential.* J. Funct. Anal. **69** 3 (1986) 397–408. Fröhlich, J.; Gustafson, S.; Jonsson, B. L. G.; Sigal, I. M. *Solitary wave dynamics in an external potential.* Comm. Math. Phys. 250 (2004), no. 3, 613–642. Gang, Zhou; Sigal, I. M. Relaxation of solitons in nonlinear Schrödinger equations with potential. Adv. Math. **216** 2 (2007) 443–490. V. I. Karpman and E. M. Kruskal, *Modulated waves in a nonlinear dispersive media,* Sov. Phys.-JETP,** 28**, (1969), 277-281 Krieger, J., Martel, Y., Raphaël, P., *Two-soliton solutions to the three-dimensional gravitational Hartree equation.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **62** 11 (2009), 1501–1550. Martel, Yvan *Asymptotic* $N-$*soliton-like solutions of the subcritical and critical generalized Korteweg-de Vries equations.* Amer. J. Math. **127** 5 (2005) 1103–1140. Martel, Y; Merle, F,   *Multi-solitary waves for nonlinear Schrödinger equations.* Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire **23** (2006), n.6, 849-864. Martel, Y; Merle, F; Tsai, T *Stability in* $H^{1}$ *of the sum of K solitary waves for some nonlinear Schrödinger equations*. Duke Math. J. **133** 3 (2006), 405–466. Martel, M.; Raphaël, P., *Strongly interacting blow up bubbles for the mass critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation*, to appear in Ann. Sc. Eco. Norm. Sup. Merle, F. *Construction of solutions with exactly k blow-up points for the Schrödinger equation with critical nonlinearity.* Comm. Math. Phys. **129** 2 (1990) 223–240. Merle, F.; Raphaël, P.; Szeftel, J., *On collapsing ring blow-up solutions to the mass supercritical nonlinear Schrödinger equation.* Duke Math. J. 163 (2014), no. 2, 369–431. Chang, S., Gustafson S., Nakanishi K., Tsai T., *Spectra of linearized operators for NLS solitary waves.* SIAM J. Math. Anal. **39** 4 (2007/08), 1070–1111. Naumkin I.P., *Sharp asymptotic behavior of solutions for cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equations with a potential.* J. Math. Phys. **57** 5 (2016) 31 pp. Naumkin I., *Nonlinear Schrödinger equations with exceptional potentials.* Preprint: arXiv:1707.00503v2 Nguyen, T.V., *Existence of multi-solitary waves with logarithmic relative distances for the NLS equation.* Preprint: arXiv:1611.08869 Ovchinnikov, Yu. N.; Sigal, I. M., *Long-time behaviour of Ginzburg-Landau vortices*, Nonlinearity [**11**]{} (1998), no. 5, 1295–1309. Rodnianski, Igor; Schlag, Wilhelm; Soffer, Avraham *Dispersive analysis of charge transfer models.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **58** 2 (2005) 149–216. A. C. Scott, F. Y. F. Chu, and D. W. McClaughlin, *The soliton: A new concept* *in applied science*, PYOC. IEEE **61** (1973), 1143-1483. K. Shimizu and Y. H. Ichikawa, *Automodulation of ion oscillation modes in plasma,* J. Phys. Soc. Japan, **33**, (1972), 189-792 A. Soffer, M.I. Weinstein, *Multichannel nonlinear scattering for nonintegrable equations,* in: Integrable Systems and Applications, Île d’Oléron, 1988, in: Lecture Notes in Phys., vol. 342, Springer, Berlin, 1989, pp. 312–327. A. Soffer, M.I. Weinstein, *Multichannel nonlinear scattering for nonintegrable equations,* Comm. Math. Phys. **133** (1990) 119–146. A. Soffer, M.I. Weinstein, *Multichannel nonlinear scattering for nonintegrable equations.* II. The case of anisotropic potentials and data, J. Differential Equations 98 (2) (1992) 376–390. A. Soffer, M.I. Weinstien, *Selection of the ground state for nonlinear Schroedinger equations,* Rev. Math. Phys. **16** 8 (2004) 977–1071. C. Sulem and P. L. Sulem, *The nonlinear Schrödinger equation. Self-focusing and wave collapse,* App. Math. Sciences,** 139** Springer-Verlag, New York, (1999), 350 pp T. Taniuti and H. Washimi, *Self trapping and instability of hydromagnetic waves along the magnetic field in a cold plasma*, Phys. Rev. Lett., **21** (1968), 209-212 Tai-Pend Tsai, Horng-Tzer Yau, Stable directions for excited states of nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Comm.Partial Differential Equations **27** 11–12 (2002) 2363–2402. Tai-Peng Tsai, Horng-Tzer Yau, *Asymptotic dynamics of nonlinear Schrödinger equations: Resonance-dominated and dispersion-dominated solutions,* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. LV 2002 0153–0216. Tai-Peng Tsai, Horng-Tzer Yau, *Relaxation of excited states in nonlinear Schrödinger equations,* Int. Math. Res. Not. **2002** 31 (2002) 1629–1673. R. Weder, $L^{p}-L^{p^{\prime}}$* estimates for the Schrödinger equation on the line and inverse scattering for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a potential,* J. Funct. Anal. **170** 1 (2000) 37–68. Weinstein, M. I., *Lyapunov stability of ground states of nonlinear dispersive evolution equations.* Comm. Pure Appl. Math. **39** 1 (1986), 51–67. [^1]: Electronic Mail: [email protected] [^2]: Electronic Mail: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Let $m$, $k_1$, and $k_2$ be three integers with $m\ge 2$. For any set $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ and $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$, let $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)$ denote the number of solutions of the equation $n=k_1a_1+k_2a_2$ with $a_1,a_2\in A$. In this paper, using exponential sums, we characterize all $m$, $k_1$, $k_2$, and $A$ for which $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. We also pose several problems for further research. [*2010 Mathematics Subject Classifications:*]{} 11B34 [*Key words and phrases:*]{} exponential sums, representation functions. author: - | Quan-Hui Yang and Yong-Gao Chen[^1]\ School of Mathematical Sciences and Institute of Mathematics,\ Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210046, P. R. CHINA title: '**Weighted representation functions on $\mathbb{Z}_m$[^2]**' --- Introduction ============ Let $\mathbb{N}$ be the set of nonnegative integers. For a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{N},$ let $R_1(A,n)$, $R_2(A,n),$ $R_3(A,n)$ denote the number of solutions of $a+a'=n, a,a'\in A$; $a+a'=n, a,a'\in A,a<a'$ and $a+a'=n, a,a'\in A,a\leqslant a'$ respectively. For $i\in \{1,2,3\},$ Sárközy asked ever whether there are sets $A$ and $B$ with infinite symmetric difference such that $R_i(A,n)=R_i(B,n)$ for all sufficiently large integers $n$. It is known that the answer is negative for $i=1$ (see Dombi [@Dombi]) and the answer is positive for $i=2,3$ (see Dombi [@Dombi], Chen and Wang [@chen03]). In fact, Dombi [@Dombi] for $i=2$ and Chen and Wang [@chen03] for $i=3$ proved that there exists a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that $R_i(A,n)=R_i(\mathbb{N}\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\geq n_0.$ Lev (see [@lev]) gave a simple common proof to the results by Dombi [@Dombi] and Chen and Wang [@chen03]. Finally, using generating functions, Sándor [@Sandor] gave a complete answer by using generating functions, and later Tang [@tang] gave an elementary proof. For related research, one may refer to [@ChenSci2011] and [@ChenTangJNT]. For a positive integer $m$, let $\mathbb{Z}_m$ be the set of residue classes modulo $m.$ For the modular version, the first author and Chen [@yang] proved that if and only if $m$ is even, there exists $A\in \mathbb{Z}_m$ such that $R_1(A,n)=R_1(\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. For any given two positive integers $k_1,k_2$ and any set $A$ of nonnegative integers, let $r_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)$ denote the number of solutions of the equation $n=k_1a_1+k_2a_2$ with $a_1,a_2\in A$. Recently, the authors [@chenyang] proved that there exists a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ such that $r_{k_1, k_2}(A, n)=r_{k_1, k_2}(\mathbb{N}\setminus A,n)$ for all sufficiently large integers $n$ if and only if $k_1\mid k_2$ and $k_2>k_1$. For any given $t$ integers $k_1,\cdots,k_t$, and any set $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ and $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$, let $\hat{r}_{k_1,\cdots,k_t}(A,n)$ denote the number of solutions of the equation $n=k_1a_1+\cdots+k_ta_t$ with $a_1,\ldots,a_t\in A$. In this paper, we prove the following theorem. \[mainthm1\] Let $m,k_1$, and $k_2$ be three integers with $m\geq 2$, and let $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$. Then $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$ if and only if $|A|=m/2$ and $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1d_2/d_3^2$, where $(k_1,m)=d_1,(k_2,m)=d_2$, and $(d_1,d_2)=d_3$. \[cor1\] Let $m,k_1$, and $k_2$ be three integers with $m\geq 2$. Then there exists a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ such that $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$ if and only if $m$ is even and one of the following statements is true: \(i) $k_1$ and $k_2$ have the same parity; \(ii) $k_1$ and $k_2$ have the different parities with $v_2(k_i) < v_2 (m) (i=1,2)$, where $v_2(k)=t$ if $2^t\mid k$ and $2^{t+1}\nmid k$. Motivated by Lev [@lev] and the authors [@chenyang], we now pose the following problems for further research. \[prob1\] For any given two integers $k_1$ and $k_2$, determine all pairs of subsets $A,B\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ such that $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. \[prob2\] For $t\geq 3$, find all $t+1$-tuples $(m, k_1, \dots, k_t)$ of integers for which there exists a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ such that $\hat{r}_{k_1, \dots, k_t}(A, n)=\hat{r}_{k_1, \dots, k_t}(\mathbb{Z}_m \setminus A, n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m $. Proofs ====== For $T\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ and $x\in \mathbb{Z}_m$, let $$S_T(x)=\sum_{t\in T}e^{2\pi itx/m}.$$ Let $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ and $B =\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A$. Then $$\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\sum_{x=0}^{m-1}S_A(k_1x)S_A(k_2x)e^{-2\pi inx/m}$$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. Let $g_A (x)=S_A(k_1x)S_A(k_2x)-S_B(k_1x)S_B(k_2x)$. Thus $$\label{basic1}\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)-\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n) =\sum_{x=0}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}$$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. In order to prove Theorem \[mainthm1\], we need the following Lemmas. \[lemma1\] Let $m,k_1,k_2$ be three integers with $m\geq 2$. If $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$, then $m$ is even and $|A|=m/2$. If $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n)$ holds for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$, then we have $$|A|^2=\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_m}\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n) =\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}_m}\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n)=|B|^2.$$ Hence we get $|A|=|B|$, that is, $m$ is even and $|A|=m/2$. \[lemma2\] If $m\nmid k_ix \, (i=1,2)$, then $g_A(x)=0$. Since $m\nmid k_ix (i=1,2)$, it follows that $$S_A(k_1x)+S_B(k_1x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}e^{2\pi ik_1xj/m}=0$$ and $$S_A(k_2x)+S_B(k_2x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}e^{2\pi ik_2xj/m}=0.$$ Hence $g_A(x)=S_A(k_1x)S_A(k_2x)-S_B(k_1x)S_B(k_2x)=0$. \[lemma3\] If $|A|= m/2$ and $m\mid k_ix \, (i=1,2)$, then $g_A(x)=0$. Since $m\mid k_ix (i=1,2)$, it follows that $$S_A(k_1x)=|A|=S_A(k_2x) \quad \text{and} \quad S_B(k_1x)=|B|=S_B(k_2x).$$ Thus $g_A(x)=|A|^2-|B|^2$. By $|A|= m/2$ we have $|B|= m/2$. Therefore, $g_A(x)=0$. \[lemma4\] If $k$ and $\ell $ are two integers, then $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{x=0\\ m|kx}}^{m-1}S_T(\ell x)e^{-2\pi inx/m} = (k,m) \sum_{\substack{t\in T\\ (k, m) |\ell t-n}}1.\end{aligned}$$ Let $d=(k,m)$. Then $$\begin{aligned} &&\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m|kx}}^{m-1}S_T(\ell x)e^{-2\pi inx/m} = \sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m|kx}}^{m-1}\sum_{t\in T }e^{2\pi i(\ell t-n)x/m}\\ &=&\sum_{s=0}^{d-1}\sum_{t\in T}e^{2\pi i(\ell t-n)s/d} =d \sum_{\substack{t\in T \\ d|\ell t-n}}1.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lemma1\] we may assume that $m$ is even and $|A|=|B|= m/2$. From , by Lemmas \[lemma2\]-\[lemma4\], we have $$\begin{aligned} &&\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)-\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n)\\ &=&\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\nmid k_1x, m\nmid k_2x}}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}+\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_1x}}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}\\ && +\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_2x}}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}-\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_1x, m\mid k_2x}}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}\\ &=&\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_1x}}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}+\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_2x}}^{m-1}g_A (x) e^{-2\pi inx/m}\\ &=&\frac m2 \sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_1x}}^{m-1}\left( S_A(k_2x)-S_B(k_2x) \right) e^{-2\pi inx/m}\\ && +\frac m2\sum_{\substack{x=0 \\ m\mid k_2x}}^{m-1}\left( S_A(k_1x)-S_B(k_1x) \right) e^{-2\pi inx/m}\\ &=& \frac 12 md_1 \left( \sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1|k_2 a-n}}1-\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_1|k_2 b-n}}1 \right) +\frac 12 md_2 \left( \sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2|k_1 a-n}}1-\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_2|k_1 b-n}}1 \right) .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\label{rkk}\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(B,n)$$ is equivalent to $$\label{c}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1|k_2a-n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2|k_1a-n}}1 =d_1\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_1|k_2b-n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_2|k_1b-n}}1.$$ Suppose that holds for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. Then holds for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. Thus $$\label{c1}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1|k_2a-d_3n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2|k_1a-d_3n}}1 =d_1\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_1|k_2b-d_3n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_2|k_1b-d_3n}}1$$for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. Let $$d_i=d_3 d_i',\quad k_i=d_3 k_i', \quad i=1,2.$$ From , we have $$\label{c2}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1'|k_2'a-n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|k_1'a-n}}1 =d_1\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_1'|k_2'b-n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_2'|k_1'b-n}}1.$$ Since $(d_1, k_2)=(k_1, m, k_2)=d_3$, it follows that $(d_1', k_2')=1$. Similarly, we have that $(d_2', k_1')=1$. Thus the summation of two sides of is $$d_1\sum_{t\in \mathbb{Z}_m, d_1'|k_2't-n}1+d_2\sum_{t\in \mathbb{Z}_m, d_2'|k_1't-n}1 =d_1\sum_{t\in \mathbb{Z}_m,d_1'|t}1+d_2\sum_{t\in \mathbb{Z}_m, d_2'|t}1=C(m, k_1, k_2)$$ (say). By we have $$\label{c3}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1'|k_2'a-n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|k_1'a-n}}1 =\frac 12 C(m, k_1, k_2)$$ for all integers $n$. In particular, $$\label{c4}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1'|k_2'a-d_1'n}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|k_1'a-d_1'n}}1 =\frac 12 C(m, k_1, k_2)$$ for all integers $n$. That is, $$\label{c5}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1'|k_2'a}}1+d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|k_1'a-d_1'n}}1 =\frac 12 C(m, k_1, k_2)$$ for all integers $n$. Thus $$\label{c6}\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|k_1'a-d_1'n_1}}1=\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|k_1'a-d_1'n_2}}1$$ for all integers $n_1$ and $ n_2$. Since $(d_1, d_2)=d_3$, we see that $(d_1', d_2')=1$. By , $(d_2', k_1')=1$, and $(d_1', d_2')=1$, we have $$\label{c7}\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|a-u_1}}1=\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2'|a-u_2}}1$$ for all integers $u_1$ and $ u_2$. So $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_2'$. Similarly, $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1'$. Since $(d_1', d_2')=1$, the set $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1'd_2'=d_1d_2/d_3^2$. Conversely, suppose that $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1'd_2'=d_1d_2/d_3^2$. Then $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1'$. So $$\label{c8}\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1'|a-n}}1=\frac{|A|}{d_1'}=\frac{md_3}{2d_1}$$ for all integers $n$. Since $(k_2', d_1')=1$, it follows that $$\label{c9}\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1'|k_2' a-n}}1=\frac{md_3}{2d_1}$$ for all integers $n$. That is, $$\label{c9}d_1\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_1|k_2 a-d_3n}}1=\frac12 md_3$$ for all integers $n$. Similarly, we have $$\label{c10}d_2\sum_{\substack{a\in A \\ d_2|k_1 a-d_3n}}1=\frac12 md_3$$ for all integers $n$. Since $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1'd_2'=d_1d_2/d_3^2$, the set $B=\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A$ is also uniformly distributed modulo $d_1'd_2'=d_1d_2/d_3^2$. Similarly, we have $$\label{c11}d_1\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_1|k_2 b-d_3n}}1=\frac12 md_3\quad \text{and} \quad d_2\sum_{\substack{b\in B \\ d_2|k_1 b-d_3n}}1=\frac12 md_3$$ for all integers $n$. By , , and , we see that holds for all integers $n$. That is, holds for all integers $n$ with $d_3|n$. For $d_3\nmid n$, holds trivially. So holds for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. Therefore, holds for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. Suppose that there exists a set $A\subseteq \mathbb{Z}_m$ such that $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. By Theorem \[mainthm1\], $|A|=m/2$ and $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d_1d_2/d_3^2$, where $(k_1,m)=d_1,(k_2,m)=d_2$, and $(d_1,d_2)=d_3$. So $m$ is even and $$\frac{d_1d_2}{d_3^2} \Big| \frac m2.$$ That is, $$\label{eqn1}\frac{2d_1d_2}{d_3^2} \Big| m.$$ If $k_1$ and $k_2$ have the different parities, say $k_1$ is even, then $v_2(d_1)=\min \{ v_2(k_1), v_2(m) \} $ and $v_2(d_2)=v_2(d_3)=0$. By we have $$1+v_2(d_1)=1+v_2(d_1)+v_2(d_2)-2 v_2(d_3)\le v_2(m).$$ So $v_2(k_1)=v_2(d_1)<v_2(m)$. Conversely, suppose that $m$ is even and one of (i) and (ii) of Corollary \[cor1\] holds. Since $d_1\mid m$, $d_2\mid m$, and $(d_1/d_3, d_2/d_3)=1$, it follows that $d_1d_2/d_3^2 \mid m$. If $k_1$ and $k_2$ are both odd, then $d_1/d_3$ and $d_2/d_3$ are both odd. Noting that $m$ is even, we have that $2d_1d_2/d_3^2 \mid m$. If $k_1$ and $k_2$ are both even, say $v_2(k_1)\ge v_2(k_2)$, then $$v_2(d_1)=\min \{ v_2(k_1), v_2(m) \} \ge \min \{ v_2(k_2), v_2(m) \} =v_2 (d_2).$$ So $v_2(d_3)=v_2(d_2)\ge 1$ and $$v_2\left( \frac{2d_1d_2}{d_3^2}\right) =1+v_2(d_1)+v_2(d_2)-2 v_2(d_3)\le v_2(d_1)\le v_2(m).$$ Noting that $d_1d_2/d_3^2 \mid m$, we have that $2d_1d_2/d_3^2 \mid m$. If $k_1$ and $k_2$ have the different parities, say $k_1$ is even, then $v_2(d_1)=v_2(k_1)< v_2(m)$ and $v_2(d_2)=v_2(d_3)=0$. Thus $$v_2\left( \frac{2d_1d_2}{d_3^2}\right) =1+v_2(d_1)+v_2(d_2)-2 v_2(d_3)=1+v_2(d_1)\le v_2(m).$$ By $d_1d_2/d_3^2 \mid m$, we have that $2d_1d_2/d_3^2 \mid m$. Write $d=d_1d_2/d_3^2$. Then $2d\mid m$. Let $$A= \bigcup_{i=1}^{d} \left\{ i+ d\ell : \ell =1,\dots , \frac{m}{2d} \right\}.$$ Then $|A|= m/2$ and $A$ is uniformly distributed modulo $d$. By Theorem \[mainthm1\], $\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(A,n)=\hat{r}_{k_1,k_2}(\mathbb{Z}_m\setminus A,n)$ for all $n\in \mathbb{Z}_m$. [30]{} Y.-G. Chen, On the values of representation functions, Sci. China Math. 54 (2011) 1317-1331. Y.-G. Chen and M. Tang, Partitions of nature numbers with the same representation functions, J. Number Theory 129 (2009) 2689-2695. Y. G. Chen, B. Wang, [*On additive properties of two special sequences,*]{} Acta Arith. 110 (3) (2003) 299-303. G. Dombi, [*Additive properties of certain sets,*]{} Acta Arith. 103 (2) (2002) 137-146. V. F. Lev, [*Reconstructing integer sets from their representation functions,*]{} Electron. J. Combin. 11 (2004) R78. C. Sándor, [*Partitions of natural numbers and their representation functions,*]{} Integers 4 (2004) A18. M. Tang, [*Partitions of the set of natural numbers and their representation functions,*]{} Discrete Math. 308 (2008) 2614-2616. Q. -H. Yang, F. -J. Chen, [*Partitions of $\mathbb{Z}_m$ with the same representation functions,*]{} Australas. J. Combin. 53 (2012) 257-262. Q. -H. Yang, Y. -G. Chen, [*Partitions of natural numbers with the same weighted representation functions,*]{} J. Number Theory 132 (2012) 3047-3055. [^1]: Corresponding author. Email:[email protected], [email protected] [^2]: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 11071121 and the Project of Graduate Education Innovation of Jiangsu Province (CXZZ12-0381).

ArXiv

--- author: - 'K.M. Schure, J. Vink , A. Achterberg and R. Keppens' bibliography: - 'adssample.bib' title: Evolution of Magnetic Fields in Supernova Remnants --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Supernova remnants (SNRs) are interesting objects in which particles are accelerated and various magnetic-field morphologies have been detected. The widths of the observed X-ray synchrotron filaments indicate that the magnetic field is much stronger than can be expected from compression of the interstellar field by the supernova blast wave alone [e.g. @2005Voelketal; @2005Vink], and the spectral properties indicate that the magnetic field turbulence is high enough that cosmic ray diffusion must be near optimal for cosmic ray acceleration (the so-called Bohm-diffusion; e.g. @2005Vink [@2006Stageetal]). Polarization measurements in radio show that young supernova remnants have a predominantly radial magnetic field, whereas the dominant orientation of the field in older remnants is parallel to the shock front [@1973Gull]. The radial field in young SNRs is thought to arise because of the Rayleigh-Taylor (R-T) instability that occurs at the contact discontinuity, which separates the shocked ejecta from the shocked, more tenuous circumstellar medium (CSM). The R-T instability creates fingers into the more tenuous medium, which stretch the magnetic field radially [@1973Gull]. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations by e.g. @1995Junetal have indeed shown that the R-T fingers cause a preferred polarization of the field along the fingers. While this causes the dominance of the radial field signature in part of the remnant, for a typical shock compression ratio of 4, it does not explain the radial field polarization observed near the forward shock. As shown in hydrodynamic simulations by @2001BlondinEllison, when the compression ratio is higher, the R-T fingers can almost reach, and perturb the forward shock. The presence of cosmic rays could justify an adiabatic index lower than that for a monatomic gas, where $\gamma=5/3$, and thus a higher compression ratio ($s=(\gamma+1)/(\gamma-1)$). For a gas that is dominated by relativistic particles, such as cosmic rays, $\gamma=4/3$. Additionally, the escape of high energy cosmic rays (CRs) drains energy from the shock region, thus further lowering the adiabatic index. The signature toroidal magnetic field of older SNRs is thought to arise by compression of the circumstellar magnetic field. We explore the development of Rayleigh-Taylor fingers and magnetic field variations of a SNR inside a stellar wind medium ($\rho \propto r^{-2}$) for different initial magnetic topologies, and compare our results with those from various studies that have been performed on this subject in a homogeneous and/or unmagnetized medium. One of the magnetic field topologies we will consider is that of a magnetized stellar wind. Even for a slowly rotating star, the field will be mainly toroidal at a distance much larger than the stellar radius. Another topology we consider is one of magnetic turbulence. The interstellar magnetic field has a large turbulent component, so this is a very relevant scenario for a SNR in a homogeneous medium. In a CSM created by a stellar wind however, a large turbulent component could be driven by cosmic ray streaming ahead of the shock front and small perturbations of the blast wave. Alternatively, an ordered magnetic field, as observed on galactic scales, can be used to initialize the magnetic topology. This will be the third case we consider. For now, we focus on the early stages of evolution and try to see whether or not a radial field component is dominant in regions of a young SNR. Methods {#sec:methods} ======= We model the evolution of a SNR in a CSM that is shaped by a pre-supernova wind, in this case a slow, cool wind, such as that originating from a Red Supergiant (RSG), before explosion. The adopted mass loss rate is $\dot M = 1.54 \times 10^{-5}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, the wind velocity $v=4.7$ km s$^{-1}$ and the temperature $T=1000$ K. We use the Adaptive Mesh Refinement version of the Versatile Advection Code: [AMRVAC]{} [@2007HolstKeppens] to solve the MHD equations in the $r - \theta$ plane of a spherical grid, with symmetry around the polar axis. The grid spans $1.8 \times 10^{19}$ cm radially, and the full $\pi$ rad angle. Since the supernova remnant does not reach beyond the radius where the red supergiant (RSG) wind meets the main sequence bubble in the timescales we consider, the initial grid is filled with a RSG wind. This is done by inducing the stellar wind at the inner radial boundary, and let this evolve until it fills the grid and a stationary situation has been established. We then artificially introduce the magnetic field in the entire grid, and supernova ejecta into the inner 0.3 pc. The initial ejecta density profile consists of a constant-density core, with an envelope for which the density decreases as $\rho \propto r^{-9}$, which is the typical density profile of the ejecta after propagation through the star in explosion models [c.f. @1999TrueloveMcKee]. In order to match the observationally determined ejecta mass and energy, in this case chosen to be $M_{\rm ej} = 2.5 M_\odot$ and $E_{\rm ej}=2 \times 10^{51}$ erg, we iteratively determine the value for the density in the ejecta core and the velocity at which the core ends and the powerlaw envelope begins. For the parameters adopted in our simulations, this happens for a central density of the ejecta core of $5.1 \times 10^{-20}$g cm$^{-3}$, and the powerlaw envelope begins where the velocity of the ejecta is $8.7 \times 10^8$cm s$^{-1}$. The velocity linearly increases from zero at the core, to 15,000 km s$^{-1}$ at the outer part of the envelope. The number of gridzones in the simulations is 300x90 on the first level, with 3 refinement levels (with ratio 2) for the wind-stage, and 5 refinement levels (refinement ratio 2) for the SNR stage. The refinement is based on the density and velocity of the fluid. We thus reach an effective resolution of 4800x1440, corresponding to $2.75 \times 10^{15}$ cm by $0.125^\circ$, in the regions where strong density and velocity gradients are present. We implement three toy models with different magnetic field topologies in the wind and track what happens when the SNR evolves. In all cases the ratio of magnetic energy density to kinetic energy density is about 0.01. This is low enough that the equilibrium wind solution is not significantly perturbed on time-scales relevant for our supernova remnant evolution. In Model A, we set up the field as if the RSG wind were magnetized and the star slowly rotating. The field at $r \gg R_{star}$ is predominantly toroidal, but has a very small radial component [@1994ChevalierLuo; @1999GarciaSeguraetal], i.e. $B_\phi \propto r^{-1}$, $B_r \propto r^{-2}$. Far from the star, the toroidal field dominates. Since the toroidal field has to vanish at the poles, we induce a $\sin \theta$ dependence, similar to that used by @1999GarciaSeguraetal. It was suggested by @1993BiermannCassinelli that such a progenitor magnetic field may be responsible for high magnetic fields in SNRs, leading to efficient cosmic ray acceleration. In Model B, we set up a random 2D magnetic field in the $r$ and $\theta$ directions at the time when we introduce the ejecta. The $B_\phi$ component is kept zero. At all times, we implement an initial analytically divergence-free magnetic field. The random field is calculated on a 2D cartesian grid, following @1999GiacaloneJokipii, and transcribed to spherical coordinates in the $r,\theta$ plane. In a centered difference evaluation, we find that the initial condition of the magnetic field is close to divergence-free ($|(\nabla \cdot B)|/| {\bf B}| \ll 1/|v \Delta t|$). The field is set up according to: $$\begin{aligned} \delta {\bf B}(x,y)=\Sigma_{n=1}^{N_{nk}}A_0 k^{-0.5 \alpha}_n i( \cos \phi_n{\bf \hat y}-\sin\phi_n{\bf \hat x}) \\\nonumber \times \quad e^{i k_n(x\cos\phi_n+y\sin\phi_n)+i \beta_n},\end{aligned}$$ with 256 different wavenumbers $k$, and the phase $\beta$ and polarization $\phi$ are randomly chosen between $0$ and $2\pi$ for each wavenumber. The smallest wavenumber spans the entire grid. The wavenumbers are logarithmically spaced, and the largest wavenumber represents a wavelength that covers two gridcells at the lowest resolution. For an approximation of a Kolmogorov spectrum, we set $\alpha=5/3$. The above equation gives us a complex value for the magnetic field. To get a real magnetic field, we take the real part of the above equation, by tacitely assuming that the complex part of $A_0$ has been combined with the phase in $\beta$. A turbulent magnetic field may be a natural outcome of cosmic ray induced magnetic field amplification. Since the amplification is stronger around the fast shocks of young SNRs, this may help explaining why only young SNRs have radial magnetic fields, if turbulent magnetic fields in front of the shock lead to radial magnetic fields inside the SNR. In Model C, the magnetic field is set up parallel to the rotation axis, representing a situation like the dominant ordered magnetic field observed, e. g., in spiral galaxies. In spherical coordinates, this is represented by $B_r = B \cos \theta$, $B_\theta = -B \sin \theta$. In all simulations, the divergence of the magnetic field is controlled by adding a source term proportional to $\nabla \cdot B$ in the induction equation, while maintaining conservation of momentum and energy [@2003Keppensetal; @2000Janhunen]. Results {#sec:results} ======= The results from simulations of Models A, B and C, are plotted in Figures \[fig:modelA\] to \[fig:modelC\]. The density, radial and toroidal magnetic field, and additionally the ratio of the radial to the total field are plotted for the three magnetic field topologies. The results shown here are for remnants that have evolved for a period of 634 year. The radial scale is $10^{18}$ cm. ![Simulation of SNR into CSM with a mostly toroidal initial field (Model A). The upper left quadrant shows the logarithm of the density, which shows clearly the occurence of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability at the contact discontinuity. The lower left panel shows the logarithm of the absolute value of the radial magnetic field. The lower right part shows the logarithm of $|B_\phi|$, and the upper right quadrant shows the logarithm of the ratio of the radial field component relative to the total field ($|B_r|/|{\bf B}|$).[]{data-label="fig:modelA"}](composite_refsnmhdrphiB20){width="\columnwidth"} ![Simulation of the SNR into CSM with a turbulent initial field (Model B). Similar to Figure \[fig:modelA\], the density and magnetic field is plotted. Note that in this case the lower right part shows the logarithm of $|B_\theta|$, and the upper right quadrant shows the ratio of the radial field component relative to the total field ($|B_r|/|{\bf B}|$).[]{data-label="fig:modelB"}](composite_resnmhdranB20){width="\columnwidth"} ![Simulation of SNR into CSM with an initial magnetic field parallel to the symmetry axis, i.e. vertically aligned (Model C). The upper quadrants show again the logarithm of the density and the ratio of radial field over the total field. The lower quadrants show the absolute values of $B_r$ and $B_\theta$. []{data-label="fig:modelC"}](composite_snmhdBZ20){width="\columnwidth"} The supernova ejecta sweeps up the circumstellar matter into a dense shell. Four distinct regions can be identified: the unshocked circumstellar medium (CSM) ahead of the blast wave, the shocked CSM, the shocked ejecta, and the freely expanding ejecta. The shocked CSM is separated from the unshocked CSM by a strong shock (in Figures \[fig:modelA\]-\[fig:modelC\] at a radius of $R_{\rm f} \approx 1.3 \times 10^{19}$ cm), characterized by a pressure jump, which increases the density by a factor $(\gamma+1)/(\gamma-1)$ and decreases the velocity in the shock frame by the same amount. The shocked CSM is separated from the third region, the shocked ejecta, by the contact discontinuity, characterized by a jump in the density but constant pressure. This is also where the R-T instabilities arise. The reverse shock, at a radius of $R_{\rm r} \approx 6.5 \times 10^{18}$ cm, marks the boundary with the unshocked ejecta. The deceleration of the shocked ejecta by the less dense shocked CSM is Rayleigh-Taylor unstable. Since the magnetic field is very weak, it does not influence the dynamics of the blast wave, and we do not see a difference in the development of the R-T instabilities and the propagation of the blast wave between the three models. The magnetic field is carried along by the plasma. Since the velocity field initially only has a radial component, the induction equation gives us that the toroidal field is swept up, while the radial field remains: $\partial_t {\bf B} = \nabla \times ({\bf v} \times {\bf B})$. Not surprisingly therefore, in the ejecta, the radial field component is the dominant one. Starting at the R-T region at the contact discontinuity, the toroidal field starts to be present again. The R-T instability induces a $v_\theta$ component, which subsequently causes changes also in the radial component of the magnetic field. Along the R-T fingers, for Models B and C, the field is mostly radial with toroidal components at the tips and bases of the fingers, in agreement with results from e.g. @1995Junetal. In Model A however, we do not see a significant radial component in the R-T unstable region, which may have to do with the small scale of the initial radial field, something requiring further investigation. The radial field along the R-T fingers in Models B and C is not sufficient to explain the observations of a dominant radial polarization of the field in young SNRs up to the shock front. In Model B, a few features in which the field is predominantly radial can be seen out to the forward shock, but not enough to explain observations. As the R-T is not yet fully saturated at this time in the evolution, the radial field may stretch out closer to the forward shock. However, since in very young remnants the field is already predominantly radial, this alone is insufficient to explain observations. Conclusions and Discussion ========================== Unlike what is observed, the radial field does not dominate in the outer region of the remnant in our models. Although in model B the field fluctuates more due to the random initial condition, there is no distinct radial field in the remnant. Specifically with an initial toroidal field, it is difficult to create a field that is mainly radial. Turbulence could be an essential component in creating a radial field, but as shown in the result of model B, this is by itself not sufficient to reproduce the observed geometry of the magnetic field of young remnants. It appears that additional physics is needed to explain the observations of a high radial field in young SNRs, such as a softened equation of state as suggested by @2001BlondinEllison: a situation that may occur when cosmic rays become dynamically important at the shock. A turbulent magnetic field may arise and be amplified by CR streaming [@2001BellLucek]. The turbulence in turn, can increase the maximum energy that CRs can attain. In future studies we plan to explore the interaction between cosmic rays and magnetic fields in supernova remnants. This study has been financially supported by J.V.’s Vidi grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). This work was sponsored by the Stichting Nationale Computerfaciliteiten (National Computing Facilities Foundation, NCF) for the use of supercomputer facilities, with financial support from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, NWO).

ArXiv

--- author: - | Federico Mari, Igor Melatti, Ivano Salvo, Enrico Tronci\ *Department of Computer Science\ *Sapienza University of Rome\ *via Salaria 113, 00198 Rome\ email: {mari,melatti,salvo,tronci}@di.uniroma1.it*** title: | From Boolean Functional Equations\ to Control Software ---

ArXiv

--- address: | Institut für Physik\ Theoretische Physik III\ Otto-Hahn-Str. 4\ D–44221 Dortmund, Germany\ E-mail: [email protected] author: - 'S. Michalski' title: 'Nonequilibrium Dynamics of the $O(N)$ linear sigma model in the Hartree approximation' --- The model ========= Applications ------------ Scalar models have a wide range of applications in quantum field theory. Normally they are parts of more complex models like e.g. the Standard Model or Grand Unified Theories but they often serve as toy models for a simplified description of complex phenomena such as inflationary cosmology or meson interactions in relativistic heavy ion collisions. Nonequilibrium 2PI effective potential -------------------------------------- We consider the $O(N)$ model with spontaneous symmetry breaking whose classical action is $$\label{eq:action} \mathcal{S}[\vec\Phi] = \int {\mathrm d}^4x\ \mathscr{L}[\vec{\Phi}] = \int {\mathrm d}^4x\ \biggl\{ {\frac{1}{2}}\ {\partial}_\mu \vec{\Phi} \cdot {\partial}^\mu \vec{\Phi} - \frac{\lambda}{4} \left(\vec{\Phi}^2-v^2\right)^2 \biggr\}\ .$$ Following Refs. [@Baacke:2001neqon; @Nemoto:1999onft] we can compute the 2PI effective action [@Cornwall:2PI] in the Hartree approximation. Furthermore, we diagonalize the Green function by an $O(N)$-symmetric ansatz and by restricting the background field to one direction. Since the Green function is local, it can be described by two (time-dependent) mass parameters $\mathcal{M}^2_{\sigma,\pi}$. For nonequilibrium purposes it can be factorized into mode functions $$\label{eq:Green-Funktion} G_{\sigma,\pi}({{\bf x}},t_>;{{\bf x}}',t_<) = \int {\frac{{\mathrm d^{3}}k}{(2\pi)^3\, 2\omega_{\sigma,\pi}}}\ f_{\sigma,\pi}(k,t_>)\, \bar{f}_{\sigma,\pi}(k,t_<)\ e^{i {{\bf k}} \cdot ({{\bf x}}-{{\bf x}}')} \ ,$$ where $\omega_{\sigma,\pi} = \sqrt{{{\bf k}}^2+\mathcal{M}_{\sigma,\pi}^2(0)}$. One constructs an expression for the total (conserved) energy density of the system in the Hartree approximation $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber \mathcal{E} &= & {\frac{1}{2}}\dot{\phi}^2 + {\frac{1}{2}}\mathcal{M}_\sigma^2 \phi^2 - \frac{\lambda}{2} \phi^4 - \frac{v^2}{2 (N+2)} \biggl[ \mathcal{M}_\sigma^2 + (N-1) \mathcal{M}_\pi^2 \biggr] \\ \label{eq:EnergiedichteAux} && -\frac{1}{8\lambda (N+2)} \biggl[ (N+1) \mathcal{M}_\sigma^4 +3(N-1) \mathcal{M}_\pi^4 - 2(N-1) \mathcal{M}_\sigma^2\ \mathcal{M}_\pi^2\\ \nonumber && \qquad\qquad + 2N\lambda^2 v^4 \biggr] + \mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{fl}}^\sigma(t) + (N-1)\,\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{fl}}^\pi(t)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the fluctuation energy densities $\mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{fl}}^{\sigma,\pi}$ are the nonequilibrium analogs of the one-loop “log det” terms expressed by mode functions $f(k,t)$ $$\label{eq:Efluct} \mathcal{E}_{\mathrm{fl}}^*(t) = \frac{\hbar}{2} \int{\frac{{\mathrm d^{3}}k}{(2\pi)^3\, 2\omega_{*}}}\ \biggl[ |\dot{f}_*(k,t)|^2 + ({{\bf k}}^2 + \mathcal{M}_{*}^2)\ |f_*(k,t)|^2 \biggr],\ *=\sigma,\pi\ .$$ Equations of motion ------------------- The equations of motion follow from the conservation of the energy [(\[eq:EnergiedichteAux\])]{}. The background field obeys $$\label{eq:bewgl phi_i} \ddot{\phi} + \bigl[ \mathcal{M}_\sigma^2(t) - 2\lambda\ \phi^2(t) \bigr] \phi(t) = 0\ ,$$ the mass parameters are solutions of the gap equations $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:gap1} \mathcal{M}_\sigma^2&=& \lambda \Bigl(3\phi_0^2-v^2 + 3\hbar\, \mathcal{F}_\sigma + (N-1) \hbar\, \mathcal{F}_\pi \Bigr)\\ \label{eq:gap2} \mathcal{M}_\pi^2&=& \lambda \Bigl(\phi_0^2-v^2 + \hbar\, \mathcal{F}_\sigma + (N+1) \hbar\, \mathcal{F}_\pi \Bigr)\ , \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{F}_*$ is the fluctuation integral $$\mathcal{F}_*(t) = \int {\frac{{\mathrm d^{3}}k}{(2\pi)^3\, 2\omega_{*}}} |f_*(k,t)|^2 \quad\textrm{with}\quad *=\sigma,\pi$$ which equals the usual tadpole integral at $t=0$ (cf. section 1.4). The equation for the mode functions is $$\label{eq:Modengleichung} \ddot{f}_*(k,t) + \biggl[ {{\bf k}}^2 + \mathcal{M}^2_{*}(t) \biggr] f_*(k,t) = 0\ .$$ The fact that the mode equation is coupled to the gap equations [(\[eq:gap1\])]{} and [(\[eq:gap2\])]{} has an important influence on the dynamics. When a time-dependent mass square $\mathcal{M}^2(t)$ acquires a negative value, eq. [(\[eq:Modengleichung\])]{} will imply an exponential growth of the modes which reacts back on the mass squares via the gap equations by driving them back to positive values. In the one-loop approximation (with no gap equations) the system shows unphysical behavior [@Baacke:1997rcs] because the modes never stop growing exponentially. Initial conditions {#sec:initial} ------------------ At the beginning of the nonequilibrium evolution we fix the classical background field to a certain value $\phi(0)=\phi_0$. The mode functions are those of free fields: $f_i(k,0) = 1$, $\dot f_i(k,0) = -i \omega_i$, and the mass parameters $\mathcal{M}_\sigma$ and $\mathcal{M}_\pi$ are solutions of the gap equations [(\[eq:gap1\])]{} and [(\[eq:gap2\])]{} at $t=0$. Results and discussion ====================== Time evolutions --------------- Here we will present the results for $N=4$, $\lambda=1$ and for the renormalization scale set equal to the tree level sigma mass $\mu^2=2\lambda v^2$. We have only considered initial values $\phi_0> v$ for the background field because for smaller values the initial value of the parameter $\mathcal{M}_\pi(0)$ is imaginary. This means that the region $-v < \phi < v$ can only be explored dynamically. We display time evolutions of the background field for two different initial conditions in Fig. \[fig:phi(t)\] ![Time evolutions of the background field for $\phi_0=1.3v$, $\phi_0=1.6v$. Amplitudes are in units of $v$ and time is measured in units of $(\sqrt{\lambda}v)^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig:phi(t)"}](phitkl.eps "fig:") ![Time evolutions of the background field for $\phi_0=1.3v$, $\phi_0=1.6v$. Amplitudes are in units of $v$ and time is measured in units of $(\sqrt{\lambda}v)^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig:phi(t)"}](phitgr.eps "fig:") It can be seen that there are two phases depending on the value of $\phi_0$: a symmetric phase when the field $\phi(t)$ is oscillating about zero, and a phase of broken symmetry when $\phi(t)$ is oscillating about a finite value. The “critical” value of $\phi_0$ seems to be close to the classically expected value $\sqrt{2\lambda} v$ where the total energy is equal to the height of the barrier. Phase structure --------------- In order to analyze the phase structure of the model in the [Hartree]{.nodecor} approximation we define $\phi_\infty$ as a time averaged amplitude at late times, i.e. the value about which the field oscillates. $\phi_\infty$ plays the role of an order parameter whose dependence on the total energy of the system is investigated. The total energy of the system is given here by the initial value $\phi_0$ which is analogous to the temperature in equilibrium field theory.  \[fig:phase\] Fig. \[fig:phase\] clearly shows a discontinuous jump of $\phi_\infty$ at $\phi_0\simeq \sqrt{2}v$ — a typical sign of a first order phase transition as found in equilibrium (see e.g. Refs. [@Verschelde:2001onft; @Nemoto:1999onft]). A dynamical effective potential ------------------------------- This nonequilibrium system shows a phase structure which is comparable to a system in thermal equilibrium, so it would be nice if there was another correspondence. We define a dynamical, i.e. time-dependent, potential which can be compared to the finite temperature potential in equilibrium $$\label{eq:potenergie} V_\mathrm {pot}(t) = \mathcal{E} - {\frac{1}{2}}\dot\phi^2(t)\ .$$ This potential can only be measured within the oscillation range of the background field $\phi(t)$. For two different initial conditions it is shown in Fig. \[fig:V(phi)\]. ![Evolution of the potential energy [(\[eq:potenergie\])]{} for $\phi_0=2v$ (unbroken phase) and $\phi_0=1.2v$ (broken phase).[]{data-label="fig:V(phi)"}](effpotsym.eps "fig:") ![Evolution of the potential energy [(\[eq:potenergie\])]{} for $\phi_0=2v$ (unbroken phase) and $\phi_0=1.2v$ (broken phase).[]{data-label="fig:V(phi)"}](effpotssb.eps "fig:") In the broken symmetry phase the minimum at $\phi=v$ moves to smaller values but eventually remains different from zero, so the system settles at a finite expectation value. In the symmetric phase the two minima entirely disappear after a few oscillations and a new (symmetric) minimum at $\phi=0$ appears. Conclusions and summary ======================= The analysis of the nonequilibrium dynamics of the $O(N)$ model in the [Hartree]{.nodecor} approximation allowed us to study new features of the system which are not accessible in the one-loop or infinite component ($N\to\infty$) approximations. Though thermalization is only expected at approximations beyond the [Hartree]{.nodecor} level, i.e., when including nonlocal corrections, the nonequilibrium system at late times shows striking similarities to a system in thermal equilibrium. One can define an order parameter which is dependent on the total energy of the system, given by the initial conditions. Analyzing the dependence of the order parameter on the initial conditions one finds a first order phase transition. [99]{} J. Baacke and S. Michalski, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 065019 (2002) `[arXiv:hep-ph/0109137]`. Y. Nemoto, K. Naito and M. Oka, Eur. Phys. J. A [**9**]{}, 245 (2000) \[`arXiv:hep-ph/9911431`\]. J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. D [**10**]{}, 2428 (1974). and [J. de Pessemier]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**22**]{}, 771 (2002) \[`arXiv:hep-th/0009241`\]. [J. Baacke]{.nodecor}, [K. Heitmann]{.nodecor} and [C. Pätzold]{.nodecor}, Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 2320 (1997) \[`arXiv:hep-th/9608006`\].

ArXiv

--- abstract: | We investigate the ionization state of the Extended Emission-Line Regions (EELRs) around two compact steep-spectrum (CSS) radio galaxies, 3C 268.3 and 3C 303.1, in order to identify the contribution of photoionization and shock-ionization. We perform a new spectroscopical (long-slit) analysis with GMOS/Gemini with the slit oriented in the radio-jet direction, where outflows are known to exist. The \[Ne V\]$\lambda 3426$ emission is the most interesting feature of the spectra and the one key to breaking the degeneracy between the models: since this emission-line is more extended than He[ii]{}, it challenges the ionization structure proposed by any photoionization model, also its intensity relative to H$\beta$ does not behave as expected with respect to the ionization parameter [*U*]{} in the same scenario. On the contrary, when it is compared to the intensity of \[OII\]$\lambda3727$/H$\beta$ and all these results are joined, the whole scenario is plausible to be explained as emission coming from the hot, compressed, shocked gas in shock-ionization models. Although the model fitting is strongly sensitive to the chosen line-ratios, it argues for the presence of external and strong ionizing fields, such as the precursor field created by the shock or/and the AGN radiation field. In this paper, we show how AGN photoionization and shock-ionization triggered by jet-cloud interaction work together in these EELRs in order to explain the observed trends and line-ratio behaviours in a kinematically acceptable way. author: - | Victoria Reynaldi$^{1}$ and Carlos Feinstein$^{1,2}$ [^1]\ $^{1}$Instituto de Astrofísica de La Plata, CONICET; Paseo del Bosque s/n, La Plata 1900, Argentina\ $^{2}$Facultad de Ciencias Astronómicas y Geofísicas, UNLP, Argentina bibliography: - 'biblios2.bib' title: 'The fingerprints of Photoionization and Shock-Ionization in two CSS sources.[^2] ' --- \[firstpage\] galaxies: active — galaxies: individual(3C 268.3) — galaxies: individual(3C 303.1) — galaxies: jets — galaxies: ISM Introduction ============ The interaction between the radio jets and the surrounding interstellar/intergalactic medium (ISM/IGM) in radiogalaxies is always a fascinating issue to explore. Revealing if such interactions might trigger the emission in the large-scale nebulae called Extended Emission-Line Regions (EELR) is not an exception. Likewise, the detailed mechanism by which the ionizing radiation from the active nucleus would reach that regions, being previously filetered by the innermost nebular regions such as the Broad-Line Region or the Narrow-Line Region, and excite the gas in the way we observe it, is still far from being fully described. Due to their structure, morphology and radio power, the double-lobed, edge-brightened Fanaroff-Riley type II sources [FRII; @fr74] are the most suitable candidates to analyze what kind of role the jets play in the excitation and/or ionization of the EELR against the always present AGN ionizing radiation field. FRII radiogalaxies are usually very extended radio sources, where the radio jets can reach tens or even hundreds of kiloparsecs from the nucleus. The scales of the EELRs are usually shorter than the radio lobe extension, despite of being the most extended gaseous systems. Jet-cloud interaction has been searched in several FRII sources, and it has been shown that the mechanism can take place in different scenarios: where the EELR overlaps the lobes, which is the most intuitive scenario [@fei99; @ros10a; @reynaldi13b], or even where the jet have passed far beyond the EELR structure, in which case the EELR shows spectroscopic and kinematical signs of such interaction although there is no spatial coincidence with the radio plasma [@sol01; @reynaldi13a]. Many of jet-cloud interaction fingerprints are hidden in the kinematics of the gas rather than in radio-optical correlation; 2-D velocity maps such as that of @fu06 [@fu08] are particulary useful to this kind of analysis. Compact Steep-Spectrum (CSS) sources are young FRII radiogalaxies [@deVries97; @odea98]; the optical EELR and the radio structure are overlapped likely because of the sources’s youth. This characteristic makes them excellent laboratories to find the traces of interaction between both structures: since it is known that the jet is passing through the surrounding gas, the nebula might have fresh fingerprints of such a process. The main motivation of this investigation is to find key spectral features that let us identify the level of competition between shock-ionization triggered by jet-cloud interaction and AGN photoionization. We will analyze long-slit spectra of two CSS sources, 3C 268.3 and 3C 303.1, whose integral field spectra [@shih13] suggest that the interaction might be at work. We will go a step further by looking for signatures of both processes (shock-ionization and photoionization) inside the line or line-ratio behaviours; diagnostic diagrams will be analyzed as well. Our study is focused on finding spectroscopical fingerprints of these ionization processes in order to convert them into powerful tools in the study of any other source. The data obtained for this investigation is presented in Section \[section:Data\] and their main characteristics are highlighted in Section \[section:Results\]. Then, we analyze the spectra and the ionization models in Section \[discussion\]. Finally, Section \[conclusions\] organizes all the results to explain the way in which the EELRs of 3C 268.3 and 3C 303.1 were excited. The Observations: GMOS/Gemini data. {#section:Data} =================================== The data were obtained with the GMOS facility of the Gemini North Telescope as part of two separate programs during 2011 and 2012. The source 3C 268.3 ($z=0.3717$) was observed on April 2011 (GN-2011A-Q-66 program, PI: C. Feinstein), and 3C 303.1 ($z=0.2704$) was observed on February 2012 (GN-2012A-Q-18 program, PI: V. Reynaldi). The instrument was set up in long-slit mode, the position angle (PA) of the slit was determined by the EELR’s orientation: PA=146  for 3C 268.3 and PA=145  for 3C 303.1. The slits’s width were chosen depending on the EELR structure, we have used the 0.5” width-slit for 3C 268.3 and the 1” width-slit for 3C 303.1. In both cases, the B600-G5307 grating was used; it yields a resolution of 0.9 Å px$^{-1}$. The observation of 3C 268.3 was taken in only one exposure of 43 min, but the observation of 3C 303.1 was split in two exposures of 21 min each one. The detector was binned in 2$\times$2 mode, with which the angular resolution is 0.1454 arcsec px $^{-1}$. The linear scales[^3] are 1080 pc px$^{-1}$ for 3C 268.3, and 784 pc px$^{-1}$ for 3C 303.1, without projection correction. Data were reduced following the usual steps: bias subtraction, flat-field correction, wavelength calibration and sky subtraction by using the [gemini-gmos]{} package reduction tasks (versions 1.11 and 1.12beta) within [iraf]{} (version 2.14.1). We did not performe cosmic ray rejection because the cosmic ray hits are more easily removed from the line-profile during the measurement procedure than from the entire spectrum during the reduction procedure. Table \[table-1\] lists the set of identified lines in both sources. Our spectral range covers from 3300Å  to 5200Å, approximately. We have arbitrary chosen different distances from the nuclei to show the variations in line-intensities, which are all refered to that of H$\beta$ in each selected position. The line that we have labeled as \[NeIII\]$\lambda3968$ is actually a blend of \[NeIII\]$\lambda3967.4$, CaII (3968.44), and HeII(3968.43). The emission coming from this complex was detected in the two of the sources, while in 3C 303.1 we have also found the blend of HI and HeI around 3890Å. None of these groups take part of our analysis. The two EELR are elongated in the same direction from their nuclei: toward the northwest (NW) and southeast (SE). The distances are measured from the galactic centres, being them identified as the peak of intensity within the continuum emission; hereafter, negative coordinates are used for the NW region and possitive coordinates for the SE region in both objects. The Figure \[spectra\] shows the section of the long-slit spectra from H$\beta$ to doublet \[OIII\]$\lambda\lambda4959,5007$. We have used the grey scale and the contours as well to emphasize the shapes of the emission-lines. The spectrum of 3C 268.3 is plotted in the upper panel and the spectrum of 3C 303.1 is plotted in the lower panel. Results. {#section:Results} ======== Each 1D spectrum was extracted in a pixel-by-pixel way to take advantage of the spatial information across the slit. The \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ emission is the most spatially extended feature in both 2D spectra. We have adopted the extension of this emission-line as that of the EELRs. In 3C 268.3 it is extended up to 5.3” ($\sim$39.3 kpc): 3.3” to the SE and 2” to the NW. In 3C 303.1, the EELR is extended up to 8.9” ($\sim$48 kpc): 3.2” to the SE, and 5.7” to the NW. All of the distances are measured with respect to the galactic centres, which were identified as the maximum intensity point within the continuum emission. The continuum emission is very faint in both sources. It is negligible from 0.3” in 3C 268.3, and from 0.5” in 3C 303.1. Interstellar extintion correction were not applied since it would require to assume that the gas of the EELRs shares the same physical properties of that of the Milky Way. However, we have calculated the effect that reddening would have over our line-ratios by following the laws of @cardelli89. These results are shown as reddening arrows in the diagnostic diagrams of Section \[discussion\]. The arrows point toward the direction our data would be displaced if the correction were applied. We derived the velocity fields from the Gaussian decomposition (the Gaussian fitting was fully described in @reynaldi13a) of the \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ emission-line profile. They are shown in Figure \[VF\] together with the maps of full-width at half maximum (FWHM), which let us clearly identify the kinematical complexity inside each nebula. The maps of 3C 268.3 are shown in the left-hand panel, and those of 3C 303.1 in the right-hand panel. Different velocity components were plotted by using different symbols (and colours, available in the on-line version of the journal), which are also used in the FWHM maps. We choosed the PAs of our spectra by following the EELR’s optical-UV direction of elongation. These PAs differ from the radio structure’s position angles in 15  for 3C 268.3 (PA$_{radio}$=161, @koff96), and around 14  for 3C 303.1 (PA$_{radio}$=130-133, @koff96 [@axon00; @pri08]). Nonetheless, according to the criteria of @deVries99, the optical and radio structures of these two CSS sources are globally aligned. Therefore, these velocity fields reveal the kinematics of the gas along (approximately) the radio-jet direction. In the following sections, the main characteristics of the whole spectra and the velocity fields are discussed, individually, in detail. 3C 268.3 -------- In 3C 268.3, a clear and extended rotation curve is identified by the (blue) asterisks (Fig. \[VF\], left-hand panels), which stabilizes at around 300-400 km s$^{-1}$. This is the narrowest component of the fitting, its FWHM is very stable ($\Delta v\sim$150 km s$^{-1}$) along the entire region. In the innermost, circumnuclear regions ($|r|<1$”) we found the already known disordered motions reported by @holt08, but there is no sign of high-speed motions even in this circumnuclear region, plotted as (green) triangles. We rather interpret the observed pattern as another, steeper and internal, rotation curve. However, we do detect internal turbulence, which is reflected by the high values of the FWHM: $\Delta v$$\approx800$ km s$^{-1}$. The galactic centre is the region where all the emission-lines are more intense. Line-intensities drop from this zone toward the outskirts in both directions, in a rather abrupt manner. The \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ drops to half of its maximum at 0.6” from the centre, a distance that represents, in contrast, only 17 percent of its total extention. The two highest excitation lines in the observed spectral range are \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ (which ionization potential, IP, is almost 100 eV), and HeII (IP=54.4 eV). Both of them are surprisingly extended. HeII is observed in the range -1”$<r<$2” (or, linearly -7.4$<d<$14.9 kpc), while the \[NeV\] emission is only detected toward the SE, in the range 0”$<r<$2.5” (0$<d<$18.6 kpc). This means that, in the region where the two species coexist, \[NeV\] is more extended than HeII. 3C 303.1 -------- The velocity field of 3C 303.1 is intriguing (Fig. \[VF\], right-hand panels). Although we observe stable motions within each region, it is very difficult to identify a rotation curve. A similar result was obtained by @odea02 by using STIS/HST long-slit spectrum with a slightly different PA (PA=151). We identify three kinds of kinematical components, namely: the most extended, the internal, and the highest-velocity components. The most extended component is plotted as (red) asterisks; the FWHM ($\Delta v$) ranges between 200 and 700 km s$^{-1}$. The internal component, plotted as (green) triangles, is also the most turbulent one: $900\lesssim \Delta v \lesssim1200$ km s$^{-1}$; it is detected mostly toward the SE (-0.5”$<r<$1.5”). Finally, the highest-velocity ($V\sim400$ km s$^{-1}$) component, plotted as (blue) dots, is found in the region $|r|<2$” and shows the lowest level of turbulence: $200\lesssim \Delta v \lesssim400$ km s$^{-1}$. The central region shows the highest-amplitude velocity among components. The most perturbed motions are observed within the circumnuclear region ($|r|<1$”), where high-velocity movements are detected. None of the observed characteristics in this velocity field are compatible with the expected kinematics within the galactic potential [@tad89; @odea02]. The EELR in 3C 303.1 is more extended toward the NW, but the emission-lines are more intense to the SE, which also coincides with the most perturbed region. The highest excitation lines are \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ and HeII, as it was the case of 3C 268.3. The former is only detected in the innermost SE region, up to 1.2” (7.1 kpc); it is also present in the central region, but absent from 0.3” (1.6 kpc) toward the NW. The emission from HeII, in turn, is slightly more extended and it is observed in the range -1.2”$<r<$1.6” (or linearly, -6.5$<d<$8.6 kpc). The turbulent region (-2.5”$<r<$2.5”; or $|d|<$13.5 kpc) concentrates the emission of all the species, but it also comprises the entire \[OII\]$\lambda3727$-zone. Outside this range, only \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ is detected.\ The main characteristics of the two velocity fields are similar to those reported by @holt08 although their spectra were obtained with different PA (the differences with respect to ours are 11  in the case of 3C 268.3 and 15  in the case of 3C 303.1). The outflows that they found in the inner regions ($|r|<1$”) are also reported here. Concerning the outer regions ($|r|>1$”), 3C 268.3 shows no sign of turbulence nor perturbation but clear stability. In fact, the main, dominant and extended component that arises from our Gaussian decomposition plays the role of the narrow component that @holt08 associate to the stationary medium of the galactic halo. In the case of 3C 303.1, the turbulence observed in the inner (circumnuclear) region is still present in the extended gas, up to distances of $r\sim2$” in both NW and SE directions. The Ionizing Mechanisms: Discussion. {#discussion} ==================================== In the last years, several analysis of the ionizing mechanisms taking place in these sources have been made by @labiano05 [@holt09] and @shih13. Many of them have proposed that a combination of the AGN ionizing radiation and powerful shocks triggered by the jets might be able to explain the observed ionization state. Different kinds of AGN photoionization models have been already discussed in the former two articles, whose conclusions ruled out the single density models as the main ionizing mechanism. They showed that the spectral characteristics are better reproduced by a model consisting of a mixture of two gaseous systems that differ in their optical-dephts (this same model, among others, will be tested against our observations in this Section). Likewise, the most recent analysis [@shih13] suggested that it is likely that some regions have undergone shock processes that have altered the physical condition of the gas, so as to make AGN photoionization more efficient. Our longslit spectra give us the advantage of studying the state of the gas in the jet direction, where shocks are being triggered. In the following, we are going to analyze the main spectral features, the behaviour of the most important species together with models’s prediction for both radio sources. One of our most interesting results concerns the behaviour of the highest excitation lines. We will begin our discussion by analysing them under photoionization and shock-ionization predictions; then, we will look for the hints of the ionization processes they could hide. Shock-ionization will be studied by using the Mapping-[iii]{} library [@all08; @gro10] with particular attention to the role that the local ionizing field plays. AGN photoionization will be analyzed through the [*mixed-medium*]{} models of @bin96 [@bin97] which propose that the medium is composed by a mixture of matter-bounded (MB) and ionization-bounded (IB) clouds; the kinematics of the extended gas will also take part of the study. The behaviour of \[Ne V\]$\lambda3426$. {#NeV} --------------------------------------- The main goal of the [*mixed-medium*]{} AGN photoionization models is their ability to reproduce the intensity of high excitation/ionization emission lines. Four models were developed; the first of them [@bin96 hereafter model T] established a new excitation sequence. The $A_{M/I}$ sequence replaces (in these models) the ionization sequence given by the ionization parameter U[^4], taking into account that the nebula is composed by the optically thin MB clouds and the optically thick IB clouds. The three models of @bin97 [they named them H, M and L; this nomenclature is kept in the following] made use of the main results of the former model, but these new models were also tuned to reproduce coronal lines such as \[FeVII\]$\lambda6086$. The four models mainly differ on the ambient density and the (both initial and higher) ionization parameter U of the MB clouds; the whole set of parameters are listed in Table \[table-2\]. In order to be able to simultaneously reproduce these coronal lines and low excitation lines, it is mandatory to consider that different values of the ionization parameter U (hidden in the MB-IB clouds mixture) characterize the ambient medium [@stas84; @bin96; @kom97]. With this picture in mind, the zones with the highest U are responsible for the emission of the highest excitation lines, such as the aforementioned \[FeVII\]$\lambda6086$ or \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ which is originated in similar physical conditions than \[FeVII\] [@stas84]. The fact that the highest excitation emission line in the spectra of both sources 3C 268.3 and 3C 303.1 is, indeed, \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ let us analyze the H, M and L models with this information: since they were developed to reproduce the intensity of \[FeVII\], and \[FeVII\] originates in the same conditions than \[NeV\], then we can expect that these models also reproduce \[NeV\]. In Figure \[neon\] (a coloured version of this figure is available in the online version of the journal) the behaviour of neon lines \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$/\[NeIII\]$\lambda3869$ is shown against the excitation axes \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ [right-hand panel; @bal81], and HeII/H$\beta$ [left-hand panel; @bin96; @bin97]. Hereafter 3C 268.3 is plotted as circles (magenta) and 3C 303.1 is plotted as squares (light blue). The bigger circle and square represent the line-ratios in the galactic centres’s position, respectively. We have plotted the four AGN photoionization models as well as the self-ionizing (i.e. shock + precursor) ionization model (solar abundances; the ambient preshock density is $10^2$ cm$^{-3}$). The transverse magnetic field is combined with the ambient density to form the magnetic parameter $B/n^{1/2}$ [@dop95; @dop96]. The shock velocities are also shown, in the range 200-1000 km s$^{-1}$. According to our prediction, photoionization models provide a global better fit to the observations. Furthermore, not only they reproduce the observed intensity in neon’s ratio but their trend as well; note (from the position of the biggest symbols) that the intensity of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$/\[NeIII\]$\lambda3869$ increases from the galactic centre toward the outskirts in each direction for both sources. The fittings are better in the high-values-tail of the $A_{M/I}$ sequence, which represents a MB-dominated medium. It also means that the usual ionization parameter U takes its highest values there [@bin96; @bin97]. In the right-hand panel we can observe that the best fittings are obtained with the T and H models, the two models for which the MB clouds are the most excited [i.e. the highest U were set to the MB systems in model T and H; @bin96; @bin97]. Since the nebulae seem to be MB-dominated systems, let’s assume as a first-order approximation that the EELRs have no mixed-matter (that is, we will assume that the IB component is negligible) to be able to evaluate the behaviour of the ionization parameter U in these two nebular regions as a function of distance from the nuclei. We are interested in knowing what kind of trend U follows in the whole nebulae, and particulary in the region where \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ is found. Figure \[U\] shows such a behaviour through the relationship between U and the oxygen ratio \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$/\[OII\]$\lambda3727$ ($log(U)=-2.74+log(\textrm{[OIII]}\lambda5007/\textrm{[OII]}\lambda3727)$; @pen90); 3C 268.3 in the upper panel, and 3C 303.1 in the lower panel. Distances are expressed in arcsec, where $r=0$ represents the nuclei; the NW regions are expressed in negative coordinates, and the SE regions are expressed in possitive coordinates. From these plots we can see that the two ionization parameters U do not show the expected geometrical dilution, the typical pattern of central photoionization, neither they peak at the centre. On the contrary, U increase in off-nuclear regions. In 3C 268.3, U grows up toward the NW and there is also a secondary maximum at 1”-2” to the SE. In 3C 303.1, U reaches its maximum value in the SE region, at 1”-2”, and also increases toward the NW in the circumnuclear region (0.5”). The (grey) boxes show the regions where \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission is detected. The spatial behaviours of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ (normalized to H$\beta$) is these same regions are plotted in Figure \[oxs\] (left-hand panel; 3C 268.3 as dashed line, and 3C 303.1 as continuous line). It is straightforward to note that the \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission is very extended: in 3C 268.3 it is observed up to 2.5” ($\sim$18.5 kpc) to the SE, a distance that represents 75 per cent of the EELR’s extension (given by \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$). In 3C 303.1, \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission is observed up to 1.2” ($\sim$6.5 kpc), i.e. almost a third of the EELR-SE’s extension. This is worth noting because \[NeV\] is the highest-excitation emission-line in the two spectra, which needs energy around $\sim$100 eV to be produced. But the most interesting behaviour is that the \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission increases with distance. And even more interesting, and contrary to photoionization predictions, it increases over the regions where U decreases. The boxes in U-panels (Fig. \[U\]) are shown to emphasize this trend. We have obtained the mean values of U (with the aforementioned relationship between U and \[OIII\]/\[OII\]) over the \[NeV\] emission regions, so we can compare them with models’s prescription: $\langle U_{3C268.3} \rangle =7\times 10^{-3}$ and $\langle U_{3C303.1} \rangle =4.2\times10^{-3}$. The ionization parameters that produce bulk of \[NeV\] emission in the T and H models (this is within MB clouds) are among one and two orders of magnitude higher than these values [@bin96; @bin97]. So, the characteristics of \[NeV\] emission present manifold issues: it is surprisingly extended, so very energetic photons must be present at very large distances from the ionizing source; its intensity increases with distance while photoionization predicts it should decrease with distance; the ionization parameter required to form this emission-line should be one or two orders of magnitude higher than observed. The direct consequence of all mentioned behaviours is that \[NeV\] emission should vanish while U decreases, but against photoionization predictions we observe that \[NeV\] emission increases its intensity in the regions where U decreases. The fingerprints of Photoionization and Shock ionization. --------------------------------------------------------- @deVries99 [@labiano05; @holt09; @shih13] have suggested that a combination of AGN photoionization and shock-ionization, triggered by jet-cloud interaction, might be responsible for the EELR’s emission in both sources. @odea02 showed that the kinematics of 3C 303.1 is driven by shocks, and latter @labiano05 concluded that the nucleus of 3C 303.1 do not produce enough photons to power the emission line luminosity in the extended gas. @holt09 have studied 3C 303.1 and 3C 268.3 as well; they have analyzed both single-density and multi-phase photoionization, and also shock-ionization models throughout several diagnostic diagrams. There, it was shown that, on the basis of the location of both the data and the models in each diagram, mixed-medium photoionization and shock-ionization are capable of producing the observed line-intensities. And recently, @shih13 analyzed these EELRs with the integral field spectroscopy facility (GMOS/IFU) on Gemini North and found that both mechanisms are equally important in the nebulae, although in some places one dominates the ionization state and in other places they work together. Here we want to find the traces of shock-ionization and photoionization by using the information hidden inside both the line-intensities and line-ratio. The behaviour of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ is the first step to comprehend to which extent the two mechanisms are related. As we have discussed for this emission-line, the best fitting in diagnostic diagrams is achieved for the [*mixed-medium*]{} photoionization models (Fig. \[neon\]), but their key parameters fail in reproducing the physical conditions where this line should be formed when observations are confronted with theory. So the question remains open: how it is possible to have such a high-excitation line extended up to so large distances from the radiation source, where U is so low. However, if we look into shock-ionization models we find that the answer might be hidden in the shocked gas. When the gas is shocked, it reaches very high temperatures and it is compressed giving place to a significant reduction to the ionization parameter U. Such a drop in U, which is produced in the recombination region behind the shock front, enhances the emission of low excitation lines, as it is the case of \[OII\]$\lambda3727$ [@dop95; @dop96; @all08; @stas09]. In order to further explore this scenario, we have plotted the spatial variation of \[OII\]$\lambda3727$ (normalized to H$\beta$) in the regions where we have observed the decreasing U. The right-hand panel of Fig. \[oxs\] shows these trends in both galaxies (again, 3C 268.3 as dashed line, and 3C 303.1 as continuous line). The chosen range in the x-axis is also the region where the \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission is observed. From this plots we verify that \[OII\]$\lambda3727$ emission is enhanced where U decrases. Altough it is more relevant in the case of 3C 268.3 than in 3C 303.1, the compression-hypothesis” is valid. This is an important result, but it is not conclusive at all. Even when the increase in \[OII\]$\lambda3727$ emission and the drop in U with growing distance might have the same explanation, the issues concerning \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ remain unanswered. The \[OII\]$\lambda3727$ is a low-excitation emission-line, which intensity is enhanced by the compression of the shocked gas (the same effect that lowers U), but \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ is not. And a new question opens: since the recombination region will exist no matters whether the shocks are self-ionizing or not, how can we know what kind of shock processes are taking place in these EELRs? The answer to this latter question can be easily found in the Mapping-[iii]{} library [@all08] by comparing the predictions of pure shock and shock + precursor (self-ionizing) models, which will be discussed in the next paragraphs. Concerning the \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission in particular, shock models can also explain why high-excitation emission-lines are so efficiently formed in a region where U decreases. This happens just behind the shock front (closer to the shock front than the \[OII\]-emitting zone) when the shocked, compressed and therefore very hot gas is also exposed to [*any*]{} radiation field, no matters whether this ionizing field is the one that comes from the AGN, or from the shock itself, or even both. Most of the soft X-ray and extreme ultraviolet (EUV) fluxes are emitted in this thin layer of gas, where also collisional ionization becomes relevant due to the high temperature [@shapiro92; @rob02; @all08; @stas09]. Furthermore, if the medium is magnetized (i.e. if there is a non-negligible magnetic field in the nebula), the effects of that or those radiation fields become stronger because the magnetic field acts to limit the gas compression [@shapiro92; @dop95; @dop96; @all08]. And even more, the radiative decay that drives the emission of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ photons is not as affected by gas compression as the other optical lines, given the high transition’s critical density ($1.6\times 10^7$ cm$^{-3}$, almost two orders of magnitude higher than \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$; @pet97). We have studied the pure-shock and self-ionizing shock models in order to find out the relevance of the local field created by the shocks onto line-ratio intensities. The Figure \[diagrams\] joins a set of diagnostic diagrams where we have plotted the observations (the same references as in previous figures), the four photoionization models (solid lines), and the two groups of shock models (only plotted in the upper two diagrams). The self-ionizing shocks, those shocks that create the HII-like precursor region, are plotted with dotted lines (black); the pure-shock models are plotted as dot-dashed lines (violet). We have combined low-, medium-, and high-excitation lines; the \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ and HeII/H$\beta$ line-ratios have been used again as excitation axes. The diagram in the upper-left corner, (a), involves \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ again, but in this case it is combined with \[OII\]$\lambda3727$. Unlike the \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$/\[NeIII\]$\lambda3869$ line-ratio (Fig. \[neon\]), the observations of \[OII\]$\lambda3727$/\[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ in 3C 303.1 are well explained by both photoionization and moderate-velocity (400-500 km s$^{-1}$) shock models. The latter fitting is relevant, since the models fit the observations in a velocity range compatible with what we have found in the velocity field (Fig. \[VF\], right-hand panel). The tendency of 3C 268.3 data to be located toward the highest excitation end of both photoionization and shock-ionization is kept. But there is no kinematical evidence to support the shock-ionization fitting as true. The velocity field of 3C 268.3 is remarkably stable (Fig. \[VF\], left-hand panel), showing almost no sign of perturbation. The situation is quite different for the photoionization models because, given the already discussed relationship between \[NeV\] and \[FeVII\], and \[FeVII\] with the models’s intrinsic parameters, it is not surprising to obtain a good agreement among these models and the data when \[NeV\] is involved. However, we do not discard this fitting at all. We just understand these features must be highlighted to continue analyzing the models in detail. The second diagram, (b), in the upper-right corner of Fig. \[diagrams\], emphasises the complexity inherent to the determination of the main ionizing mechanisms in these kind of nebulae. This diagram is useful to show again that the observed line-intensities are globally incompatible with pure-shock model’s predictions, while they might represent extreme cases of the other two set of models. The four photoionization models are almost undistinguishable, and they also overlap the shock-ionization models. A fast inspection over all other diagrams indicate that at least one high-excitation line should be present (absent in the diagram b) in any diagnostic diagram to observe different behaviours among the models. The data of 3C 303.1 locate in the overlapping region around 400-500 km s$^{-1}$ shocks. The observations of 3C 268.3 in turn, lie outside any kind of prediction. However, this diagram involves the \[OII\]$\lambda3727$/\[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ line-ratio, strongly related to the ionization parameter U [@pen90], whose unconventional” pattern was already discussed. The contribution from the precursor must be present, which is equivalent to affirm that the shocks are, indeed, creating a local ionizing field capable of changing the state of the surrounding gas. The photons travelling upstream the shock create the HII-like precursor region, but the injection of energy in the recombination region caused by the photons that travel downstream the shock enhances the emission of high-excitation lines in the UV, such is the case of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$. However, we see that the precursor’s strength is not enough to explain the observed intensity of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$, and, at lower level, HeII too. Since the precursor contribution is not negligible we affirm that photoionization processes are specially important. The term ’photoionization’ is deliberately used here to encompass the ionization by the AGN central field and the ionization from the shock’s local field; and also to highlight how difficult is to establish where the photons actually come from. These two diagrams let us comprehend which is the effect of the external ionizing field onto the predicted line-ratios (line-intensities). The presence of the external (but locally created) radiation field displaces the model’s predictions toward the region where the observations are actually located. If we take into account that, in addition to this field, we must consider the presence of the central and very powerful ionizing field from the AGN (despite it has been leaked up to the distances involved), we can figure out that this extra contribution will enhance the prediction’s displacements in the same direction as the precursor does. This can be easily verified by using the diagrams, given these displacements occur also toward the region where the highest-excitation edge of $A_{M/I}$ sequence is found. But, since the overlapping occurs for the most violent shocks [line-intensities are also dependent on shock velocity; @dop95; @dop96; @all08], the velocity fields become particularly important tools for rejecting or supporting the shock scenario. The last two diagrams (c, d) in the bottom of Fig. \[diagrams\], combine medium- and high-excitation lines. For the sake of the analysis we have not drawn the pure-shock models anymore. In the diagram (c, lower-left corner), we have used the (somewhat problematic) \[OIII\]$\lambda4363$/\[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ line-ratio. This oxygen ratio is related to the gas temperature and, because of that, has always been controversial for the diagnostic analysis. However, \[OIII\]$\lambda4363$ contains valuable information when shock processes are present, since the bulk of \[OIII\]$\lambda4363$ emission forms in the recombination region [@dop95; @dop96; @bin96; @all08]. So, it is worthwhile to analyze what happens with this diagram altough we have in mind that the so-called temperature problem” might play an important (and still unknown) role. Even when both set of models predict the observed range in \[OIII\]$\lambda4363$/\[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ line-ratio, the data show no trend at all. Regarding 3C 268.3, the data is widely dispersed and they show no tendency in favour of shock-ionization nor photoionization. The observations of 3C 303.1, in turn, seem more concentrated over the moderate-velocity (300-500 km s$^{-1}$) shock-ionization’s predictions; it was also the case in the first diagram (a), despite this latter fitting is less significant than that. In the last diagram (d, lower-right corner), we have plotted one excitation axis against the other, and we apparently obtain the best fitting for the photoionization model in the two sources. Concerning shock-ionization, 3C 268.3 is again located over the region of very fast shocks which has no kinematical support to be considered as a valid fitting. 3C 303.1 is completely outside the shock-ionization predictions because the \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ intensity is higher than expected for the observed HeII/H$\beta$ intensity (data are displaced to the right side of the diagram). From the photoionization perspective, we would be obtaining the best fitting, however the caveat that the main parameters of the photoionization models fail in reproducing the observed physical condition in the nebulae should be remembered. There are some common characteristics to all the six diagrams (Figs. \[neon\] and \[diagrams\]) that are worth highlighting at this point: every time that at least one high-excitation line (\[NeV\]$\lambda3426$, HeII) is used, the observations of 3C 268.3 tend to be fitted by photoionization models (the diagram (c) is an exception), and those of 3C 303.1 tend to be located over the region in-between the models, or over the overlapping region (the diagram (d) is a clear exception). But when the diagrams are formed with medium- and low-excitation lines (\[NeIII\]$\lambda3869$, \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ in the former group, and \[OII\]$\lambda3727$, H$\beta$ in the latter) self-ionizing, recombination-region-dominated, shock models reproduce the observations of 3C 303.1 in a better way. In contrast, the apparent fitting of shock-ionization to 3C 268.3’s observations in the region of very fast shocks should be ruled out because of the lack of kinematical evidence to support such an scenario. Despite this discrepancy, it is very likely that shocks be at work in 3C 268.3 too, at least at a lower level. The Whole Picture: Summary and Conclusions. {#conclusions} =========================================== Several authors before us have proposed that AGN photoionization and shock-ionization might be working together in these two CSS sources. It is known that in the shock-ionization scenario, at the distances we are looking to, photoionization from the AGN might be masked out by ionization processes triggered by the shocks. We start this section by saying that none of the models are able to completely explain the ionization state in the two EELRs by themselves. Diagnostic diagrams’s results are tricky and strongly dependent upon the chosen line or line-ratios. The main challenge of our study was to explain the (apparently inconsistent) behaviours of low- and high-excitation lines simultaneously. These behaviours hide the fingerprints that both processes have left in the nebulae. We have analyzed key emission lines along the entire nebulae (in the slit direction) to test them against model’s predictions, and we have also studied a wide sample of line-ratios. We have seen how shock-ionization predictions are displaced within each diagram (with respect to pure-shock models) when the contribution from the precursor, created by the shocks, is taken into account. It was also shown that the highest excitation tail of AGN mixed-medium photoionization sequences (predictions) overlap and/or even overpredict the highest shock+precursor models’s predictions. So, the diagrams have a highest excitation zone (HEZ), and the HEZ is shared by the two set of models. The way in which these models behave let us conclude that, if both shock-ionization and AGN photoionization act together, then the presence of the strong AGN ionizing field accentuates the displacements of shock-ionization’s predictions in the direction of the HEZ. Altough it is almost impossible to quantify each contribution individually, we conclude that 3C 268.3 and 3C 303.1 show the joined effect of the two processes. The sources have undergone violent shock processes as a result of jet-cloud interaction, whose outflows were found in the innermost regions [@holt08 and Fig. \[VF\]]. In the case of 3C 303.1 we also detect turbulence in the large-scale gas. The jet-cloud interaction have triggered shock waves that, according to observations, not only alter the physical conditions of the environment but also create a local ionizing field. Nonetheless, the spectroscopical signatures found in both sources point toward the recombination region behind the shock as the main contribution to the emergent spectra, rather than the precursor. The gas compression as well as the presence of a non-negligible magnetic field create suitable conditions to improve the photoionizing power of the AGN radiation field. Therefore, we have found the way in which (kinematically acceptable) shock-ionization combines with AGN photoionization to trace the intriguing spectral characteristics observed in the EELR of these two CSS sources. A brief description of the individual sources, along with the successes and failures of each model, is summarized in the following paragraphs. 3C 268.3 is not well fitted by shock-ionization: predictions underestimate the data when neon lines are combined, or a fake fitting is achieved in the region of most violent shocks which has no kinematical support. However, shocks must be present in order to explain the spatial behaviour of some emission lines. We obtain a very good fitting with photoionization models when \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ is involved, but even in these cases photoionization cannot account for the observed intensities by itself. Photoionization cannot account for the whole observed spectral characteristics since the relations amongst \[OII\]$\lambda3727$, \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$, U, and the distance from the source ($r$) completely contradict its hypothesis. Finally, given the ionization potential of \[NeV\] and HeII, the distances up to which we find the emission of these lines cannot be explained by the ionization structure of photoionized plasmas. So we conclude that shock processes must be highly important in order to explain the relations among \[OII\], \[NeV\], HeII, U, and $r$. Since @holt08 have reported the existence of circumnuclear outflows in 3C 268.3, and this is the only region where our velocity field shows some (low-level) perturbation, the ionizing shocks are certainly triggered by that jet-cloud interaction. However, the contribution from photoionization is far from being negligible. 3C 303.1, in turn, is almost well explained by both scenarios, but the velocity field shows clear signatures of perturbation in the EELR. This result agrees with those of @holt08. Photoionization can reproduce the observations, but it fails in reproducing \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$. Shock-ionization predicts the observed line-intensities (line-ratios) for velocities in the range 300-500 km s$^{-1}$. Consistently, the velocity field shows turbulent motions within the same velocity range. But, despite this important finding, the models also fail in reproducing \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$, so none of the two sets of models can account for this emission on their own. From our kinematical results, and those of @holt08, we confirm that shocks are present. And our detailed spectroscopical analysis has demonstrated that the EELR is shock-ionized. Nonetheless, from the analysis of the effect that an external fields has in shock-ionization predictions, we conclude that AGN photoionization is also required to explain, in combination with shock-ionization, the strength, the behaviour, and the spatial extent of the highest excitation line in the spectra: \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$. This combination of processes might have place in an scenario such as that proposed by @shih13, although our data do not show different patterns between the NW and SE regions. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== VR thank the Support Staff of the Gemini Observatory for their help in the reduction process. We also want to thank to the anonymous referee for helping us to improve the presentation of the paper. [lcccccc]{}\ &\ Line (Å) & &\ & -1.6” & -0.7” & -0.3” & 0.6”& 1.0” & 2.1”\ \[Ne [v]{}\]$\lambda3426$ & - & - & - & 0.32 & 0.75 & 1.55\ \[O [ii]{}\]$\lambda3727$ & 0.8 & 1.16 & 0.94 & 2.05 & 2.7 & 1.96\ \[Ne [iii]{}\]$\lambda3869$ & - & 0.28 & 0.22 & 0.68 & 0.75 & 1.07\ \[Ne [iii]{}\]$\lambda3968$ & - & 0.29 & 0.08 & 0.21 & 0.17 & 0.49\ H$\delta$ (4101) & - & 0.18 & 0.06 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 0.32\ H$\gamma$ (4340) & - & 0.18 & 0.14 & 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.41\ \[O [iii]{}\]$\lambda4363$ & - & 0.09 & - & 0.15 & - & -\ He [ii]{} (4686) & - & 0.14 & 0.17 & 0.14 & 0.25 & 0.32\ H$\beta$ (4861) & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ \[O [iii]{}\]$\lambda4959$ & 2.28 & 5.06 & 3.53 & 3.24 & 3.69 & 2.88\ \[O [iii]{}\]$\lambda5007$ & 4.0 & 11.93 & 8.71 & 9.55 & 11.61 & 8.46\ \ &\ Line (Å) & &\ & -1.6” & -1.02” & -0.6” & 0.6”& 1.2” & 1.7”\ \[Ne [v]{}\]$\lambda3426$ & - & - & - & 0.12 & 0.4 & -\ \[O [ii]{}\]$\lambda3727$ & 6.19 & 5.37 & 4.01 & 3.6 & 3.11 & 4.31\ \[Ne [iii]{}\]$\lambda3869$ & 1.36 & 1.01 & 0.77 & 0.58 & 0.61 & 0.83\ H [i]{}+He [i]{} (3890) & - & - & 0.23 & 0.15 & 0.22 & -\ \[Ne [iii]{}\]$\lambda3968$ & - & 0.48 & 0.39 & 0.28 & 0.19 & -\ H$\delta$ (4101) & - & - & 0.19 & 0.21 & - & -\ H$\gamma$ (4340) & - & 0.61 & 0.52 & 0.37 & 0.33 & 0.37\ \[O [iii]{}\]$\lambda4363$ & - & - & 0.18 & 0.14 & 0.13 & -\ He [ii]{} (4686) & - & 0.31 & 0.19 & 0.12 & 0.13 & -\ H$\beta$ (4861) & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\ \[O [iii]{}\]$\lambda4959$ & 3.29 & 3.61 & 3.01 & 2.06 & 2.39 & 3.62\ \[O [iii]{}\]$\lambda5007$ & 10.14 & 11.27 & 9.68 & 6.11 & 7.11 & 10.52\ The emission-line labeled as \[Ne [iii]{}\]$\lambda3968$ is actually a complex formed by the following emission-lines: \[Ne [iii]{}\]$\lambda3967.4$, Ca [ii]{}(3968.44), and He [ii]{}(3968.43). Since the order reflects the expected intensity, we choose to label the complex as the putative more intense emission-line. Model U $n_e$ \[cm$^{-3}$\] ------- ---- ---------------------- --------------------------- T MB 0.04 50 IB $5.2 \times 10^{-4}$ $2.3\times 10^3$ H MB 0.5 $1 \times 10^3$ IB $6.5 \times 10^{-4}$ $\gtrsim 1.2 \times 10^4$ M MB 0.05 $1 \times 10^3$ IB $6.5 \times 10^{-4}$ $\gtrsim 1.2 \times 10^4$ L MB 0.02 $1 \times 10^3$ IB $6.5 \times 10^{-4}$ $\gtrsim 1.2 \times 10^4$ : Differences among mix-medium photoionization models.[]{data-label="table-2"} ![Long-slit spectra of 3C 268.3 (upper panel) and 3C 303.1 (lower panel). Only the region between H$\beta$ and the doublet \[OIII\]$\lambda\lambda4959,5007$ is shown. The contours are plotted to emphasize the line’s shapes.[]{data-label="spectra"}](fig_1.jpg){width="80.00000%"} ![Velocity fields (upper panels) with their associated FWHM maps (lower panels) obtained with the Gaussian decomposition of \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ emission-line profile in the slit direction. The velocities are referred to the systemic velocity of each galaxy. The galactic centres are shown by crosses at $V=0$. Different symbols are used to separate different kinematical components based on their FWHM. Left-hand panels: 3C 268.3, PA=146. Right-hand panels: 3C 303.1, PA=145.[]{data-label="VF"}](vf_1.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}   ![Velocity fields (upper panels) with their associated FWHM maps (lower panels) obtained with the Gaussian decomposition of \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$ emission-line profile in the slit direction. The velocities are referred to the systemic velocity of each galaxy. The galactic centres are shown by crosses at $V=0$. Different symbols are used to separate different kinematical components based on their FWHM. Left-hand panels: 3C 268.3, PA=146. Right-hand panels: 3C 303.1, PA=145.[]{data-label="VF"}](vf_2.jpg "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![Analysis of \[Ne[v]{}\]$\lambda3426$, the highest excitation emission-line in the spectra of 3C 268.3 (circles, magenta) and 3C 303.1 (squares, light blue) throughout the \[Ne[v]{}\]$\lambda3426$/\[Ne[iii]{}\]$\lambda3869$ ratio, under photoionization and shock-ionization predictions. He[ii]{}/H$\beta$ and \[O[iii]{}\]$\lambda5007$/H$\beta$ are used as excitation axes (left-hand panel and right-hand panel, respectively). The four photoionization models (T, H, M, L) are plottes as solid lines; the parameter $A_{M/I}$ increases from left to right. The shock models are plotted as dotted lines (black, one line per magnetic parameter $B/n^{1/2}$); thin solid lines (green) show the shock velocities. Open symbols represent the NW regions and filled symbols represent the SE regions in both galaxies.[]{data-label="neon"}](fig_3.jpg){width="100.00000%"} ![The ionization parameter U expressed through its relationship with \[OIII\]$\lambda5007$/\[OII\]$\lambda3727$ [@pen90] as a function of distance from the nuclei: 3C 268.3 in the upper panel, and 3C 303.1 in the lower panel. The boxes show the regions where \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ emission is detected. The emission regions toward the NW are expressed with negative coordinates, while possitive coordinates indicate the SE regions in both galaxies.[]{data-label="U"}](fig_4.jpg){width="70.00000%"} ![Spatial variation of \[NeV\]$\lambda3426$ (left-hand panel) and \[OII\]$\lambda3727$ (right-hand panel) relative to H$\beta$ in the regions where we have observed the decreasing U (the boxes in Fig. \[U\]).[]{data-label="oxs"}](fig_5.jpg){width="80.00000%"} ![Diagnostic diagrams formed with the most important emission-lines in the spectra of 3C 268.3 (circles, magenta), and 3C 303.1 (squares, light blue). As in Fig. \[neon\], open symbols represent the NW regions and filled symbols represent the SE regions in both galaxies. Mixed medium photoionization models and self-ionizing shock + precursor models are the same as in Fig. \[neon\]. The dot-dashed lines (violet) in diagrams I and II represent the pure shock models.[]{data-label="diagrams"}](fig_6i.jpg "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} ![Diagnostic diagrams formed with the most important emission-lines in the spectra of 3C 268.3 (circles, magenta), and 3C 303.1 (squares, light blue). As in Fig. \[neon\], open symbols represent the NW regions and filled symbols represent the SE regions in both galaxies. Mixed medium photoionization models and self-ionizing shock + precursor models are the same as in Fig. \[neon\]. The dot-dashed lines (violet) in diagrams I and II represent the pure shock models.[]{data-label="diagrams"}](fig_6ii.jpg "fig:"){width="100.00000%"} \[lastpage\] [^1]: E-mail: [email protected] (VR); [email protected] (CF) [^2]: Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Science and Technology Facilities Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (Brazil) and Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva (Argentina) [^3]: $H_0$=73 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$,$\Omega_\mathrm{mat}$=0.27; $\Omega_{\Lambda}$=0.73 [^4]: The dimensionless ionization parameter U is defined as $Q/4\pi r^2 n_e c$, being $Q$ the amount of ionizing photons emitted by the AGN per unit time, $r$ the distance between the source and the cloud and $n_e$ the cloud’s number density.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Giorgio Matt [^1]' title: General Relativity effects and line emission --- Introduction ============ With the advent of X-ray missions carrying on-board high sensitivity, moderate energy resolution instruments (the first of which being ASCA, followed by $Beppo$SAX, $Chandra$, XMM–$Newton$ and now $Suzaku$), probing General Relativity (GR) effects on iron emission lines has become a reality, and it is now an important part of the studies on Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and Galactic Black Hole systems (GBH).[^2] In this paper I will review the main GR effects, and I will discuss how they can be used to measure the two astrophysically relevant parameters of a Black Hole, the mass and the angular momentum (“spin”). The paper is organized as follows: in Sec. 1 the basic concepts concerning Black Holes, of relevance for understanding GR effects on line emission, are summarized. In Sec. 2 I will discuss line emission from a relativistic accretion disc, while Sec. 3 is devoted to the discussion of the strenghts and weaknesses of methods, based on iron emission lines, to measure the mass and spin of the Black Hole. Conclusions are given in Sec. 4. For a complete treatment of Black Holes the reader is deferred to standard textbooks like e.g. the ones by Misner et al. (1973) and Chandrasekhar (1983), or to classical papers like Bardeen et al. (1972). See also Fabian et al. (2000) and Reynolds & Nowak (2003) for reviews on the iron line properties from relativistic accretion discs. Black Holes =========== {width="160mm" height="160mm"} A Black Hole (BH) or, better, the space-time around it, is fully characterized by only three quantities: its mass $M$, angular momentum $J$ and electric charge $Q$. The latter is usually assumed to be negligible for astrophysically relevant Black Holes. The space time around a BH is described by the Kerr-Newman metric which, when $Q$=0, reduces to the slightly simpler Kerr metric. If also $J$ is null, than the metric is the much simpler Schwarzschild one. It may be interesting to remember that, while the static solution was found by Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 (i.e., only one year after the publication by Einstein of his theory of General Relativity), the rotating solution was found by Roy Kerr only in the sixties (Kerr 1963), which possibly tells us more on the lack of interest in the field rather than on the mathematical difficulty of the problem (which was of course far from trivial). All relevant General Relativity effects around a BH are scale invariant, i.e. do not depend on the BH mass. It is therefore convenient to measure all distances in units of the so-called gravitational radius, $r_g=GM/c^2$. It is also useful to introduce the adimensional angular momentum per unit mass, $a=Jc/GM^2$, called for simplicity “spin” here-in-after. In Boyer–Lindquist spherical coordinates (namely $t$, $r$, $\phi$, $\theta$, with the usual meaning of symbols), the Kerr metric can be written as: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber ds^2 = -\left(1-{2r \over \Sigma}\right)dt^2 - \left({4ar\sin^2{\theta} \over \Sigma}\right)dtd\phi \\ \nonumber + \left({\Sigma \over \Delta}\right)dr^2 + \Sigma d\theta^2 \\ + \left(r^2 + a^2 +{2a^2r\sin^2{\theta} \over \Sigma}\right)\sin^2{\theta}d\phi^2\end{aligned}$$ where: $$\nonumber \Sigma = r^2 + a^2\cos^2{\theta}; ~~~~~~ \Delta = r^2 - 2r + a^2$$ (If the Black Hole electric charge is not null, then, in geometrized units, $\Delta = r^2 - 2r + a^2 + Q^2$). For $a$=0, the Schwarzschild metric is obtained: $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber ds^2 = -\left(1-{2 \over r}\right)dt^2 + \left(1-{2 \over r}\right)^{-1}dr^2 \\ + r^2\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2{\theta}d\phi^2\right)\end{aligned}$$ The radius of the Event Horizon, i.e. the surface of “no return”, is given by $R_{EO}=1 + \sqrt{1 - a^2}$. This implies that 0$\le$$a$$\le$1, i.e. that there is a maximum value for the spin. When $a$=1 the BH is said to be maximally rotating; in this case the radius of the Event Horizon is equal to the gravitational radius, while it is 2$r_g$ (the “Schwarzschild radius”) for a static ($a$=0) BH.[^3] It is interesting to note that the Schwarzschild radius corresponds, in a pure Newtonian calculation, to the radius a star should have in order than at its surface the escape velocity is equal to $c$. Indeed, Black Holes (or invisible stars, as they were called at the time) were predicted in this way more than two centuries ago by Michell (1783) and Laplace (1796), even if of course they could not imagine that from such objects nothing, not only the light, could escape. An important General Relativity effect is the gravitational redshift. Photons get out of the gravitational potential of the BH only by losing energy, being therefore redshifted. In Schwarzschild metric: $$\nu_{obs}/\nu_{em}=\sqrt{1-{2 \over r}}$$ where $\nu_{em}$ and $\nu_{obs}$ are the emitted and observed (at infinity) frequencies of the photon, and $r$ the emission radius (see also Fig. \[all\]). In Kerr metric, a similar formula can be written only for the photons emitted on the rotation axis, where it reads: $$\nu_{obs}/\nu_{em}=\sqrt{1-{2r \over r^2 + a^2}}$$ For any other point, the “dragging of the inertial frame”, i.e. the corotation of the space-time with the BH spin makes gravitational and Doppler shifts not separable. Line emission from accretion discs ================================== General and historic remarks ---------------------------- Accretion on Black Holes, at least for bright systems, it is widely believed to occur via an accretion disc, where gravitational energy can be efficiently dissipated and eventually converted into radiation. Accretion discs are very complicated systems, and the details of the physical processes are far from be fully understood. For what follows, however, we only have to assume: that the disc is geometrically thin (i.e. its height is always much smaller than its radius at any radius), so that it may be approximated with a thin slab on the equatorial plane; that it is homogenous enough in order that clumpiness does not affect much the line emissivity; and that it is optically thick, so that iron line fluorescent emission can be efficient. (Even these assumptions, however, may be questionable and have indeed been questioned several times. This however is not the place to discuss when and how the results are modified releasing one or more of them). I also assume that the iron line is due to fluorescent emission following illumination (and photo–ionization) of the accretion disc by an external source of X-rays. George & Fabian (1991) and Matt et al. (1991) discussed in detail the properties of the fluorescent line for neutral matter, while Matt et al. (1993a, 1996), Nayakshin & Kallman (2001) and A.C. Fabian, R.R. Ross and collaborators in a serie of papers (Ross & Fabian 2005, and references therein) discussed the case of ionized matter. GR effects on the radiation emitted by an accretion disc were first studied by Cunningham (1975), while Fabian et at. (1989) and Chen et al. (1989) where the first to model line emission from relativistic discs and compare calculations with observations. Different groups (too many to be quoted here; further references can be found in: Fabian et al. 2000; Reynolds & Nowak 2003; Fabian & Miniutti 2005; Karas, this volume) have since then performed calculations of line profiles under different assumptions and physical conditions, mainly stimulated by the [*GINGA*]{} discovery that iron lines are almost ubiquitous in the X-ray spectra of AGN (e.g. Nandra & Pounds 1994). Models of line profiles from accretion discs are also present in the widely used [XSPEC]{} software package (Arnaud 1996)[^4] for X-ray spectral fitting. For many years the only models available in [XSPEC]{} were the [diskline]{} (Fabian et al. 1989) and [laor]{} (Laor 1991) models. The [diskline]{} model is fast and reliable, but it is valid only in Schwarzschild metric and it is somewhat inaccurate, in particular for small radii and large inclination angles, because of the straight line approximation for the photon geodesics. The [laor]{} model is valid only for a maximally rotating black hole; it is fast and reliable, but it is based on a rather coarse grid of parameters. The limitations to these two codes were obviously due to the limited power of the computers at the time they were written: more detailed fitting codes would simply have been unmanageable. Computers improved a good deal since then, and now fully relativistic codes in Kerr metric (allowing for the entire range of spin) have became publically available even if not yet included in the standard [XSPEC]{} release: the [ky]{} (Dovciak et al. 2004a,b) and [kd]{} (Beckwith & Done 2004, 2005) suits.[^5] Relativistic discs and line emission ------------------------------------ The inner radius of the accretion disc cannot be smaller than the Innermost Stable Circular Orbit (ISCO). This of course does not mean that there is no matter at radii lower than the ISCO; simply, the matter must spiral in (see Krolik & Hawley 2002 for different definitions of the “edge” of the disc). The ISCO depends on the BH spin and on whether the disc is co– or counter–rotating with the BH (see Fig. \[all\]): $$r_{\rm ISCO} = 3+Z_2 \pm \big[\left(3-Z_1)(3+Z_1+2Z_2\right)\big]^{1 \over 2} \label{eqISCO}$$ where $$\begin{aligned} \nonumber Z_1 = 1+(1-a^2)^{1 \over 3}[(1+a)^{1 \over 3}+(1-a)^{1 \over 3}] \\ \nonumber Z_2 = (3a^2+Z_1^2)^{1 \over 2}\end{aligned}$$ The – (+) sign applies to co– (counter–) rotating discs. Indeed, the decrease of the ISCO with $a$ (for a corotating disc) provides a method to measure the spin (see next section). Motion of matter in accretion discs is supposed to be dominated by the gravitational potential of the BH, and then rotation to be Keplerian. Close to the BH the Keplerian velocity, $v_K$, becomes very large, reaching a significant fraction of the velocity of light. In the Locally Non-Rotating Frame (LNRF), i.e. the reference frame “rotating with the Black Hole” (Bardeen et al. 1972), we have (see also Fig. \[all\]): $$v_K/c = \frac{r^2-2a\sqrt{r}+{a}^2}{\left(r^2+a^2-2r\right)^{{1 \over 2}}\left(r^{3/2} +{a}\right)}. \label{eqkepl}$$ It is interesting to note that $v_K$ can be as high as almost half the velocity of light, implying that the Doppler shift and boosting may be very prominent (Doppler boosting is the brightening/dimming of the flux when the matter is approaching/receding. It is a Special Relativity aberration effect due to the fact that $I_\nu / \nu^3$ is a Lorentz invariant). At these velocities, Special Relativity corrections of the Doppler effect must be included, with the result that transverse Doppler effect (i.e. the redshift of photons when matter has only a transverse component of the velocity) is by no means negligible. In General Relativity, photon geodesics are no longer straight lines (the so-called “light bending”). In Schwarzschild metric they still lie on a plane, and therefore the equation of the orbit can be written in terms of only two coordinates, the radius and the azimuthal angle, $\Phi$, on the plane of the trajectory. The differential equation describing the orbit is (Misner et al. 1973): $${d^2u \over d\Phi^2} = 3u^2-u$$ where $u=1/r$. In Kerr metric the orbits are fully tridimensional, and the equation of motion much more complex (Carter 1968). As a result of light bending, geodesics of photons emitted in the far side of the disc are strongly curved making the disc appears as “bended” towards the observer, with a sort of sombrero-like shape (see e.g. Luminet 1979, 1992). {width="85mm" height="85mm"} {width="85mm" height="85mm"} All these effects strongly modify the properties of emission lines. Let us for simplicity neglect natural and thermal line broadening, so that the line profile, in the matter reference frame, is a $\delta$-function. Given the topic of this conference, let us also assume that the line is the neutral iron K$\alpha$ at 6.4 keV.[^6] In Fig. \[prof\_6\_30\] (left panel) the line emission from an annulus at $r$=6, seen with an inclination of 30$^{\circ}$, is shown after having divided the annulus in azimuthal intervals, with $\Delta\phi$=30$^{\circ}$. The uppermost panel on the left side refers to matter moving transversally on the near side of the disc ($\phi$=0$^{\circ}$). Even in this case, when classic Doppler effect is null, emission is significantly redshifted due to the combination of gravitational and tranverse Doppler effects. Going down on the left side, matter starts receding and classic Doppler effect adds to further shift redwards the energy of the photon, which is maximum for $\phi$=90$^{\circ}$, where instead the flux is minimum due to Doppler (de–)boosting. In the right panels, matter is instead approaching, but even for $\phi$=270$^{\circ}$, when the maximum line-of-sight velocity is attained, emission is globally redshifted because the Doppler effect (for so small radius and inclination angle) cannot fully compensate for gravitational redshift. Due to Doppler boosting, flux is maximum at $\phi$=270$^{\circ}$. The azimuthally averaged line profile is shown in Fig. \[prof\_6\_30\] (right-upper panel) while the medium and lower right panels show the 60$^{\circ}$ and 85$^{\circ}$ inclination angle cases, respectively. Note that at higher inclinations the “blue” peak of the line profile is actually blueshifted with respect to the rest frame energy, because of the larger Doppler effect. Note also that, in the 85$^{\circ}$ case, structures in between the red and blue peaks appear, due to the bending of the photons emitted on the far side of the disc (e.g. Matt et al. 1993b). This effect is better illustrated in Fig. \[orbit\], when the flux and centroid energy of the line as a function of the azimuthal angle are shown for inclination angles of 30$^{\circ}$ and 85$^{\circ}$ ($r$=6). While in the 30$^{\circ}$ case the variations in flux are dominated by the Doppler boosting, in the 85$^{\circ}$ case the peak of the emission occurs at $\phi\sim$180$^{\circ}$ due to the strong light bending. {width="85mm" height="85mm"} {width="85mm" height="85mm"} Line profile is further modified by integration over the entire disc. To do that, a crucial ingredient is the radial emissivity law, $\xi$. For the iron fluorescent line, which is emitted following external illumination (e.g. George & Fabian 1991; Matt et al. 1991), $\xi$ depends mainly on the geometry of the system. It is customary to assume a power law emissivity law, $\xi \propto r^{-q}$. If $q<2$, the outer regions dominate the emissivity, while the inner regions prevail for $q>2$. Fig. \[prof\_emiss\] (left panel) show the impact on line profiles of different choices of $q$. The right panel instead show, for a given value of $q$ (=2) the line profiles for different values of the outer radius of the emitting region ($r_{\rm out}$=10, 50, 400 $r_g$). Actually, the emissivity law is likely to be more complex than a simple power law. Even in the simplest case, the so-called “lamp-post” model in which the primary emitting region is a small cloud on the BH axis (as in aborted jet models, e.g. Ghisellini et al. 2004), the emissivity law is, [*neglecting GR effects and radiative transfer subtleties*]{}, given by: $\xi \propto (h^2+r^2)^{-{3 \over 2}}$, where $h$ is the height of the emitting point; $\xi$ is then a power law ($q$=3) only for large radii. Once the effects on the emissivity of the incident angle (Matt et al. 1991) and, especially, of GR (light bending, gravitational shift) are included, the emissivity is significantly modified (e.g. Martocchia & Matt 1996, Martocchia et al 2000, 2002). As noted by Martocchia et al. (2002), the steep emissivity law found for the iron line emission of the Seyfert 1 galaxy MCG–6-30-15, as observed by XMM–$Newton$ (Wilms et al. 2001), can be explained by this “geometrical” effect. A more general case, in which the emitting region is no longer forced to stay on the BH axis, has been studied by Miniutti et al. (2003, and this volume). Measuring the spin and mass of BHs ================================== Iron line profiles from relativistic accretion discs provides potentially very powerful methods to measure the mass and the spin of the Black Holes. Pros and cons of these methods are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. Spin ---- Almost invariably, methods to measure the Black Hole spin make use, directly or indirectly, of the dependence of the ISCO on $a$. Methods based on the iron line make no exception. The smaller the inner disc radius, the lower (due to gravitational redshift) the energy to which the profile extends. In Fig. \[spin\], left panel, profiles from accretion discs around a static and a maximally rotating Black Holes, in both cases extending down to the ISCO, are shown. The advantage of this method is that it is very simple and straightforward, at least conceptually. Moreover, no detailed physical modeling of the line emission is required: the spin is measured from the low end of the profile, independently of the exact form of the profile itself (which must be used only to break any degeneracy with the inclination angle). There are, however, also some limitations and caveats to this method that must be considered. First of all, strictly speaking the method provides only a lower limit to the spin, because the disc (or at least the iron line emitting region) could in principle not extend down to the ISCO. Technically, zero-intensity energies are far from trivial to be measured. Finally, even if the disc (properly said) stops at the ISCO, the region within the ISCO (the so-called plunging region) in not empty, and line emission may arise from the matter free-falling onto the Black Hole (Reynolds & Begelman 1997; Krolik & Hawley 2002), even if matter is expected to be significantly ionized there. If the inner radius results to be smaller than 2, there is of course no ambiguity. Otherwise, one could always rely to the subtle differencies in the profiles due to the metrics themselves (Fig. \[spin\], right panel) which, at least for small radii, are after all not so negigible and will be hopefully exploited by the next generation of large area X-ray satellites. Mass (in Active Galactic Nuclei) --------------------------------- Iron K$\alpha$ reverberation mapping of structures in the profile (Stella 1990) or of integrated quantities (Equivalent Width, centroid energy and width, Matt & Perola 1992) has been suggested, in analogy with the method routinely used for optical broad lines, to measure the BH mass in AGN (this technique is practically unapplicable in Galactic Black Hole systems because of the very short time scales involved, and the much lower typical flux per light–crossing time). It is a conceptually simple but technically very difficult technique. First of all, it requires a lot of photons. Worst than that, the Transfer Function, which describes how the line follows variations of the illuminating continuum, is strongly geometry-dependent. With respect to the BLR reverbaration mapping, one here has the advantage that the geometry of the illuminated region can be assumed a priori (i.e. the accretion disc), but has the disadvantage that the geometry of the illuminating region is unknown (in the BLR case a point-like source is a safe assumption, given the much larger distance of the illuminated matter). On the other hand, if the iron line is emitted in a small spot on the accretion disc (corotating with the disc at the Keplerian velocity), the BH mass could be easily and precisely measured, once the spot radius is known (Dovciak et al. 2004c). Such a hot spot may be due to a localized flare, possibly of magnetic origin, just above the disc surface. Because there is some evidence (albeit still controversial) for spot-like emission in AGN (e.g. Turner et al. 2002; Dovciak et al. 2004c; Iwasawa et al. 2004; Pechacek et al. 2005, and references therein), let us discuss this case in some detail. A spot on the accretion disc at a radius $r$ has an orbital period (as measured by an observer at infinity) given by: $$T_{\rm orb} = 310~\left(r^\frac{3}{2}+a\right) M_7\quad\mbox{[sec]}, \label{torb}$$ where $M_7$ is the mass of the black hole in units of $10^7$ solar masses. If the spot radius and the BH spin can be estimated, the measurement of the orbital period immediately provides the Black Hole mass (note that the spin is relevant only for small radii; when $r \gg 1$, when the spin is hard to measure, it fortunately becomes irrelevant). In practice, it is well possible that, in low S/N spectra, only the blue peak is visible (see Fig. \[prof\_6\_30\]), resulting in transient and relatively narrow features. For low radii and inclination angles the features may appear redshifted with respect to the rest frame energy. If only the blue peak is visible, and then the entire profile cannot be reconstructed, it will be impossible to tightly constraint the emission parameters, and only allowed intervals for the radius and angle can be derived from the energy shift. To this purpose, Pechacek et al. (2005) found a simple approximated formula which gives, with a very good accuracy, the shift as a function of the radius and the polar and azimuthal angle in the Schwarzschild metric. Calling $g$ the shift factor, i.e. the ratio between observed (at infinity) and emitted energies, we have: $$g = \frac{[r(r-3)]^{1/2}}{r+\left[r-2+ 4\left(1+\cos{\phi}\sin{\theta}\right)^{-1}\right]^{1/2} \sin{\phi}\sin{\theta}} \label{gfac}$$ where $\phi$, as usual, is the azimuthal angle while $\theta$ is the polar angle (i.e. the inclination angle in case of a disc). In Fig. \[gf\], the maximum and minimum values of the shift factor are shown as a function of the radius for different inclination angles. Conclusions =========== Iron lines are probably the best tools to probe GR effects in the vicinity of Black Holes. Spectral distortions are much easier to study in lines then in continua, because of their intrinsic narrowness - broadening can be safely assume to arise mainly, when not exclusively, from such effects. Even if many important observational results have already been obtained (as amply discussed in many papers in this volume), much is still to be done, especially in using iron lines to estimate the mass and the spin of the Black Hole. Indeed, relativistic iron lines are still a major scientific driver for next generation, large area X-ray satellites. {width="80mm" height="80mm"} {width="80mm" height="80mm"} I wish to thank all my collaborators during the more than 15 years in which I’ve been working in this field. For some of the plots in this paper I have made use of numerical codes developed by M. Dovciak and V. Karas. Arnaud, K.A.: 1996, ASP Conf. Series 101, 17 Bardeen, J.M., Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A.: 1972, ApJ 178, 347 Beckwith, K., Done, C.: 2004, MNRAS 352, 353 Beckwith, K., Done, C.: 2005, MNRAS 359, 1217 Brenneman, L.W., Reynolds, C.S.: 2006, ApJ in press Carter, B.: 1968, Phys. Rev. 174, 1559 Chandrasekhar, S.: 1983, [*The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes*]{}, Oxford University Press Chen, K., Halpern, J.P., Filippenko, A.V.: 1989, ApJ 339, 742 Cunningham, C.T.: 1975, ApJ 202, 788 Di Salvo, T., Iaria, R., Mendez, M., Burderi, L., Lavagetto, G., Robba, N.R., Stella, L., van der Klis, M.: 2005, ApJ 623, L121 Dovciak, M., Karas, V., Martocchia A., Matt, G., Yaqoob T.: 2004a, in [*Proceedings of RAGtime 4/5 Workshops on black holes and neutron stars*]{}, 14-16/13-15 October 2002/2003, Opava, Czech Republic. Eds: S. Hledík and Z. Stuchlík, Silesian University in Opava, p. 33 Dovciak, M., Karas, V., Yaqoob, T.: 2004b, ApJSS 153, 205 Dovciak, M., Bianchi, S., Guainazzi, M., Karas, V., Matt, G.: 2004c, MNRAS 350, 745 Fabian, A.C., Rees, M.J., Stella, L., White, N.E.: 1989, MNRAS 238, 729 Fabian, A.C., Iwasawa, K., Reynolds, C.S., Young, A.J.: 2000, PASP 112, 1145 Fabian, A.C., Miniutti, G.: 2005, in “[*Kerr Spacetime: Rotating Black Holes in General Relativity*]{}” eds. D.L. Wiltshire, M. Visser and S.M. Scott, Cambridge Univ. Press George, I.M., Fabian, A.C.: 1991, MNRAS 249, 352 Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F., Matt, G.: 2004, A&A 413, 535 Iwasawa, K., Miniutti, G., Fabian, A.C.: 2004, MNRAS 355, 1073 Kerr, R.P: 1963, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 Krolik, J.H, Hawley, J.F: 2002, ApJ 573, 754 Laor, A.: 1991, ApJ 376, 90 Laplace, P.S.: 1796, [*Exposition du systeme du monde*]{}, Imprimerie du Cercle Social, an IV, Paris Luminet, J.-P.: 1979, A&A 75, 228 Luminet, J.-P.: 1992, [*Black Holes*]{}, Cambridge University Press Martocchia, A., Matt, G.: 1996, MNRAS 282, L53 Martocchia, A., KAras, V., Matt, G.: 2000, MNRAS 312, 817 Martocchia, A., Matt, G., Karas V.: 2002, A&A 383, L23 Matt, G., Perola, G.C., Piro L.: 1991, A&A 247, 25 Matt, G., Perola, G.C.: 1992, MNRAS 259, 433 Matt, G., Fabian, A.C., Ross, R.R: 1993a, MNRAS 262, 179 Matt, G., Perola, G.C., Stella, L.: 1993b, A&A 267, 643 Matt, G., Fabian, A.C., Ross, R.R: 1996, MNRAS 278, 1111 Michell J.: 1783, Phyl. Trans. R. Soc. London 74, 35 Miniutti, G., Fabian, A.C., Godyer, R., Lazenby A.N.: 2003, MNRAS 344, L22 Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., Wheeler, J.A.: 1973, [*Gravitation*]{}, W. H. Freeman editor Nandra, K., Pounds, K.A.: 1994, MNRAS 268, 405 Nayakshin, S., Kallman, T.R: 2001, ApJ 546, 406 Palmeri, P., Mendoza, C., Kallman, T.R., Bautista, M.A., Melendez, M.: 2003, A&A 410, 359 Pechacek, T., Dovciak, M., Karas, V., Matt, G.: 2005, A&A 441, 855 Reynolds, C.S, Begelman, M.C.: 1997, ApJ 488, 109 Reynolds, C.S, Nowak, M.A.: 2003, Phys. Rev. 377, 389 Ross, R.R., Fabian, A.C.: 2005, MNRAS 358, 211 Stella, L.: 1990, Nature 344, 747 Thorne, K.S.: 1974, ApJ 191, 507 Turner, T.J., Mushotzky, R.F., Yaqoob, T., et al.: 2002, ApJ 574, L123 Wilms, J., Reynolds, C.S., Begelman, M.C., Reeves, J., Molendi, S., Staubert, R., Kendziorra, E.: 2001, MNRAS 328, L27 [^1]: [^2]: Relativistically distorted iron lines from accretion discs around neutron stars have also possibly been observed, e.g. Di Salvo et al. (2005). [^3]: It is important to recall here that Thorne (1974) has shown that in the standard accretion disc model the radiation emitted by the disc and swallowed by the BH produces a counteracting torque which limits the spin to a maximum value of $\sim$0.988, corresponding to $R_{EO}\sim$1.23. [^4]: see also http://xspec.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [^5]: Just before submitting this contribution, Brenneman & Reynolds (2006) presented one new fully relativistic code for spectral fitting in [XSPEC]{}. [^6]: This line is actually a doublet, with energies of 6.4055 and 6.3916 keV and a branching ratio of $\sim$2:1 (Palmeri et al. 2003). As the broadening effects we are discussing here are much larger than the $\sim$14 eV intrinsic separation, we will assume a single narrow line with a weighted mean energy of 6.4 keV).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The current best asymptotic lower bound on the minimum distance of quantum LDPC codes with fixed non-zero rate is logarithmic in the blocklength. We propose a construction of quantum LDPC codes with fixed non-zero rate and prove that the minimum distance grows proportionally to the square root of the blocklength.' author: - 'Jean-Pierre Tillich[^1]' - 'Gilles Zémor[^2]' date: 'January 15, 2009' title: 'Quantum LDPC codes with positive rate and minimum distance proportional to $n^{1/2}$' --- Introduction ============ LDPC codes [@Gal63a] and their variants are one of the most satisfying answers to the problem of devising codes guaranteed by Shannon’s theorem. They display outstanding performance for a large class of error models with a fast decoding algorithm. Generalizing these codes to the quantum setting seems a promising way to devise powerful quantum error correcting codes for protecting, for instance, the very fragile superpositions manipulated in a quantum computer. It should be emphasized that a fast decoding algorithm could be even more crucial in the quantum setting than in the classical one. In the classical case, when error correction codes are used for communication over a noisy channel, the decoding time translates directly into communication delays. This has been the driving motivation to devise decoding schemes of low complexity, and is likely to be important in the quantum setting as well. However, there is an important additional motivation for efficient decoding in the quantum setting. Quantum computation is likely to require active stabilization. The decoding time thus translates into computation delays, and most importantly in error suppression delays. If errors accumulate faster than they can be identified, quantum computation may well become infeasible: fast decoding is an essential ingredient to fault-tolerant computation. Quantum generalizations of LDPC codes have indeed been proposed in [@MMM04a]. However, it has turned out that the design of high performance quantum LDPC codes is much more complicated than in the classical setting. This is due to several reasons, the most obvious of which being that the parity-check matrix of quantum LDPC codes must satisfy certain orthogonality constraints. This complicates significantly the construction of such codes. In particular, the plain random constructions that work so well in the classical setting are pointless here. There have been a number of attempts at overcoming this difficulty and a variety of methods for constructing quantum LDPC codes have been proposed [@Pos01a; @Kit03a; @MMM04a; @COT05a; @COT07a; @LG06a; @LG08a; @HH07a; @Djo08a; @SRK08a; @Aly07b; @Aly08a; @HBD08a; @TL08a]. However, all of these constructions suffer from disappointingly small minimum distances, namely whenever they have non-vanishing rate and parity-check matrices with bounded row-weight, their minimum distance is either proved to be [*bounded*]{}, or unknown and with little hope for unboundedness. The point has been made several times that minimum distance is not everything, because there are complex decoding issues involved, whose behaviour depends only in part on the minimum distance, and also because a poor asymptotic behaviour may be acceptable when one limits oneself to practical lengths. Nevertheless, the minimum distance has been the most studied parameter of error-correcting codes and given that asymptotically good (dimension and minimum distance both linear in the blocklength) quantum LDPC codes are expected to exist, it is of great theoretical interest, and possibly also practical, to devise quantum LDPC codes with large, growing, minimum distance. This is the problem that we address in the present paper, leaving aside decoding issues for discussion elsewhere. Besides the above constructions, we must mention the design of quantum LDPC codes based on tessellations of surfaces [@Kit03a; @BM07a; @APS08a], among which the most prominent example is the toric code of [@Kit03a]. Toric codes have minimum distances which grow like the square root of the blocklength and parity-check equations of weight 4 but unfortunately have fixed dimension which is $2$, and hence zero rate asymptotically. It turns out that by taking appropriate surfaces of large genus, quantum LDPC codes of non vanishing rate can be constructed with minimum distance logarithmic in the blocklength, this has actually been achieved in [@FML02a Th. 12.4], see also [@Zem08a], [@Kim07a]. To the best of our knowledge, this is until now the only known family of quantum LDPC codes of non-vanishing rate that yields a (slowly) growing minimum distance. We improve here on these surface codes in several ways, by providing a flexible construction of quantum LDPC codes from any pair $({\mathbf H}_1,{\mathbf H}_2)$ of parity-check matrices of binary LDPC codes $C_1$ and $C_2$. Although the constructed quantum code belongs to the CSS class [@CS96a; @Ste96b], there is no restriction on $C_1$ and $C_2$. For instance, they do not need to be mutually orthogonal spaces as in the CSS construction. In particular we can choose $C_1=C_2$, in which case our main result reads: \[th:main\] Let ${\mathbf H}$ be a full-rank $(n-k)\times n$ parity-check matrix of a classical LDPC code $C$ of parameters $[n,k,d]$. There is a construction of a quantum LDPC code with ${\mathbf H}$ as building block, of length $N=n^2+(n-k)^2$, dimension $k^2$, and quantum minimum distance $d$. The quantum code has a parity-check matrix with row weights of the form $i+j$, where $i$ and $j$ are respectively row and column weights of the original parity check matrix ${\mathbf H}$. In particular, any family of classical asymptotically good LDPC codes of fixed rate yields a family of quantum LDPC codes of fixed rate and minimum distance proportional to a square root of the block length. Overview of the construction ============================ The quantum codes we will consider are CSS codes. A CSS code of length $n$ is determined by two binary parity-check matrices ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ of two classical codes of length $n$, $C_X$ and $C_Z$ respectively, with the property that every row of ${\mathbf H}_X$ is orthogonal to every row of ${\mathbf H}_Z$, in other words the row-spaces $C_X^\perp$ and $C_Z^\perp$ of ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ are orthogonal subspaces of ${\mathbb F}_2^n$. The parameters of the associated quantum code are $[[n,k,d]]$, where $n$ is the blocklength, $k$ is its dimension and is given by $n-\dim C_X^\perp-\dim C_Z^\perp$, and the minimum distance $d$ is given by the minimum weight of the non-zero vectors that are either in $C_X$ but not in $C_Z^\perp$ or in $C_Z$ but not in $C_X^\perp$. For details on why the above defines the CSS construction and why it is relevant to quantum error correction see for example [@MMM04a]. We are interested in families of CSS codes that have sparse matrices ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$, i.e. whose row weight is bounded by a constant, in which case we shall say that we have a quantum LDPC (CSS) code. Our construction borrows both from classical LDPCs and Kitaev’s toric quantum code. To get a clear picture of the construction it is desirable to take a close look at the toric code and explain how we shall generalize it. The toric code is based on the graph ${\EuScript G}$ represented on figure \[fig:torus\] which is a tiling of the $2$-dimensional torus. The vertex set of the graph is ${\EuScript V}= {\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}\times{\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$ and there is an edge between every vertex $(x,y)$ and the four vertices $(x\pm 1,y)$, $(x,y\pm 1)$. Now number the edges from $1$ to $n=2m^2$ so as to identify the edge set with $[1,n]$. The ambient space ${\mathbb F}_2^n$ is therefore identified with subsets of edges. The matrix ${\mathbf H}_X=(h_{ij})$ is the vertex-edge incident matrix, rows are indexed by vertices of the graph ${\EuScript G}$, and $h_{ij}=1$ iff vertex $i$ is incident to edge $j$. The associated code $C_X$ is the [*cycle code*]{} of ${\EuScript G}$, a cycle being by definition a set of edges ${\EuScript Z}$ such that every vertex is incident to an even number of edges of ${\EuScript Z}$. Elements of the row-space $C_X^\perp$ are called [*cocycles*]{}, rows of ${\mathbf H}_X$ are called [*elementary cocycles*]{}, and the row-space itself $C_X^\perp$ is also known as the [*cocycle code*]{} of ${\EuScript G}$. The second matrix ${\mathbf H}_Z$ of the quantum code is defined as the face-edge incidence matrix. The faces are defined as the $4$-cycles $(x,y),(x+1,y),(x+1,y+1),(x,y+1)$. (0,0) – (5,0); (0,1) – (5,1); (0,2) – (5,2); (0,3) – (5,3); (0,4) – (5,4); (0,5) – (5,5); (0,0) – (0,5); (1,0) – (1,5); (2,0) – (2,5); (3,0) – (3,5); (4,0) – (4,5); (5,0) – (5,5); (2,0) – (2,5); (0,1) – (5,1); The rowspace $C_Z^{\perp}$ of ${\mathbf H}_Z$ is therefore a subspace of the cycle code $C_X$, and the quotient $C_X/C_Z^{\perp}$ is readily seen to have dimension $2$, coset leaders of the quotient being given by cycles of the form $(a,0),(a,1),\ldots ,(a,m-1)$ and $(0,a),(1,a),\ldots , (m-1,a)$, as represented by the thick lines on figure \[fig:torus\]. The dimension of the quantum code is therefore equal to $2$ and the minimum weight of a vector of $C_X$ not in $C_Z^{\perp}$ is therefore equal to $m$. To conclude that the minimum distance of the quantum code is actually $m$, it remains to determine the minimum weight of a vector of $C_Z$ that is not in $C_X^{\perp}$, i.e. that is not a cocycle. This particular graph ${\EuScript G}$ has the nice property of being a tiling of a surface (the torus). This means that it has a [*dual graph*]{}. The (Poincaré) dual graph ${\EuScript G}'$ has vertex set equal to the faces of ${\EuScript G}$, and there is an edge between two vertices of ${\EuScript G}'$ if the corresponding faces of ${\EuScript G}$ have a common edge in ${\EuScript G}$. Furthermore the dual graph ${\EuScript G}'$ of ${\EuScript G}$ is isomorphic to ${\EuScript G}$ itself, and given that the edges of ${\EuScript G}$ define the edges of ${\EuScript G}'$, the ambient space ${\mathbb F}_2^n$ can be identified with the edge set of the dual graph ${\EuScript G}'$. With this identification, the elementary cocycles of ${\EuScript G}$ become the faces of ${\EuScript G}'$ and the faces of ${\EuScript G}$ become the elementary cocycles of ${\EuScript G}'$. Hence the minimum weight of a vector of $C_Z$ that is not in $C_X^{\perp}$ is exactly the same as the minimum weight of a vector of $C_X$ not in $C_Z^{\perp}$ and the minimum distance of the quantum code is exactly $m$. This duality argument is quite powerful, and for this reason a number of quantum codes that arise by replacing the graph ${\EuScript G}$ by different tilings of different surfaces have been investigated (surface codes). Here we shall consider a different generalization that does not destroy the graph duality but generalizes it. Our first remark is that the graph ${\EuScript G}$ is a product graph: it is the product of two graphs each equal to an elementary cycle of length $m$. The product ${\EuScript G}_1\cdot{\EuScript G}_2$ of two graphs ${\EuScript G}_1$ and ${\EuScript G}_2$ has vertex set made up of couples $(x,y)$, where $x$ is a vertex of ${\EuScript G}_1$ and $y$ of ${\EuScript G}_2$. The edges of the product graph connect two vertices $(x,y)$ and $(x',y')$ if either $x=x'$ and $\{y,y'\}$ is an edge of ${\EuScript G}_2$ or $y=y'$ and $\{x,x'\}$ is an edge of ${\EuScript G}_1$. Note that any two edges $\{a,b\}$ and $\{x,y\}$ of ${\EuScript G}_1$ and ${\EuScript G}_2$ define the $4$-cycle of ${\EuScript G}_1\cdot{\EuScript G}_2$ : (ax) at (0,0) [$(a,x)$]{}; (ay) at (0,1) [$(a,y)$]{}; (bx) at (1,0) [$(b,x)$]{}; (by) at (1,1) [$(b,y)$]{}; (ax) – (ay) – (by) – (bx) – (ax); (\*) at (2,0.5) [([${\mathbf \star}$]{})]{}; Now, we are tempted to define a quantum code by, as before, declaring ${\mathbf H}_X$ to be the vertex-edge incident matrix of a product graph ${\EuScript G}={\EuScript G}_1\cdot{\EuScript G}_2$ of two arbitrary graphs, and by declaring ${\mathbf H}_Z$ to be the matrix whose rows are the characteristic vectors of all faces, i.e. the $4$-cycles of the form ([${\mathbf \star}$]{}). This is a quantum code which generalizes the toric code, since the latter corresponds to the case when ${\EuScript G}_1$ and ${\EuScript G}_2$ are two cycles of length $m$. This construction loses graph duality however, and our objective was to preserve it. But a closer look shows us that graph duality has not completely gone: the dual has simply become a [*hypergraph*]{}, whose vertex set is a the set of faces of ${\EuScript G}$ and where the hyperedges are the subsets of those faces of ${\EuScript G}$ that meet in a common edge of ${\EuScript G}$. This observation shows us that we really should consider products of hypergraphs rather than graph products to start with. Our construction will proceed as follows. We will consider a product ${\EuScript H}={\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_2$ of two hypergraphs. The matrix ${\mathbf H}_X$ of the quantum code will be defined as before, by the vertex-hyperedge incidence matrix of ${\EuScript H}$. The $4$-cycles of the form ([${\mathbf \star}$]{}) will be replaced by similar structures that we will call [*chambers*]{} (to be defined precisely below). The matrix ${\mathbf H}_Z$ of the quantum code will be the chamber-hyperedge incidence matrix. There will again be a duality notion for product hypergraphs, such that the chambers of the dual hypergraph are the elementary (hyper)cocycles of the original graph, and the chambers of the original hypergraph are the elementary (hyper)cocycles of the dual graph. What about the parameters of the quantum code ? The two hypergraphs ${\EuScript H}_1$ and ${\EuScript H}_2$ can be identified with their vertex-edge incidence matrices ${\mathbf H}_1$ and ${\mathbf H}_2$. The parameters of the quantum code will be directly related to the dimensions and minimum distances of the codes $C_1$ and $C_2$ for which ${\mathbf H}_1$ and ${\mathbf H}_2$ are parity-check matrices. They will also depend on the dimensions and minimum distances of two associated codes $C_1^T$ and $C_2^T$ that we will call the [*transpose codes*]{} and that have the transpose matrices ${\mathbf H}_1^T$ and ${\mathbf H}_2^T$ for parity-check matrices. Some of these codes may be trivial and equal $\{0\}$. The dimension of the quantum code is computed by standard linear algebra arguments. The computation of the minimum distance involves two ideas, one is the duality for product hypergraphs sketched above, and the other is a dimension argument. If a (hyper)cycle of the product hypergraph has a weight which is too small, then it has to be included in a sub-product-hypergraph whose associated quantum dimension is shown to be zero, which means the cycle has to belong to the chamber code. We now move on to precise definitions, statements and proofs. Hypergraphs =========== Let ${\mathbf H}$ be a sparse parity-check matrix of some binary linear code $C$. We will view ${\mathbf H}$ as a [*hypergraph*]{} ${\EuScript H}$, which is just a set of vertices ${\EuScript V}$ together with a collection ${\EuScript E}$ of subsets of ${\EuScript V}$ called hyperedges (henceforth edges). Given ${\mathbf H}$, the vertices of ${\EuScript H}$ are its rows and the edges of ${\EuScript H}$ are the columns of ${\mathbf H}$, and vertex $i$ belongs to edge $j$ if the corresponding entry of ${\mathbf H}$ equals $1$. In particular if $N=|{\EuScript E}|$ is the number of edges of ${\EuScript H}$, we shall identify the Hamming space $\{0,1\}^N$ with $\{0,1\}^{\EuScript E}$, i.e. coordinates are labeled with the edges of ${\EuScript H}$ and vectors of $\{0,1\}^N$ are identified with subsets of edges of ${\EuScript H}$. We use the language of hypergraphs, even though it is not always familiar to coding theorists, because it serves to highlight the connection with topological quantum codes and because it is better suited to our proof techniques. In particular the quantum code that we will define has an underlying hypergraph structure that generalizes the grid structure behind Kitaev’s toric code. The reader may nevertheless translate hypergraphs ${\EuScript H}$ into parity-check matrices ${\mathbf H}$ to be on more familiar ground. Analogously to the case when the hypergraph ${\EuScript H}$ is a graph, we call a [*hypercycle*]{} of ${\EuScript H}$ ([*cycle*]{} for short) any subset of edges ${\EuScript Z}\subset{\EuScript E}$ such any vertex of ${\EuScript H}$ is incident to an even number of edges of ${\EuScript Z}$ (this is non-standard for graph-theorists but is standard in algebraic topology). The set of cycles of ${\EuScript H}$ is a linear code that we denote by $Z({\EuScript H})$ and call the cycle code of ${\EuScript H}$. It is simply the code whose parity-check matrix is ${\mathbf H}$. An [*elementary cocycle*]{} of ${\EuScript H}$ is the subset of edges incident to a given vertex $v\in{\EuScript V}$. A [*cocycle*]{} is a sum of elementary cocycles. The set of cocycles is a linear code (the cocycle code) that is the dual code $Z({\EuScript H})^\perp$ of $Z({\EuScript H})$. If ${\EuScript H}$ is a hypergraph with vertex set ${\EuScript V}$ and edge set ${\EuScript E}$, we define the [*transpose hypergraph*]{} ${\EuScript H}^T$ with vertex set ${\EuScript V}^T={\EuScript E}$ and edge set ${\EuScript E}^T={\EuScript V}$, to be the hypergraph whose vertex-edge incidence matrix is the transpose matrix ${\mathbf H}^T$ of the vertex-edge incidence matrix ${\mathbf H}$ of ${\EuScript H}$. We will denote an edge of ${\EuScript H}^T$ simply by $x\in{\EuScript V}$. Note that we have $$\label{eq:duality} \dim Z({\EuScript H}^T) = |{\EuScript V}|-\dim Z({\EuScript H})^\perp.$$ The hypergraph ${\EuScript H}^T$ is sometimes called the dual hypergraph by graph theorists. We avoid this terminology here because we have too many notions of duality to deal with. Let ${\EuScript H}_1$ and ${\EuScript H}_2$ be two hypergraphs with respective vertex sets ${\EuScript V}_1,{\EuScript V}_2$ and edge sets ${\EuScript E}_1,{\EuScript E}_2$. The [*product*]{} ${\EuScript H}={\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_2$ of the two hypergraphs is defined as the hypergraph having vertex set ${\EuScript V}={\EuScript V}_1\times{\EuScript V}_2$ and edge set ${\EuScript E}={\EuScript E}_L\cup{\EuScript E}_R$ where - ${\EuScript E}_L$ is the set of edges $\{(a,y_1),(a,y_2),\ldots , (a,y_v)\}$ for $a$ a vertex of ${\EuScript V}_1$ and $\{y_1,y_2,\ldots ,y_v\}$ an edge of ${\EuScript E}_2$ - ${\EuScript E}_R$ is the set of edges $\{(x_1b),(x_2,b),\ldots , (x_u,b)\}$ for $b$ a vertex of ${\EuScript V}_2$ and $\{x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_u\}$ an edge of ${\EuScript E}_1$. To lighten notation we shall write vertices of ${\EuScript V}$ as $ab$ instead of $(a,b)$ and similarly, if $\alpha=\{z_1,z_2,\ldots ,z_t\}$ is an edge of ${\EuScript E}_1$ (respectively ${\EuScript E}_2$) and $x$ is a vertex of ${\EuScript V}_2$ (respectively ${\EuScript V}_1$) we shall write $\alpha x$ (respectively $x\alpha$) to mean the edge $\{z_1x,z_2x,\ldots ,z_tx\}$ (respectively $\{xz_1,xz_2,\ldots ,xz_t\}$) of ${\EuScript E}$. Note that the edge set ${\EuScript E}$ is indexed by the set ${\EuScript V}_1\times{\EuScript E}_2 \cup {\EuScript V}_2\times{\EuScript E}_1$ so that we have $$|{\EuScript E}| = |{\EuScript V}_1||{\EuScript E}_2| + |{\EuScript V}_2||{\EuScript E}_1|.$$ Let $\alpha=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_u\}$ and $\beta = \{y_1,y_2,\ldots ,y_v\}$ be two edges of ${\EuScript H}_1$ and ${\EuScript H}_2$ respectively. We now define the [*chamber*]{} $C_{\alpha\beta}$ of ${\EuScript H}$ as the set of edges of ${\EuScript E}$ $$C_{\alpha\beta} = \{\alpha y_i, i=1\ldots v\} \cup \{x_i\beta ,i=1\ldots u\}.$$ The number of edges belonging to $C_{\alpha\beta}$ is therefore $|C_{\alpha\beta}|=u+v$. [**Remark.**]{} When the hypergraphs ${\EuScript H}_1$ and ${\EuScript H}_2$ are graphs (edges are incident to exactly two vertices) then chambers are $4$-cycles of type ([${\mathbf \star}$]{}). We now define the [*Poincaré dual*]{} hypergraph ${\EuScript G}$ of ${\EuScript H}={\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_2$ by ${\EuScript G}= {\EuScript H}_1^T\cdot{\EuScript H}_2^T$. We have: \[prop:duality\] ${\EuScript G}$ has vertex set ${\EuScript E}_1\times{\EuScript E}_2$ and it edges are indexed by ${\EuScript V}_1\times{\EuScript E}_2 \cup {\EuScript V}_2\times{\EuScript E}_1$ so that we may identify its edge set with the edge set ${\EuScript E}$ of ${\EuScript H}$. With this identification, the elementary cocycles of ${\EuScript H}$ are the chambers of ${\EuScript G}$ and the chambers of ${\EuScript H}$ are the elementary cocycles of ${\EuScript G}$. Let $v=xy$ be a vertex of ${\EuScript V}$. The elementary cocycle associated to $v$ is the union $$\{\alpha y,\; x\in\alpha\} \cup \{x\beta,\; y\in\beta\}.$$ It follows from the definition of a chamber and of the transpose hypergraphs ${\EuScript H}_1^T$ and ${\EuScript H}_2^T$ that this set is exactly the chamber $C_{xy}$ of ${\EuScript G}={\EuScript H}_1^T\cdot{\EuScript H}_2^T$. The quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ associated with the product hypergraph ${\EuScript H}={\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_2$ {#sec:quantum} =============================================================================================================================== We now define the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ associated to the product hypergraph ${\EuScript H}$. The code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ is a CSS code of length $N$ where $N=|{\EuScript E}|$ is the number of edges of ${\EuScript H}$. As announced before, $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ is defined by the two matrices ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ where ${\mathbf H}_X$ is the vertex-edge incidence matrix of ${\EuScript H}$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ is the chamber-edge incidence matrix. Equivalently, the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ is defined by the two linear codes $C_X$ and $C_Z$ of respective parity-check matrices ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$. Proposition \[prop:duality\] implies that the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ associated to the hypergraph ${\EuScript H}$ is the same as the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript G}}$ associated to the dual hypergraph ${\EuScript G}$. Note also that $C_X$ is equal to the cycle code $Z({\EuScript H})$ and that $C_Z$ is equal to the cycle code $Z({\EuScript G})$ of the dual hypergraph ${\EuScript G}$. The dual codes $C_X^\perp$ and $C_Z^\perp$ are respectively the cocycle code of ${\EuScript H}$ and the code generated by the chambers of ${\EuScript H}$ that we call the [*chamber code*]{} of ${\EuScript H}$. By Proposition \[prop:duality\] the chamber code of ${\EuScript H}$ is the cocycle code of ${\EuScript G}$ and the cocycle code of ${\EuScript H}$ is the chamber code of ${\EuScript G}$. [**Row and column weights of ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$.**]{} We see from the definitions that any column weight of ${\mathbf H}_X$ is the number of vertices of either an edge of ${\EuScript H}_1$ or of an edge of ${\EuScript H}_2$. A row weight of ${\mathbf H}_X$ is the sum of the degree of a vertex of ${\EuScript H}_1$ and the degree of a vertex of ${\EuScript H}_2$, where the degree of of a vertex is the number of edges incident to it. A column weight of ${\mathbf H}_Z$ is equal to either the degree of a vertex of ${\EuScript H}_1$ or of a vertex of ${\EuScript H}_2$. Finally, a row weight of ${\mathbf H}_Z$ is equal to the sum of the cardinality of an edge of ${\EuScript H}_1$ and the cardinality of an edge of ${\EuScript H}_2$. We say that a hypergraph is $t$-uniform if every edge is incident to $t$ vertices and it said to be regular of degree $\Delta$, or $\Delta$-regular, if every vertex is incident to $\Delta$ edges. Suppose that the hypergraphs ${\EuScript H}_1$ and ${\EuScript H}_2$ are $t_1$- and $t_2$-uniform and $\Delta_1-$ and $\Delta_2$-regular respectively. In other words their vertex-edge incidence matrices have column weights $t_1$ and $t_2$ and row weights $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ respectively. Then the matrices ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ each have two column weights, equal to $t_1$ and $t_2$ for ${\mathbf H}_X$ and $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_2$ for ${\mathbf H}_Z$. The matrices ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ each have constant row weight equal to $\Delta_1+\Delta_2$ and $t_1+t_2$ respectively. It should be clear that we have $C_Z^\perp \subset Z({\EuScript H})=C_X$ so that $C_X^\perp$ and $C_Z^\perp$ are mutually orthogonal subspaces which justifies the definition of the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$. The following proposition states that there are redundancies between the rows of the generators of ${\mathbf H}_Z$. Let ${\EuScript Z}_1$ be a cycle of ${\EuScript H}_1$ and let ${\EuScript Z}_2$ be a cycle of ${\EuScript H}_2$. Then $$\label{eq:sum} \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript Z}_1\times{\EuScript Z}_2}C_{\alpha\beta} =0.$$ Let $E$ be an edge of ${\EuScript H}$ of the form $E=\alpha y$ for $\alpha\in{\EuScript Z}_1$ and $y\in{\EuScript V}_2$. By definition of a cycle, the number of edges $\beta$ of ${\EuScript Z}_2$ such that $y\in\beta$ is even. Therefore the edge $E=\alpha y$ belongs to an even number of chambers $C_{\alpha\beta}$ for any $y$ belonging to an edge of the cycle ${\EuScript Z}_2$. Proceed similarly for edges of the form $E=x\beta$, $x\in{\EuScript V}_1$, $\beta\in{\EuScript Z}_2$. \[prop:cy\] Let $k=\dim Z({\EuScript H}_1)$ and $h=\dim Z({\EuScript H}_2)$. Then the dimension of the chamber code $C_Z^\perp$ equals $$\dim C_Z^\perp = |{\EuScript E}_1||{\EuScript E}_2|-kh.$$ Let ${\EuScript F}\subset {\EuScript E}_1\times{\EuScript E}_2$ be such that $$\label{eq:sumF} \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript F}}C_{\alpha\beta}=0$$ which means that every edge appearing in this sum appears an even number of times. Note that every edge of the form $x\beta\in{\EuScript E}$ for a fixed $\beta$ only appears in chambers of the form $C_{\alpha\beta}$. Consider the subset ${\EuScript F}_{(\cdot,\beta)}$ of ${\EuScript E}_1$ defined by $${\EuScript F}_{(\cdot,\beta)} = \{\alpha\in{\EuScript E}_1,\;\;(\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript F}\}.$$ Now the number of times that an edge $x\beta$ appears in the sum equals the number of edges $\alpha$ of ${\EuScript F}_\beta$ that $x$ belongs to. Since this number is even for every $x\in{\EuScript V}_1$ we have that ${\EuScript F}_{(\cdot,\beta)}$ is a cycle of ${\EuScript H}_1$ for every edge $\beta$ of ${\EuScript E}_2$. Similarly, the subset ${\EuScript F}_{(\alpha,\cdot)}$ of ${\EuScript E}_2$ defined by $${\EuScript F}_{(\alpha,\cdot)} = \{\beta\in{\EuScript E}_2,\;\;(\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript F}\}$$ is a cycle of ${\EuScript H}_2$ for every edge $\alpha$ of ${\EuScript E}_1$. Therefore the set of linear combinations is a vector space isomorphic to the product code $Z({\EuScript H}_1)\otimes Z({\EuScript H}_2)$, and its dimension is therefore $kh$. The result follows. Now by duality (Proposition \[prop:duality\]), Proposition \[prop:cy\] becomes : \[prop:cx\] Let $r=\dim Z({\EuScript H}_1^T)$ and $s=\dim Z({\EuScript H}_2^T)$. Then the dimension of the cocycle code $C_X^\perp$ equals $$\dim C_X^\perp = |{\EuScript V}_1||{\EuScript V}_2|-rs.$$ From Propositions \[prop:cy\] and \[prop:cx\] we obtain \[th:dimQH\] The dimension of the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ is equal to : $$\begin{aligned} \dim Q_{{\EuScript H}} &=& 2rs + r(|{\EuScript E}_2|-|{\EuScript V}_2|)+s(|{\EuScript E}_1|-|{\EuScript V}_1|)\\ &=& 2kh + k(|{\EuScript V}_2|-|{\EuScript E}_2|)+h(|{\EuScript V}_1|-|{\EuScript E}_1|). \end{aligned}$$ We have $$\begin{aligned} \dim Q_{{\EuScript H}} &=& |{\EuScript E}| - \dim C_X^T -\dim C_Z^T\\ &=& |{\EuScript E}_1||{\EuScript V}_2|+|{\EuScript V}_2||{\EuScript E}_1| - \dim C_X^T -\dim C_Z^T\\ &=& |{\EuScript E}_1||{\EuScript V}_2|+|{\EuScript V}_2||{\EuScript E}_1| - (|{\EuScript V}_1||{\EuScript V}_2| -rs)\\ && - (|{\EuScript E}_1||{\EuScript E}_2|-kh) \end{aligned}$$ by Propositions \[prop:cy\] and \[prop:cx\]. From we have $$k = |{\EuScript E}_1|-|{\EuScript V}_1|+r,\hspace{5mm}h = |{\EuScript E}_2|-|{\EuScript V}_2|+s$$ and the result follows after rearranging. \[cor:dim=0\] If - either $\dim Z({\EuScript H}_1^T)=\dim Z({\EuScript H}_2^T)=0$, - or $\dim Z({\EuScript H}_1)=\dim Z({\EuScript H}_2)=0$, then $\dim Q_{{\EuScript H}}=0$, equivalently, $C_X^T$ and $C_Z^T$ are dual to each other. This follows directly from Theorem \[th:dimQH\] and from Poincaré duality, since $Q_{{\EuScript G}}=Q_{{\EuScript H}}$. Minimum distance ================ Let us adopt the convention that the minimum distance of a code reduced to the all-zero codeword is $\infty$. Let $d_1$ and $d_2$ be the minimum distances of the cycle codes $Z({\EuScript H}_1)$ and $Z({\EuScript H}_2)$. Let $d_1^T$ and $d_2^T$ be the minimum distances of the cycle codes of the transpose hypergraphs $Z({\EuScript H}_1^T)$ and $Z({\EuScript H}_2^T)$. Let $D$ be the minimum distance of the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$. We have : \[th:D\] The minimum distance $D$ of the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ satisfies : $$D \geq \min (d_1,d_2,d_1^T,d_2^T).$$ Consider first a vector of $C_X$, i.e. a cycle ${\EuScript Z}$ of ${\EuScript H}$, that is not a sum of chambers. Suppose furthermore that its weight $|{\EuScript Z}|$ (number of edges) is minimum, and that this minimum is strictly smaller than $\min(d_1,d_2)$. Now let ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ be the subhypergraph of ${\EuScript H}_1$ with vertex set ${\EuScript V}_1$ and edge set made up of all those edges $\alpha$ such that $\alpha y$ is an edge of ${\EuScript Z}$ for some $y\in{\EuScript V}_2$. Similarly, let ${\EuScript H}_2({\EuScript Z})$ be the subhypergraph of ${\EuScript H}_2$ with vertex set ${\EuScript V}_2$ and edge set made up of all those edges $\beta$ such that $x\beta$ is an edge of ${\EuScript Z}$ for some $x\in{\EuScript V}_1$. Notice that ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ is a subhypergraph of ${\EuScript H}_1$, i.e. every edge of ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ is an edge of ${\EuScript H}_1$. Similarly, ${\EuScript H}_2({\EuScript Z})$ is a subhypergraph of ${\EuScript H}_2$. Notice also that the product graph ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})={\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})\cdot{\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ is a subhypergraph of ${\EuScript H}$, therefore chambers of ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})$ are also chambers of ${\EuScript H}$. Furthermore, all edges of ${\EuScript Z}$ are edges of ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})$ so that, since ${\EuScript Z}$ is a cycle of ${\EuScript H}$, ${\EuScript Z}$ is also a cycle of ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})$. Now since ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ is a subhypergraph of ${\EuScript H}_1$, all cycles of ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ are also cycles of ${\EuScript H}_1$. But cycles of ${\EuScript H}_1$ have at least $d_1$ edges and the number of edges ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ is at most $|{\EuScript Z}|$ and we have supposed $|{\EuScript Z}|<d_1$. Therefore the only cycle in ${\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})$ is the empty cycle and $\dim Z({\EuScript H}_1({\EuScript Z})) =0$. Similarly, $|{\EuScript Z}|<d_2$ implies $\dim Z({\EuScript H}_2({\EuScript Z})) =0$. Now Corollary \[cor:dim=0\] implies that all cycles of ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})$ are chambers of ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})$. Hence ${\EuScript Z}$ is a chamber of ${\EuScript H}({\EuScript Z})$ and of ${\EuScript H}$, a contradiction. By duality we obtain that vectors of $C_Z$ (cycles of ${\EuScript G}= {\EuScript H}_1^T\cdot{\EuScript H}_2^T$) that are not cocycles of ${\EuScript H}$ (or chambers of ${\EuScript G}$) have weight at least $\min (d_1^T,d_2^T)$. This proves that $D\geq \min(d_1,d_2,d_1^T,d_2^T)$. The following lemma shows that the above bound is exact, except for some degenerate cases. With the notation of Theorem \[th:D\] we have : \[lem:upper\] Suppose $d_1<\infty$ and $d_2^T<\infty$. Then $D\leq d_1$. Similarly, if $d_2<\infty$ and $d_1^T<\infty$. Then $D\leq d_2$. Suppose $d_1<\infty$ and $d_2^T<\infty$. Let ${\EuScript Z}_1\subset{\EuScript E}_1$ be a cycle of ${\EuScript H}_1$ of minimum weight $d_1$. Now let $y\in{\EuScript V}_2$ be a vertex of ${\EuScript H}_2$. Recall that $y$ is also an edge of the transpose hypergraph ${\EuScript H}_2^T$. Now we claim that the subset $\{y\}$ cannot be a cocycle of ${\EuScript H}_2^T$ for every $y\in{\EuScript V}_2$. Otherwise the cocycle code of ${\EuScript H}_2^T$ is the whole space $\{0,1\}^{{\EuScript V}_2}$, but we have supposed $d_2^T<\infty$, meaning that the [*cycle*]{} code of ${\EuScript H}_2^T$ is not $\{0\}$, so the cocycle code of ${\EuScript H}_2^T$ cannot be the whole space. Let therefore $y\in{\EuScript V}_2$ be some vertex of ${\EuScript H}_2$, such that $\{y\}$ is not a cocycle of ${\EuScript H}_2^T$. Now let ${\EuScript Z}$ be the set of edges of ${\EuScript H}={\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_2$ consisting of all edges $\alpha y$ for which $\alpha\in{\EuScript Z}_1$. We have therefore $|{\EuScript Z}|=|{\EuScript Z}_1|=d_1$. It is easy to check that ${\EuScript Z}$ is a cycle of ${\EuScript H}$. Suppose now that ${\EuScript Z}$ belongs to the chamber code, so that we have $$\label{eq:Z} {\EuScript Z}=\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript F}}C_{\alpha\beta}$$ for some set ${\EuScript F}\subset {\EuScript E}_1\times{\EuScript E}_2$. Now let $\alpha$ be some fixed edge of ${\EuScript Z}_1$. Now implies : $$\{\alpha y\} = \sum_{\beta, (\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript F}}\sum_{y'\in\beta} {\alpha y'}$$ but this implies in turn $$\{y\}=\sum_{\beta,(\alpha,\beta)\in{\EuScript F}}\beta .$$ But this means that $\{y\}$ belongs to cocycle code of ${\EuScript H}_2^T$, contrary to our assumption. Therefore ${\EuScript Z}$ is a cycle of ${\EuScript H}$ of weight $d_1$ that does not belong to the chamber code. This proves the first claim of the Lemma. The second is obtained analogously. The quantum code associated to a classical LDPC code ==================================================== Let $C$ be a classical LDPC code of parameters $[n,k,d]$ associated to a $(n-k)\times n$ parity-check matrix ${\mathbf H}$. Suppose that ${\mathbf H}$ is full-rank, i.e. $n-k$. Let ${\EuScript H}_1=({\EuScript V}_1,{\EuScript E}_1)$ be the hypergraph whose vertex-edge incidence matrix is given by ${\mathbf H}$. It is tempting to consider the quantum code associated the product hypergraph ${\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_1$: but a full-rank parity-check matrix ${\mathbf H}$ means that $\dim Z({\EuScript H}_1^T)=0$ and unfortunately Theorem \[th:dimQH\] will give zero dimension for this quantum code. If we want the associated quantum code to be non-trivial we must start with a parity-check matrix ${\mathbf H}$ with redundant rows, which is possible but not straightforward. However, we obtain an interesting non-zero quantum code by considering the product hypergraph ${\EuScript H}={\EuScript H}_1\cdot{\EuScript H}_2$, where ${\EuScript H}_2={\EuScript H}_1^T$ is the [*transpose hypergraph*]{} of ${\EuScript H}_1$. With the notation of Theorems \[th:dimQH\] and \[th:D\] we have : $$\begin{array}{rlrl} \dim Z({\EuScript H}_1)=&k & \dim Z({\EuScript H}_1^T)=&r=0 \\ \dim Z({\EuScript H}_2)=&h=0 & \dim Z({\EuScript H}_2^T)=&s=k \\ d_1 = &d & d_1^T=&\infty\\ d_2 =&\infty & d_2^T=&d \end{array}$$ and the quantum code $Q_{{\EuScript H}}$ is a code of parameters $[[N,K,D]]$ where $$N = |{\EuScript V}_1||{\EuScript E}_2| + |{\EuScript V}_2||{\EuScript E}_1| = (n-k)^2 + n^2$$ and $$K = k^2$$ by Theorem \[th:dimQH\]. We have $D\geq d$ by Theorem \[th:D\], and $D\leq d$ by Lemma \[lem:upper\] so that $$D=d.$$ This proves Theorem \[th:main\]. [**Remark.**]{} If the original classical code $C$ is a regular LDPC code, i.e. if its parity-check matrix has constant row weight $\Delta$ and constant column weight $t$, then the discussion at the beginning of section \[sec:quantum\] shows that ${\mathbf H}_X$ and ${\mathbf H}_Z$ both have constant row weight equal to $t+\Delta$ and both have two column weights equal to $t$ and to $\Delta$. [10]{} S. A. Aly. A class of quantum [LDPC]{} codes derived from [L]{}atin squares and combinatorial objects. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, Texas [A[&]{}M]{} University, April 2007. S. A. Aly. A class of quantum [LDPC]{} codes constructed from finite geometries. In [*Proc. of IEEE GLOBECOM*]{}, pages 1–5, December 2008. H. Bombin and M. A. Martin-Delgado. Homological error correction: classical and quantum codes. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, 48, 052105 (2007). A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor. Good quantum error-correcting codes exist. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, 54:1098–1105, 1996. T. Camara, H. Ollivier, and J.-P. Tillich. Constructions and performance of classes of quantum [LDPC]{} codes, 2005. <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0502086v2> T. Camara, H. Ollivier, and J.-P. Tillich. A class of quantum [LDPC]{} codes: construction and performances under iterative decoding. In [*Proc. of ISIT*]{}, pages 811–815, Nice, June 2007. C. D. de Albuquerque, R. Palazzo, and E. B. da Silva. Construction of topological quantum codes on compact surfaces. In [*Proc. of ITW*]{}, pages 391–395, Porto, May 2008. I. B. Djordjevic. Quantum [LDPC]{} codes from incomplete block designs. [*IEEE Communication Letters*]{}, 12(5):389–391, May 2008. D.Poulin and Y.Chung. On the iterative decoding of sparse quantum codes. [*Quantum Information and Computation*]{}, 8:987, 2008. M. H. Freedman, D. A. Meyer, and F. Luo. [${\mathbb {Z}}_2$]{}-systolic freedom and quantum codes. In [*Mathematics of quantum computation*]{}, Chapman [&]{} Hall/CRC, pages 287–320, Boca Raton, FL, 2002. R. G. Gallager. [*Low Density Parity Check Codes*]{}. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963. J. Garcia-Frias and K. Liu. Design of near-optimum quantum error-correcting codes based on generator and parity-check matrices of [LDGM]{} codes. In [*Proc. of CISS*]{}, pages 562–567, Princeton, March 2008. M. Hagiwara and H. Imai. Quantum quasi-cyclic [LDPC]{} codes. In [*Proc. ISIT’07*]{}, pages 806–811, Nice, June 2007. M-H. Hsieh, T. A. Brun, and I. Devetak. Quantum quasi-cyclic low-density parity check codes, March 2008. <http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0100v1> I. H. Kim. Quantum codes on [H]{}urwitz surfaces, S.B. thesis, MIT, 2007. <http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/40917> A. Y. Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. [*Ann. Phys.*]{}, 303:2, 2003. H. Lou and J. Garcia-Frias. On the application of error-correcting codes with low-density generator matrix over different quantum channels. In [*Proc. of Turbo-coding*]{}, Munich, April 2006. D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P. L. McFadden. Sparse graph codes for quantum error-correction. [*IEEE Trans. Info. Theory*]{}, 50(10):2315–2330, 2004. M. S. Postol. A proposed quantum low density parity check code, 2001. <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0108131v1> D. Poulin, J.-P. Tillich, and H. Ollivier. Quantum serial turbo-codes, 2007. <http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2888v1> K. P. Sarvepalli, M.R[ö]{}tteler, and A. Klappenecker. Asymmetric quantum [LDPC]{} codes. In [*Proc. of ISIT*]{}, pages 305–309, Toronto, July 2008. A. M. Steane. Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction. [*Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A*]{}, 452:2551–2577, 1996. P. Tan and J. Li. New classes of [LDPC]{} stabilizer codes using ideas from matrix scrambling. In [*Proc. of ICC*]{}, pages 1166–1170. May 2008. G. Z[é]{}mor. On [C]{}ayley graphs, surface codes and the limits of homological coding for quantum error correction, December 2008. preprint. <http://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/~zemor/surface.pdf> [^1]: INRIA, Projet Secret, BP 105, Domaine de Voluceau F-78153 Le Chesnay, France. Email: [email protected] [^2]: Institut de Mathématiques de Bordeaux, UMR 5251, Université Bordeaux 1, 351, cours de la Libération, F-33405 Talence Cedex, France Email: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We investigate a quantum state of positive charge in DNA. A quantum state of electron hole is determined by the competition of the pi-stacking interaction $b$ sharing a charge between different base pairs and the interaction $\lambda$ with the local environment which attempts to trap charge. To determine which interaction dominates we investigate charge quantum states in various $(GC)_{n}$ sequences choosing DNA parameters satisfying experimental data for the balance of charge transfer rates $G^{+} \leftrightarrow G_{n}^{+}$, $n=2,3$. We show that experimental data can be consistent with theory only assuming $b\ll \lambda$ meaning that charge is typically localized within the single $G$ site. Consequently as follows from our modeling consideration any DNA duplex including the one consisting of identical base pairs cannot be considered as a molecular conductor. Our theory can be verified experimentally measuring balance of charge transfer reactions $G^{+} \leftrightarrow G_{n}^{+}$, $n \geq 4$ and comparing the experimental results with our predictions.' author: - 'A. L. Burin and D. B. Uskov' title: Strong localization of positive charge in DNA induced by its interaction with environment --- Introduction ============ Positive charge (hole) transfer in DNA is extensively investigated since its experimental discovery [@FirstExperiment]. This process can be responsible for the oxidative DNA damage [@FirstExperiment; @Barton2; @Barton3; @GieseMB; @Schuster1] and is possibly important for DNA repairing [@Raiskii; @Taiwan]. Also an ability of DNA to promote long distant charge transfer can be used in molecular electronics applications [@MolecularWire1]. These studies raise the question, whether DNA is a molecular conductor. In molecular conductors (e. g. carbon nanotubes) charge is usually delocalized within several sites (monomers). Such system possesses a high conductivity similarly to metals. The alternative behavior takes place when the charge is typically localized within the single site and it hops to adjacent sites due to rare environment fluctuations. Based on the results of direct measurements of charge transfer in DNA [@FredMain] we argue in this paper that DNA is not a molecular conductor. DNA contains two different sorts of base pairs $AT$ and $GC$ forming quasi-random sequences. The lowest ionization potential is attributed to a $GC$ pair (essentially G-base [@Sugiyama]). Since the electron transfer integral $b$ between adjacent bases does not exceed $AT$ - $GC$ ionization potential difference $\Delta \sim 0.5$eV, the quantum state of charge in a static environment will be localized near some $G$ base and its localization length is comparable to the interbase distance [@Shapiro; @local1]. Interaction with environment breaks down this localization, inducing charge hopping between quantum states localized at adjacent $G$ sites. This happens because of rare environment fluctuations supporting delocalization of charge between neighboring $G$ bases. Indeed, according to experimental studies [@GieseMB; @Schuster1; @FredMain] and theoretical models [@BixonJortner; @BBR1] the sequence dependent charge transfer in DNA can be represented as the series of charge hops between adjacent $G$ bases serving as centers of localized states. An addition of $AT$ pair between $GC$ base pairs dramatically reduces the charge hopping rate [@GieseMB; @BixonJortner; @BBR1] and therefore the optimum base sequence for the efficient charge transfer consists of identical base pairs. We are going to study a charge (hole) quantum states in sequences of identical $GC$ pairs of various lengths, as most promising candidates for efficient charge transfer. The thermal energy at room temperature $k_{B}T \sim 0.026$eV is very small compared to at least one of the characteristic energies of the system including the reorganization energy $\lambda$ and the electron transfer integral $b$. The reorganization energy is caused by the electrostatic interaction of the hole with the environment and its minimum estimate is $\lambda \sim 0.25$eV [@Igor; @abReview; @LeBard; @Voityuk; @Berashevich]. The electron transfer integral $b$ is associated with the pi-stacking interaction of heterocyclic groups in DNA bases. It is defined as the gain in the hole energy due to its sharing between two adjacent DNA bases having equal energies with respect to the energy of the hole localized within a single $G$ base [@Voityuk]. The minimum estimate for the electron transfer integral between adjacent $G$ bases is around $0.1$eV [@Voityuk]. Thus the thermal energy is, indeed, small compared to other characteristic energies and we can use the ground state of the hole coupled to environment as the representative state. One should notice that the ground state can be used as a representative state, but it strongly differs from transition states responsible for the charge transfer. Since the hole transitions are quite rare the “typical” charge state can be described ignoring them. The spatial size of the hole ground state is determined by the competition of the delocalization of charge due to the pi-stacking interaction of heterocyclic groups belonging to adjacent bases and the localization caused by the environment polarization around the charge. The charge delocalization energy is characterized by the effective electron transfer integral $b$ and the localization energy is given by the environment reorganization energy $\lambda$ [@Igor; @abReview; @LeBard; @Voityuk; @Berashevich]. Delocalization of charge over $k$ base pairs leads to the gain in the kinetics energy $E_{del}\sim -2b+b/k^2$, similarly to the classical problem of particle in the box. The reorganization energy scales with the size of charge wavefunction as $E_{loc}\sim -\lambda/k$ (see e. g. [@Conwell; @Igor]). This dependence can be understood as following. The local environment polarization induced by the hole is proportional to the charge density $P \propto d \propto 1/k$, where $d$ stands for the local charge density. Consequently the interaction in each site having charge $e/k$ with the environment polarization is proportional to their product $pd \propto 1/k^2$ and the sum of all these $k$ interactions over all $k$ sites results in the dependence $\lambda/k$. This dependence takes place only in a one-dimensional system. Since at large $k$ the reorganization energy $-\lambda/k$ dominates over the kinetic energy $b/k^2$, the ground states is always localized and the localization radius can be estimated using the number of sites $k$ minimizing the total energy $$E_{tot}(k) \approx -2b+\frac{b}{k^{2}} - \frac{\lambda}{k}. \label{eq:totEn}$$ The minimum takes place at $k=k_{*}\approx 2b/\lambda$ which is the number of DNA bases occupied by the hole in its ground state. At zero temperature the hole is localized, while at finite temperature it can hop between different states because of its interaction with the fluctuating environment. In the translationally invariant system ($(GC)_{n}$ or $(AT)_{n}$) the potential barrier separating two configurations can be estimated as the energy price for the environment fluctuation increasing the size of the wavefunction by one more site compared to its optimum state $k_{*} \rightarrow k_{*}+1$, which can be expressed as $E_{tot}(k_{*}+1)-E_{tot}(k_{*})$ Eq. (\[eq:totEn\]). Such fluctuation creates the transition state and after the relaxation of environment the hole can arrive at the new equilibrium centered at different $G$ base. If $b\ll \lambda$ then this activation energy is given by approximately a quarter of the reorganization energy $\lambda/4 \gg k_{B}T$. Then we expect the hole mobility to obey the Arrhenius law as in insulators. In the opposite limit we obtain a very small value $\Delta\sim \lambda^{4}/(16b^{3})$, which becomes negligible at moderately large $b/\lambda$. For instance if $b=1$eV the potential barrier for the hole transition becomes smaller than the thermal energy $k_{B}T \approx 0.026$eV already at $\lambda < 0.7eV$. In this regime charge transport is weakly sensitive to the temperature as in metals. Therefore it is very important to determine the true relationship of $b$ and $\lambda$ in DNA. This relationship characterizes its conducting behavior. Indeed, in the regime $b > \lambda$ a DNA molecule made of identical base pairs would behave as a one-dimensional conductor, while in the opposite limit DNA cannot be treated as a molecular wire. Existing estimates in literature [@Igor; @abReview; @LeBard; @Voityuk; @Conwell; @Berashevich; @Sugiyama] do not help much in determining the relationship of $b$ and $\lambda$, because there is a large controversy between different studies. In particular, various estimates for the electron transfer integral $b$ range from $0.05$eV [@Voityuk] to $0.5$eV [@Sugiyama]. Also all calculations of $b$ ignore vibrational rearrangements. Polar vibrational modes associated with the covalent bonds possess a high vibrational quantum energy $\hbar\omega \sim 0.3$eV $\gg k_{B}T$. At room temperature these modes must remain in the ground state during charge tunneling. However since the tunneling of hole changes the equilibrium coordinates of polar vibrations they must tunnel together with the hole. This leads to the redefinition of the effective tunneling amplitude $b$ (if it is smaller then the reorganization energy $\lambda_{v}$) associated with the given vibrational mode [@classic1; @comment1; @ab_prl] as $$b_{eff} = b\cdot e^{-\frac{\lambda_{v}}{2\hbar\omega}}. \label{eq:tunn_renorm}$$ To our knowledge this effect is ignored in all existing theoretical estimates of the electron transfer integral. The calculations for the reorganization energy $\lambda$ associated with the classical interaction with solvent were made using the continuous medium approach. The estimates of $\lambda$ range from $0.25$eV [@Berashevich] to more than $1$eV [@Igor] due to uncertainty in the water dielectric constant value near the DNA molecule. It is hard therefore to select the right parameters based on existing theoretical results. We suggest an alternative method to study the hole quantum state within the DNA molecule, using experimental data sensitive to the relationship of two key parameters of the theory $b$ and $\lambda$. Namely, we exploit the rate constants for the balance of charge transfer reactions between different $(GC)_{n}$ complexes, measured by Lewis and coworkers [@FredMain] $$\label{GrindEQ__5_} \begin{array}{l} {G^{+} +GG\mathop{\rightleftarrows }\limits_{k_{-t}^{GG} }^{k_{t}^{GG} } G+(GG)^{+}, \, \, \, \, \frac{k_{t}^{GG}}{k_{-t}^{GG}}=7.7\pm 1} \\ {G^{+} +GGG\mathop{\rightleftarrows }\limits_{k_{t}^{GGG} }^{k_{t}^{GGG} } G+(GGG)^{+}, \, \, \, \,\frac{k_{t}^{GGG}}{k_{-t}^{GGG}}=20\pm 1}. \end{array}$$ In the thermal equilibrium these ratios are determined by base pair partition functions $$\begin{aligned} r_{2}=\frac{k_{t}^{GG}}{k_{-t}^{GG}}=\frac{Z_{2+}Z_{1}}{Z_{2}Z_{1+}}, \nonumber\\ r_{3}=\frac{k_{t}^{GGG}}{k_{-t}^{GGG}}=\frac{Z_{3+}Z_{1}}{Z_{3}Z_{1+}}. \label{eq:rat1}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z_{n+}$ stands for the partition function of $G_{n}$ sequence containing the single hole in it, while $Z_{n}$ is the partition function of the same base sequence, but without the hole. Since $G$ and $G_{n}$ complexes are separated by some $AT$ bridge we can ignore their interactions. We assumed that the charge transfer between $G$ and $G_{n}$ complexes is very slow compared to the charge transfer rate inside the complex. This agrees with experiments showing the strong reduction of the charge transfer rate with the length of $AT$ separating $GC$ pairs [@GieseMB]. Consequently the contribution of highly excited states like the transition states for the charge transfer between complexes to the partition functions can be neglected so we can assume that the local equilibrium of charge within $G_{n}$ sequence is established. Accordingly one can use Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) for the ratio of charge transfer rates. Both ratios in Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]) are determined by parameters $b$ and $\lambda$ and the thermal energy at room temperature $k_{B}T \sim 0.026eV$. Below we calculate both ratios using tight binding model for $G_{n}$ complexes and standard linear response theory for charge interaction with the environment [@abReview; @Marcus]. Theory determines the domain of parameters $\lambda$ and $b$ satisfying experimental data Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]). [*We demonstrate that any reasonable choice of $\lambda$ and $b$, satisfying Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]), corresponds to the regime $b \ll \lambda$, where the hole in its ground state is localized essentially in a single $G$ base (see Fig. \[fig:potential\]).* ]{} The manuscript is organized as following. In Sec. \[sec:model\] we formulate and discuss the model for the hole in $G_{n}$ sequence coupled to the classical environment. In Sec. \[sec:expression\] we derive expressions for rate ratios $r_{n}$. In Sec. \[sec:part\_func\] we discuss the properties of the hole ground state in the domain of its parameters consistent with the experiment [@FredMain] and show that it is localized essentially within the single $G$ site. In Sec. \[sec:data\_analysis\] we discuss the partition functions of charge using the simple perturbation theory approach and predict the balance of charge transfer reactions between $G^{+}$ state and $G_{n}^{+}$ state for arbitrarily number $n$ of $G$ bases. In Sec. \[sec:offdiag\] we discuss the effect of correlations of environment polarizations on different $G$ sites on ratios $r_{n}$. In Sec. \[sec:Abases\] we investigate the influence of $A$ bases surrounding $G_{n}$ sequences in the experiment [@FredMain] on our conclusions. In Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] we resume our results and discuss the experiments, which can verify our theory and help to determine parameters $b$ and $\lambda$ more accurately. Model {#sec:model} ===== The chain of $n$ $GC$ base pairs can be described by the tight binding Hamiltonian coupled to the classical environment represented by coordinates $X_{i}$, $i=1, ... n$ for each DNA $G$ site $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{H} = \widehat{H}_{hole} + \widehat{H}_{int}, \nonumber\\ \widehat{H}_{hole}= -b\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(c_{i}^{+}c_{i+1}+c_{i+1}^{+}c_{i}), \nonumber\\ \widehat{H}_{int} = \frac{1}{2\lambda}\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}^{2}-\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_{i}n_{i}, \nonumber\\ n_{i}=c_{i}^{+}c_{i}. \label{eq:Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Here $c_{i}$, $c_{i}^{+}$ are operators of creation and annihilation of electron hole in a site $i$. Classical coordinates $X_{i}$ describing the polar environment, including solvent and counterions, are directly coupled to the local charge density $n_{i}=c_{i}^{+}c_{i}$ and the parameter $\lambda$ stands for the reorganization energy associated with the interaction of charge and its environment. The environment energy is expressed as a bilinear form with respect to solvent coordinates, which is justified by a standard assumption that polarization fields are small compared to atomic fields [@Marcus] so we ignore $X^{3}$ terms. Since the potentials $X$ include the contribution of counterions it is not clear whether the ion effect can be treated in the linear response approximation. However, we do not think that the contribution of ions can critically change our assumptions because as was demonstrated by Voityuk and coworkers [@voityuk4] the contribution of ions does not exceed $20\%$ of the overall charge energy fluctuations, while the remaining $80\%$ of fluctuation are associated with water. As discussed below in Sec. \[sec:data\_analysis\] the validity of the linear response approximation does not crucially affect our consideration in the strong localization regime. We assume that only classical degrees of freedom with excitation energy comparable or less than the thermal energy are left in Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]), while high energy modes are integrated out. This may lead to the renormalization of parameters in the system Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) (see e. g. Eq. (\[eq:tunn\_renorm\]) and Refs. [@classic1; @comment1; @ab_prl]) and we assume that this renormalization is made. We do not include off-diagonal terms $X_{i}X_{j}$, $i\neq j$ into the Hamiltonian. This is somehow justified because they are smaller than the diagonal ones [@LeBard]. We will show below that for $G_{2}$ sequence the problem including off-diagonal terms can be reduced to the diagonal model Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) with the replacement of the single site reorganization energy $\lambda$ with the reorganization energy for charge transfer between adjacent sites. For $GGG$ sequence the similar replacement with removal off-diagonal terms remains a good approximation (see Sec. \[sec:offdiag\]). Therefore all our results are valid if we consider the more general interaction model with the replacement of the single site reorganization energy $\lambda$ with the charge transfer reorganization energy $\lambda_{*}$ as described below in Sec. \[sec:expression\]. We assume the electron transfer integral $b$ to be independent of the environment fluctuations. Fluctuations of the electron transfer integral were treated as less significant compared to fluctuations in local site energies because the change of the site energy by more than the thermal energy strongly modifies the tunneling rate, while the change in the electron transfer integral requires the energy fluctuation comparable to the energy $\delta E \sim \hbar/\tau$ where $\tau$ is the tunneling time for the electron transition [@classic2]. This energy $\delta E$ can be comparable to the barrier height [@ab_7] which is much larger than the thermal energy. The above expectation conflicts with the molecular dynamics simulations of the electron transfer integral between hole states in adjacent G bases affected by the interaction with environment (see Ref. [@voityuk3] and references therein), where the remarkable effect of fluctuations on the electron transfer integral has been found. However, molecular dynamics results should be considered with care because of the classical treatment of the nuclei motion, which can be partially of the quantum mechanical nature. We estimated the effect of the distribution of the electron transfer integral $b$ on the ratios of charge transfer rates for the system described by Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]). The distribution of $b$ was approximated by the Gaussian distribution with parameters $<b> \approx 0.046$eV and $\delta b \approx 0.064$eV [@voityuk3] while reorganization energy was taken as $\lambda=0.24eV$ [@voityuk4]. The calculations result in the overestimated ratio of charge transfer rates $r_{2}$ Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) by the factor of five. This result queries the accuracy of molecular dynamics approximation to fluctuations. Also the measurements of charge transfer efficiency between $G$ and $GGG$ sequences separated by $n$ $AT$ pairs [@giesenature] can be successfully interpreted assuming that the charge transfer integral is constant at least for $n<5$ $AT$ pairs [@ab_8]. In the experiment [@FredMain] $G_{n}$ sequence was surrounded by $A$ bases. The addition of $A$ bases surrounding $G_{n}$ sequences to our model Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) can change our results. The changes are associated with the possible sensitivity of the hole energy in the $G$ site to its neighbors and the ability of the hole to come virtually to the adjacent $A$ site. According to quantum chemistry calculations the ionization potential of the $G$ base depends on surrounding bases [@Voityuk1]. However, the difference of ionization potentials for $GG^{+}G$, $AG^{+}G$ and $GG^{+}A$ does not exceed $0.1$eV. It is remarkably smaller than the reorganization energy and therefore we will ignore it. The error of semiempirical methods used to calculate the ionization potential is comparable to the maximum calculated effect $\sim 0.1$eV so we cannot consider the energy change $0.1$eV or smaller. Screening of electrostatic interaction by water can also reduce the effect of neighbors on the $G^{+}$ state ionization potential. The changes associated with the extension of the charge wavefunction to adjacent $A$ sites can be more important. However these changes do not affect our main conclusion about the strong localization of the charge ground state as shown in Sec. \[sec:Abases\]. We ignore the second strand ($C_{n}$) because of the weak coupling between strands [@Voityuk] and the large difference of $G$ and $C$ ionization potentials exceeding $1$eV [@Sugiyama]. Evaluation of rate ratios {#sec:expression} ========================= We study the ratios of charge transfer rates Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]). Each partition function is given by $Z_{n}=\int dX_{1}...dX_{n}Tr e^{-\beta \widehat{H}_{n}}$, where $\widehat{H}_{n}$ is the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) describing $G_{n}$ sequence, trace is taken only over states with the single hole ($Z_{n+}$) or no holes ($Z_{n}$) and $\beta=1/(k_{B}T)$. If there is no hole calculations are reduced to multiple evaluation of a Gaussian integral leading to the expression $$\begin{aligned} Z_{n} = c^{n}, \, \, \, c=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi\lambda}{\beta}}. \label{eq:zero_part_trace}\end{aligned}$$ For the sequences containing a hole an analytical expression can be obtained only for $n=1$ $$\begin{aligned} Z_{1+} = ce^{\beta\lambda/2}. \label{eq:one_part_trace1}\end{aligned}$$ For any number $n$ of $GC$ pairs calculations can be simplified integrating the partition function over a “center of mass” coordinate $X_{1}+..X_{n}$, which is coupled to the conserving operator of the total number of particles $c_{1}^{+}c_{1}+..+c_{n}^{+}c_{n}=1$. In the case $n=2$ one can conveniently introduce the new coordinates as $X=X_{1}+X_{2}$ and $u=X_{1}-X_{2}$. Then the Hamiltonian of two base pairs (Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) for $n=2$) takes the form $$\widehat{H}_{2} = \frac{X^{2}}{4\lambda} - \frac{X}{2} +\frac{u^{2}}{4\lambda} -\frac{u(n_{1}-n_{2})}{2} -b (c_{1}^{+}c_{2}+c_{2}^{+}c_{1}). \label{eq:Ham1}$$ Eigenenergies of this Hamiltonian can be written as $$E_{\mp} = \frac{X^{2}}{4\lambda} - \frac{X}{2} + \frac{u^{2}}{4\lambda} \mp \sqrt{\frac{u^2}{4}+b^2}. \label{eq:Ham1E}$$ Accordingly the partition function takes the form $$\begin{aligned} Z_{2+} = \frac{1}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dXe^{\frac{-\beta X^{2}}{4\lambda} + \frac{\beta X}{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4\lambda}}2\cosh\left(\beta\sqrt{\frac{u^{2}}{4}+b^{2}}\right), \label{eq:one_part_trace2before}\end{aligned}$$ The factor $1/2$ is concerned with the coordinate transformation. Performing integration over the center of mass coordinate $X$ we get $$\begin{aligned} Z_{2+} = (\sqrt{2}c)e^{\beta\lambda/4}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4\lambda}}\cosh\left(\beta\sqrt{\frac{u^{2}}{4}+b^{2}}\right). \label{eq:one_part_trace2}\end{aligned}$$ The ratio $r_{2}$ of reaction rates Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned} r_{2} = \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{\pi\lambda}}e^{-\beta\lambda/4}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4\lambda}}\cosh\left(\beta\sqrt{\frac{u^{2}}{4}+b^{2}}\right). \label{eq:one_part_rat2}\end{aligned}$$ Consider $GG$ sequence with off-diagonal interaction of environment coordinates $$\widehat{H}_{env}= \frac{A_{0}(X_{1}^{2}+X_{2}^{2})}{2}+A_{1}X_{1}X_{2}. \label{eq:off_diag_G_2H1}$$ The coefficients $\widehat{A}$ can be expressed in terms of the average coordinate fluctuation matrix $\widehat{B}$ as $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} A_{0} & A_{1} \\ A_{1} & A_{0} \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} B_{0} & B_{1} \\ B_{1} & B_{0} \end{array} \right) ^{-1}, \label{eq:matrixA}$$ where the elements of the matrix $\widehat{B}$ are defined as [@LeBard] $$k_{B}T B_{0}= <X_{1}^{2}>=<X_{2}^{2}>, \, \, k_{B}T B_{1}= <X_{1}X_{2}>. \label{eq:matrixB}$$ $<...>$ means the standard thermodynamics averaging with the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:off\_diag\_G\_2H1\]). Then we can still proceed to the new coordinates $X$ and $u$ defined as previously. The Hamiltonian can be written as $$\widehat{H}_{p1} = \frac{(A_{0}+A_{1})X^{2}}{4} - \frac{X}{2} +\frac{(A_{0}-A_{1})u^{2}}{4} -\frac{u(n_{1}-n_{2})}{2} -b (c_{1}^{+}c_{2}+c_{2}^{+}c_{1}). \label{eq:Ham11}$$ Note that the Hamiltonian for the single site has different definition of the diagonal term of the environment energy ($n =0, 1$ is the population of the single $G$ site) $$\widehat{H}_{s} = \frac{X^{2}}{2B_{0}} - nX. \label{Ham_soffd}$$ This is because the Hamiltonian must provide the right expressions for average squared polarizations in Eq. (\[eq:matrixB\]). The partition functions involved in our consideration for $r_{2}$ can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned} Z_{1}= \sqrt{\frac{2\pi B_{0}}{\beta}}, \, \, Z_{1+}= \sqrt{\frac{2\pi B_{0}}{\beta}}e^{\beta B_{0}/2}, \, \, Z_{2}=\frac{2\pi}{\beta\sqrt{A_{0}^{2}-A_{1}^{2}}}, \nonumber\\ Z_{2+} = \sqrt{\frac{\pi (B_{0}+B_{1})}{\beta}}e^{\beta (B_{0}+B_{1})/4}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4\lambda_{*}}}2\cosh\left(\beta\sqrt{\frac{u^{2}}{4}+b^{2}}\right), \nonumber\\ \lambda_{*}=B_{0}-B_{1}. \label{eq:G2offdpart}\end{aligned}$$ The expression for the ratio $r_{2}$ Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned} r_{2} = \sqrt{2\frac{\beta }{\pi (B_{0}-B_{1})}}e^{-\beta (B_{0}-B_{1}))/4}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4(B_{0}-B_{1})}}\cosh\left(\beta\sqrt{\frac{u^{2}}{4}+b^{2}}\right). \label{eq:one_part_rat2_offdiag}\end{aligned}$$ This expression has the form identical to Eq. (\[eq:one\_part\_rat2\]) if the reorganization energy $\lambda$ is replaced with $\lambda_{*}=B_{0}-B_{1}$. The new parameter $\lambda_{*}$ is the reorganization energy for the charge transfer between adjacent sites. This is the relevant parameter which can be used also for $GGG$ sequence and more complicated sequences as it will be shown in Sec. \[sec:offdiag\]. The expression for $r_{3}$ is more complicated. Below we give the result after integration over the coordinate of the center of mass $X=X_{1}+X_{2}+X_{3}$ and use two other coordinates $v=X_{1}-2X_{2}+X_{3}$ and $u=X_{1}-X_{3}$ in the case of the “diagonal” environment energy Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) $$\begin{aligned} r_{3}= \frac{\beta}{4\sqrt{3}\pi\lambda}e^{-\frac{\beta\lambda}{3}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dv\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta v^{2}}{12\lambda}-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4\lambda} } \cdot Tr\left(\exp(-\beta \widehat{V}_{3})\right), \nonumber\\ \widehat{V}_{3}=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} \frac{v}{2}+\frac{u}{6} & -b & 0 \\ -b & -\frac{u}{3} & -b \\ 0 & -b & -\frac{v}{2} +\frac{u}{6}\end{array} \right). \label{eq:G3integr}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly one can obtain the expression for $r_{4}$ $$\begin{aligned} r_{4}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\beta}{2\pi\lambda}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\frac{3\beta\lambda}{8}}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dt\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dv\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}du e^{-\frac{\beta t^{2}}{8\lambda}-\frac{\beta u^{2}}{4\lambda}-\frac{\beta v^{2}}{4\lambda}} \cdot Tr\left(\exp(-\beta \widehat{V}_{4})\right); \nonumber\\ \widehat{V}_{4}=\left( \begin{array}{cccc} \frac{t}{4}+\frac{u}{2} & -b & 0 & 0 \\ -b & -\frac{t}{4}+ \frac{v}{2}& -b & 0 \\ 0 & -b & -\frac{t}{4} -\frac{v}{2} & -b \\ 0 & 0& -b & \frac{t}{4} -\frac{u}{2} \end{array} \right); \nonumber\\ t=X_{1}-X_{2}-X_{3}+X_{4}, \, \, u=X_{1}-X_{4}, \, \, v=X_{2}-X_{3}. \label{eq:r4}\end{aligned}$$ Eqs. (\[eq:one\_part\_rat2\]), (\[eq:G3integr\]), (\[eq:r4\]) were used for the numerical evaluation of partition functions and ratios $r_{2}$, $r_{3}$ and $r_{4}$. Definition of parameters consistent with experiment {#sec:data_analysis1} =================================================== Numerical results {#sec:part_func} ----------------- We have performed numerical evaluations of ratios in Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) to find domains of parameters $b$ and $\lambda$ satisfying Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]) and show these domains in Fig. \[fig:potential\]. The upper (lower) border of each domain is defined by the maximum (minimum) value of ratios $r_{2}$ and $r_{3}$ Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) within the experimental error ($8.7$ ($6.7$) for $GG$ and $21$ ($19$) for $GGG$). The acceptable domain of parameters for a $GGG$ sequence fully belongs to the corresponding domain for a $GG$ sequence. Thus the domains for $GG$ and $GGG$ base sequences are completely consistent with each other. Therefore we cannot determine parameters $\lambda$ and $b$ better then using the “dark” domain for $GGG$. This information is still sufficient to consider the localization of the hole wavefunction in $G_{n}$ aggregates. ![The domains consistent with the experimental ratios of reaction rates Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]), dark grey for $GGG$ and light grey for $GG$. Inset shows the fraction of the quantum charge state belonging to the central site ($P_{0}$) vs. the reorganization energy $\lambda$. Charge transfer integral $b$ is determined in the way to satisfy Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]). We assumed that the system is nearly in its ground state. \[fig:potential\] ](Fig_ONE.eps){width="15cm"} Since the thermal energy $k_{B}T \approx 0.026$eV is smaller than at least one of two other characteristic energies of the system (remember that the minimum estimate for the reorganization energy is $\lambda \sim 0.25$eV [@Berashevich]) we can characterize the wavefunction using the system ground state at coordinates $X_{i}$ ($i=1, ... n$) minimizing the ground state energy. In the relevant domain of parameters in Fig. \[fig:potential\] ($\lambda > 0.25$eV) the ground state wavefunction is centered at one of $G$ bases (left or right ones for a $GG$ sequence and the central one for a $GGG$ sequence). We describe this state by the probability $P_{0}$ for the particle in the ground state to be in this central site. This probability can be calculated using the relationship $$P_{0}=\frac{X_{i}}{\lambda}, \label{eq:coord_reorg_en}$$ where $i$ is the central site. This equation can be derived as following. Coordinates $X_{j}$ ($j=1,...n$) in the energy minimum satisfy the condition $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\partial \left<g\left|\widehat{H}\right|g\right>}{\partial X_{j}}= 0, \label{eq:energymin1}\end{aligned}$$ where $|g>$ is the wavefunction of the hole ground state at given coordinates $X_{j}$. Using Eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) one can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:energymin1\]) as $$\begin{aligned} 0=\frac{X_{j}}{\lambda} - <n_{j}>. \label{eq:wnwrgymin2}\end{aligned}$$ The average population of the central site $i$ ($<n_{i}>$) is equal to the probability $P_{0}$ to find the hole there. Accordingly we end up with Eq.(\[eq:coord\_reorg\_en\]). Consider the ground state wavefunction for the hole within the $GG$ sequence. The expression for the hole ground state energy of the $GG$ sequence at arbitrary coordinates $X_{1}$, $X_{2}$ reads $E_{2}=\frac{X_{1}^{2}+X_{2}^{2}}{2\lambda}-\frac{X_{1}+X_{2}}{2}-\sqrt{\frac{(X_{1}-X_{2})^2}{4}+b^2}$. In the regime of interest $2b<\lambda$ (see Fig. \[fig:potential\]) the minimum of energy is given by $$E_{2min}=-\frac{\lambda}{2}-\frac{b^2}{\lambda}, \label{eq:pairenergymin}$$ and it is realized at $X_{1}=\lambda/2\pm\sqrt{(\lambda/2)^2-b^2} = \lambda-X_{2}$. Accordingly $$P_{0}=\frac{X_{1}}{\lambda}=\frac{\lambda+\sqrt{\lambda^2-4b^2}}{2\lambda}. \label{eq:p02}$$ Note that if $2\lambda<b$ the ground state wavefunction is symmetric in the minimum ($X_{1}=X_{2}=\lambda/2$) and the energy of this state is given by $$E_{2symm}=-\frac{\lambda}{4}-b. \label{eq:pairenergyminsaddle}$$ Consequently $P_{0}=1/2$ (see Fig. \[fig:potential\]). In the case of $2b<\lambda$ this symmetric state is the transition state for the charge transfer $G^{+}G \leftarrow\rightarrow GG^{+}$ (saddle point in the energy function $E_{2}(X_{1},X_{2})$ between the energy minima centered in the first and the second $G$ bases). For $GGG$ complex the probability $P_{0}$ that the hole resides in the central site has been evaluated numerically. Both probabilities $P_{0}$ obtained for the $\lambda$ - $b$ line corresponding to the ratio $r_{2}=7.7$ Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]) are shown in the inset in Fig. \[fig:potential\]. It is clear from this graph that for both $GG$ and $GGG$ sequences the wavefunction of the hole is essentially localized within the single $G$ site. For instance at the minimum value of $\lambda \sim 0.25eV$ we have $85\%$ and $78\%$ of the probability to find the particle in that site for $GG$ and $GGG$ sequences, respectively. These probabilities increase for $\lambda=1$eV to $96\%$ and $94\%$, respectively. Thus we come to the important conclusion that the wavefunction of hole is essentially localized in the single $G$ site for $G_{n}$ sequences. This conclusion differs from the predictions of previous work [@Berashevich; @Conwell; @Taiwan] where the the quantum state of the hole was represented as a polaron of an intermediate range shared between several base pairs. In addition to the analysis of the $G_{2}^{+}$ and $G_{3}^{+}$ complexes we have performed the calculations for $G_{4}^{+}$ complexes for experimental verification of our theory. The partition function for $G_{4}^{+}$ complex can be evaluated integrating first the center of mass position similarly to our previous calculations. The predictions for the ratio $r_{4}$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:G4\] by the solid line denoted as $n=4$. The parameters $\lambda$ and $b$ for calculations were obtained using the experimental condition $r_{3}(\lambda, b)=20$ Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]). Using these parameters we calculated the ratio $r_{2}$ (solid line marked by $n=2$) and ratio $r_{4}$ (solid line marked by $n=4$) Eq. (\[eq:r4\]). ![Predictions for the ratio $r_{4}$ using parameters $b$ and $\lambda$ related by the experimental condition $r_{3}(b, \lambda)=20$ Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]). Solid line denoted by $n=4$ shows the predicted value of $r_{4}$ while two dashed lines show upper and lower boundaries for $r_{4}$ defined in accordance with Eq. (\[eq:arithm\_ser1\]). Results for $n=2$ calculated under the same assumptions are shown for comparison. Upper and lower boundaries for $r_{2}$ are given in accordance with the experiment [@FredMain], Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]). \[fig:G4\] ](Fig_TWO.eps){width="15cm"} According to Fig. \[fig:G4\] the ratio $r_{4}$ does not change much in the whole domain of parameters $\lambda$ and $b$ satisfying the balance equations Eq. (\[GrindEQ\_\_5\_\]). We can estimate it to be around $33$ and this is our prediction for the further experimental verification. Understanding of the balance of charge transfer reactions {#sec:data_analysis} --------------------------------------------------------- An impressive consistency between $GG$ and $GGG$ base sequences in Fig. \[fig:potential\] is not accidental coincidence and can be explained by the strong localization of charge wavefunctions. In the regime of strong localization the partition function $Z_{n+}$ for $n\geq 2$ can be represented as the sum of $n$ contributions of energy minima corresponding to wavefunctions centered in all $n$ $G$ sites with coordinates $X$ realizing the corresponding energy minimum $X_{i} \approx \lambda \gg X_{k}$, $k\neq i$ for the state centered at site $i$. Since in the zeroth order approximation in $b/\lambda$ each quantum state is localized at one site we can neglect the difference in preexponential factors for the case of $b=0$ and approximate the partial $i^{th}$ contribution to the partition function as $Z_{n}^{i}=c^{n}e^{-\beta E_{i}^{(0)}}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:zero\_part\_trace\])), where $E_{i}^{(0)}=-\lambda/2$ is the energy of the ground state for coordinates $X$ realizing the local minimum in the absence of electronic coupling ($b=0$). Second order correction in $b$ to the energy $E_{i}^{(0)} = -\lambda/2$, which is the first non-vanishing correction, is important because it appears in the exponent $e^{-\beta E}$ and it is multiplied by the large factor $\beta$. For two states at the edges this correction adds to the hole energy as $E_{1}^{(1)} = E_{n}^{(1)} \approx -\lambda/2-b^{2}/\lambda$, which coincides with the ground state energy for $GG$ Eq. (\[eq:pairenergymin\]). For $n-2$ remaining states the correction to the energy should be doubled because of the addition of contributions of two neighbors so we got $E_{i}^{(1)} = -\lambda/2 - 2b^{2}/\lambda$, $1<i<n$. The change in equilibrium environment coordinates can be neglected because near the energy minimum it leads to the effect of order of $(b/\lambda)^{4}$. Consequently, we can approximate the ratio $r_{n}$ (cf. Eq. (\[eq:rat1\])) as $$\begin{aligned} r_{n}=\frac{Z_{n+}Z_{1}}{Z_{n}Z_{1+}} \approx 2e^{\beta b^2/\lambda}+(n-2)e^{2\beta b^2/\lambda}. \label{eq:theorGGG} \end{aligned}$$ These predictions are compared with the numerical calculations in Fig. \[fig:one\_part\_rat2\]. One can conclude that perturbation theory works reasonably well in the parameter domain of interest corresponding to $\lambda>0.25$eV for $n=2$ and $n=3$. ![Comparison of perturbation theory approaches with numerical simulations for ratios $r_{1}$ and $r_{2}$. Curves show predictions of Eq. (\[eq:theorGGG\]) for parameters $\lambda$ and $b$ chosen to satisfy Eqs. (\[eq:one\_part\_rat2\]), (\[eq:G3integr\]), respectively ($r_{2}(\lambda, b)=7.7$, $r_{3}(\lambda, b)=20$). \[fig:one\_part\_rat2\] ](Fig_THREE.eps){width="15cm"} In particularly, it follows from Eq. (\[eq:theorGGG\]) that $(Z_{3+}Z_{1}/(Z_{3}Z_{1+}) \approx (Z_{2+}Z_{1}/(Z_{2}Z_{1+})+((Z_{2+}Z_{1}/(2Z_{2}Z_{1+}))^2)$. Indeed, this relationship is satisfied for the experimental values of ratios within the accuracy of the experiment. This explains the consistency of domains for $GG$ and $GGG$ Fig. \[fig:potential\]. Using Eq. (\[eq:theorGGG\]) one can predict that ratios $r_{n}$ form arithmetic series, which can be expressed as $$r_{n}=7.7+12.3\cdot (n-2). \label{eq:arithm_ser1}$$ For balance between $G$ and $GGGG$ sequence we predict the ratio $r_{4}=2r_{3}-r_{2}=32.3\pm 2$. This estimate agrees with our numerical calculations for the $(GGGG)^{+}$ partition function and reaction rate ratio $r_{4}$ (see Fig. \[fig:G4\]). The perturbation theory analysis described above is approximately valid even if the energy of solvent fluctuations Eq. (\[eq:Ham1\]) can not be expressed as the bilinear function of coordinates $X$. One can still define the reorganization energy $\lambda$ as the energy difference of adjacent $G$ bases in $G^{+}G$ sequence induced by the environment polarization around the charge localized at the only one (left) base. Then all our conclusions about localization remain valid, but the potential barriers for charge transfer will be larger than in the case of the “harmonic” potential ($\lambda/4$) because higher order nonlinear terms make the barrier sharper. Since perturbation theory works reasonably well in the parameter domain of interest, we will use it to study more complicated questions of the charge transfer reaction balance in the presence of off-diagonal interaction of solvent polarizations (cf. Eq. (\[eq:off\_diag\_G\_2H1\])) and in the presence of $A$ bases surrounding $G_{n}$ complexes in experiments [@FredMain]. This analysis is reported below in Secs. \[sec:offdiag\], \[sec:Abases\], respectively. Perturbation theory in case of off-diagonal correlations of environment polarizations {#sec:offdiag} ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The most general Hamiltonian of environment in the bilinear approach can be expressed as $$\widehat{H}_{env} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}A_{ij}X_{i}X_{j}, \label{eq:H_gen_offdiag}$$ where the interaction matrix $\widehat{A}$ is defined as the inverse correlation matrix $\widehat{B}$ (cf. Eq. (\[eq:matrixA\])) $$\widehat{A} = \widehat{B}^{-1}, \, \, B_{ij}=B_{|i-j|}=\frac{<X_{i}X_{j}>}{k_{B}T}. \label{eq:Bmatr_gen1}$$ Here average is defined as the thermodynamic average with the Hamiltonian Eq. (\[eq:H\_gen\_offdiag\]). Consider the single hole problem using the perturbation theory with respect to the electron transfer integral $b$. Then in the zeroth order approximation we set $b=0$ and assume that the hole is localized in some $G$ base numbered by index $k$. This problem can be described by the Hamiltonian $$\widehat{H}_{int} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}A_{ij}X_{i}X_{j} - X_{k}. \label{eq:offdiag_zeroinb}$$ The energy minimum is realized at the point where all $n$ derivatives of energy Eq. (\[eq:offdiag\_zeroinb\]) with respect to $X_{i}$ ($i=1, .. n$) are zeros $\sum_{j=1}^{n}A_{ij}X_{j}=\delta_{ik}$. The solution to this equation is given by $$X_{i}^{(0)}=B_{|i-k|}, \label{eq:eq_coord_zeroinb}$$ and the energy minimum is $E_{k}^{(0)}=-\frac{B_{0}}{2}$. The first non-vanishing correction to the energy due to the small but finite electron transfer integral $b$ appears in the second order of perturbation theory and can be expressed as $$\delta E_{k}^{(2)}=-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{b^{2}\Delta_{ik}}{X_{i}^{(0)}-X_{k}^{(0)}}, \label{eq:eq_energ_secondinb0}$$ where the symbol $\Delta_{ik}$ is equal $0$ if $i$ and $k$ are non-neighboring $G$ - sites or it is equal $1$ for neighboring $G$ sites. Using the zero-point approximation for equilibrium coordinates Eq. (\[eq:eq\_coord\_zeroinb\]) we get (cf. Eq. (\[eq:G2offdpart\])) $$\delta E_{k}^{(2)}=-z\frac{b^{2}}{B_{0}-B_{1}}=-z\frac{b^{2}}{\lambda_{*}}, \label{eq:eq_energ_secondinb}$$ where $z$ is the number of neighboring $G$ sites for the center of charge localization. If this site is in the edge of the $G_{n}^{+}$ sequence we get $z=1$ and if it is in the middle we get $z=2$. Thus energies of all representative states for $G_{n}^{+}$ sequences can be expressed within the second order of perturbation theory similarly to energies for the diagonal interaction (see Sec. \[sec:data\_analysis\]). The preexponential factors in all partition functions in the zeroth order in the electron transfer integral $b$ are given by factors $1/\sqrt{\det A}$, which are all the same in the top and the bottom of ratios $r_{n}$. Therefore one can still use Eq. (\[eq:theorGGG\]) replacing the single site reorganisation energy $\lambda$ with the charge transfer reorganization energy $$\lambda_{*} = B_{0}-B_{1}. \label{eq:mod_reorg_en}$$ This approximation is applicable in the regime of the strong localization. The approximate relationship between parameters of the system can be obtained using Eq. (\[eq:theorGGG\]) with $n=3$ where $r_{n}\approx 20$. Solving this equation for the parameter in exponent we get $$\frac{b^{2}}{\lambda_{*}} \approx 0.033 {\rm eV}. \label{eq:b_lambd*}$$ This is the approximate analytical relationship between the adjacent site reorganization energy and electron transfer integral. Effect of adjacent $A$ bases {#sec:Abases} ---------------------------- In the experiment [@FredMain] each $G_{n}$ complex is always surrounded by $A$ bases. Ionization potential of $A$ base exceeds the one for the $G$ base by approximately $0.5$eV [@Voityuk1]. This potential difference is much larger than the estimated value of the electron transfer integral $b$ (see Fig. \[fig:potential\]) so we do not expect the crucial effect due to the coupling of $G$ and $A$ bases. The coupling strength of adjacent $G$ and $A$ bases has been estimated in Ref. [@Voityuk]. For the equilibrium twisting angle $\theta\approx 36^{0}$ the overlap integral for the $GA$ pair is approximately the same as for the $GG$ pair, while for $AG$ pair it is about two times smaller (data are given for $5'-3'$ strand). If we take this effect into account using the perturbation theory approach then the ratios $r_{2}$ and $r_{3}$ take the form $$\begin{aligned} r_{2} \approx \exp\left(-\frac{\beta b^2}{\lambda_{*}+\Delta} + \frac{\beta b^{2}}{\lambda_{*}}\right) + \exp\left(-\frac{\beta b^2}{4(\lambda_{*}+\Delta)} + \frac{\beta b^{2}}{\lambda_{*}}\right), \nonumber\\ r_{3} = r_{2} + \exp\left(\frac{2\beta b^{2}}{\lambda_{*}}-\frac{\beta b^2}{\lambda_{*}+\Delta}-\frac{\beta b^2}{4(\lambda_{*}+\Delta)}\right) \label{eq:ratA}\end{aligned}$$ These equations can be resolved for $\lambda_{*}$ and $b$. We obtained $\lambda_{*}=0.66$eV and $b=0.18$eV. Clearly this estimate corresponds to the regime of the strong localization. The expectation for the electron transfer integral in the absence of $A$ bases for $\lambda_{*}=0.66$eV is $b=0.15$eV (see Fig. \[fig:potential\]) so there is a deviation between two solutions by about $20\%$. However we cannot take this estimate quite seriously because (1) Our estimate for the electron transfer integral $b=0.18$eV exceeds the one in Ref. [@Voityuk] by almost the factor of $2$ (2) If we include the experimental error into our estimate then both parameters $b$ and $\lambda_{*}$ will not strongly deviate from Eq. (\[eq:b\_lambd\*\]), while they may vary remarkably compared to the above estimate. Therefore the consideration of $A$ bases seems to be the excess of accuracy. We believe that the effect of $A$ bases can be clarified experimentally. In the sequence $TG_{n}^{+}T$ it will be more justified to ignore surrounding $T$ bases then to ignore $A$ bases in the sequence $AG_{n}^{+}A$ studied in Ref. [@FredMain]. This is because the ionization potential of $T$ base exceeds that for $G$ base by the factor of $3$ more than the one for $A$ base. Therefore the measurements of ratios $r_{n}$ for $G$ sequences separated by $T$ bases will clarify the effect of neighboring bases and possibly lead to better estimates for $b$ and $\lambda$. One should notice that both the addition of $A$ bases and the correlations of environment coordinates into consideration does not change our prediction that the ratios of reaction rates $r_{n}$ form the arithmetic series Eq. (\[eq:arithm\_ser1\]) in the case of the strong localization of charge. Conclusion {#sec:conclusion} ========== We have considered the quantum state of the positive charge (hole) in poly-$G$ - poly-$C$ base sequence. We have studied a very simple but quite general model of $G_{n}$ sequence characterized by two parameters including electron transfer integral $b$ and reorganization energy $\lambda$. Our choice of parameters $b$ and $\lambda$ was determined by the the comparison of theory and experiment for the ratios $r_{n}$ ($n=2$, $3$) of the charge transfer rate between single $G$ and $G_{n}$ complexes. It turns out that the agreement with the experimental data for the ratios $r_{n}$ Eq. (\[eq:rat1\]), Ref. [@FredMain] can be attained only assuming the strong localization of charge within a single $G$-base. The charge in DNA then behaves as a small polaron with the size less than the interbase distance. Charge hopping takes place due to rare environment fluctuations. Charge transfer rate is determined by the probability of such fluctuation and should obey the Arrhenius law. Based on our theory we predict that ratios of charge transfer rates form the arithmetic series $r_{n}=7.7+12.3\cdot (n-2)$. We propose the experiment measuring the ratios of rates for $n \geq 4$ as a direct verification of our theory. However we cannot uniquely identify specific values of the electron transfer integral $b$ and the reorganization energy $\lambda$. Measurements of similar ratios in $TG_{n}T$ sequences can be used to verify the theory and to make better parameter estimates. In addition one can attempt to determine these parameters by measuring the temperature dependence of the charge transfer rate through poly-$G$ - poly-$C$ base sequence. We expect that this temperature dependence can be described by the Arrhenius law with the activation energy defined by the difference of charge symmetric transition state energy within $(GG)^{+}$ base sequence Eq. (\[eq:pairenergyminsaddle\]) and the charge ground state energy for $(GG)^{+}$ state Eq. (\[eq:pairenergymin\]) $E_{A}=\lambda/4-b+b^{2}/\lambda$ [@commentnext]. Since another relationship between $b$ and $\lambda$ is known from the ratio of charge transfer rates $r_{2}$ and $r_{3}$ (see Fig. \[fig:potential\]) this information will be sufficient to find both parameters. Note that the temperature range where such dependence can be measured is quite narrow ($380$K$<T<410$K) so it will be hard to prove the Arrhenius law based on such experimental data. Therefore it can be only assumption that this law is indeed applicable. Despite of the narrow temperature range the remarkable change in the charge transfer rate is expected with growing the temperature from its minimum $380$K to its maximum $410$K. For instance if $\lambda=0.3$eV this rate will increase by the factor $1.5$ with increasing temperature, while if $\lambda=1$eV then the rate will increase by the factor $3.8$. This work is supported by the NSF CRC Program, Grant No. 0628092. The authors acknowledge Frederick Lewis, Michael Wasielewski, George Schatz, Thorsten Fiebig, Yuri Berlin and Mark Ratner for useful discussions. C. J. Murphy, M. R. Arkin, Y. Jenkins, N. D. Ghatlia, S. H. Bossmann, N. J. Turro, and J. K. Barton, *Science,* Vol. **262**, 1025 (1993). M. R. Arkin, E. D.A. Stemp, R. E. Holmlin, J. K. Barton, A. Hoermann, E. J.C. Olson, P. F. Barbara, *Science*, **273,** 475 (1996). D. B. Hall, R. E. Holmlin and J. K. Barton, *Nature*, **382**, 731 (1996). E. Meggers, M. E. Michel-Beyerle, B. Giese, J. Amer. Chem. Soc. [**120**]{}, 12950 (1998). P. T. Henderson, D. Jones, G. Hampikian G, Y. Z. Kan, G. B. Schuster, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. [**96**]{}, 8353 (1999). S. R. Rajski, B. A. Jackson, and J. K. Barton, Mutat. Res. [**447**]{}, 49 (2000). C. T. Shih, S. Roche, R. A. Romer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**1**]{}, 018105 (2008). D. Porath, A. Bezryadin, S. de Vries and C. Dekker, *Nature*, **403**, 635 (2000); T. Takada, K.Kawai, M. Fujitsuka, T. Majima, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. [**101**]{}, 14002 (2004). F. D. Lewis, X. Liu, J. Liu, S. E. Miller, R. T. Hayes and M. R. Wasilewski, *Nature*, **406**, 51-53 (2000); F. D. Lewis, X. Liu, J. Liu, R. T. Hayes and M. R. Wasilewski, *J.Am. Chem. Soc.*, **122**, 12037 (2000). H. Sugiyama, I. Saito*J. Am. Chem. Soc.*, **118**, 7063 (1996). All quantum states in one-dimensional random system are localized at the scale $l\sim a(b/\Delta)^2$ where $a$ is the interatomic distance, $b$ is overlap integral and $\Delta$ is disordering in energy, see e. g. B. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 823 (1982). M. Unge, S. Stafstrom, Nano Lett. [**3**]{}, 1417 (2003). M. Bixon, B. Giese, S. Wessely, T. Langenbacher, M. E. Michel-Beyerle, J. Jortner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. [**96**]{}, 11713 (1999). Y. A. Berlin, A. L. Burin, M. A. Ratner, J. Phys. Chem. A [**104**]{}, 443 (2000). I. V. Kurnikov, G.S.M. Tong, M. Madrid, D. Beratan, *J. Phys. Chem. B*, **106**, 7 (2002). Y. A. Berlin, I. V. Kurnikov, D. Beratan, M. A. Ratner, A. L. Burin, Topics in Current Chemistry **237**, 1 (2004). D. LeBard, M. Lilichenko, D. Matyushov, Y. A. Berlin and M. Ratner, *J. Phys. Chem. B*, **107**, 14509 (2003). A. A. Voityuk, N. Rösch, M. Bixon, J. Jortner, J. Phys. Chem. [**104**]{}, 9740 (2000); Kh. Siriwong, A. A. Voityuk, M. D. Newton, N. Rösch, *J. Phys. Chem. B*, **107**, 14509 (2003); A. A. Voityuk, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**451**]{}, 153 (2008). J. A. Berashevich, T. Chakraborty, J. Phys. Chem. B [**111**]{}, 13465 (2007). E. M. Conwell, D. M. Basko *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **123***,* 11441 (2001); E. M. Conwell, S. M. Bloch, P. M. McLaughlin, D. M. Basko, *J. Am. Chem. Soc.* **129***,* 9175 (2007); X. F. Wang and T. Chakraborty, *Phys. Rev. Lett.,* **97**, 106602 (2006) R. A. Marcus, *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, **65**, 599 (1993). J. N. Onuchic, D. N. Beratan, J. J. Hopfield, J. Phys. Chem. [**90**]{}, 3707 (1986); A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fischer, W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**59**]{}, 1 (1987). A. L. Burin, Yu. A. Berlin, M. A. Ratner, J. Phys. Chem. A [**105**]{}, 2652 (2001)). A. L. Burin, I. Y. Polishchuk, P. Fulde, Y. Sereda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 025505 (2006). A. A. Voityuk, K. Siriwong, N. Rosch, Angew. Chem. Int. [**43**]{}, 624 (2004). M. Buttiker, R. Landauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 1739 (1982); Y. Imry, R. Landauer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**71**]{}, S306 (1999). A. Nitzan, J. Jortner, J. Wilkie, A. L. Burin, M. A. Ratner, J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 5661 (2000). A. A. Voityuk, J. Chem. Phys. [**128**]{}, 045104 (2008). B. Giese, J. Amaudrut, A. K. Kohler, M. Spormann, S. Wessely, Nature [**412**]{}, 318 (2001). Yu. A. Berlin, A. L. Burin, M. A. Ratner, Chemical Physics 275, 61 (2002). A. A. Voityuk, J. Jortner, M. Bixon, N. Rösch, Chemical Physics Letters [**324**]{}.430 (2000). We expect that the charge transfer between adjacent guanines occurs adiabatically. The adiabatic regime takes place, when the Landau-Zener criterion $b^2 > \hbar <|dE/dt|>$ is satisfied, where $b$ is the electron transfer integral and $dE/dt$ is the characteristic rate of energy change [@Marcus]. For crude estimate of $dE/dt$ one can assume that the energy changes are due to the solvent (water) and use $dE/dt \sim \lambda/\tau$, where $\tau \sim 8$ps is the characteristic relaxation rate of the water polarization (e. g. J. B. Hasted, Liquid water: Dielectric properties, in Water A comprehensive treatise, Vol 1, Ed. F. Franks (Plenum Press, New York, 1972) pp. 255-309) and $\lambda \sim 0.5$eV is the reorganization energy for the charge transfer. Then for the electron transfer integral $b>b_{c} \approx 0.006$eV the charge transfer takes place adiabatically. To our knowledge majority of theoretical estimates of $b$ exceed this threshold value $b_{c}$ by at least an order of magnitude (e. g. [@Sugiyama; @Voityuk]), which justifies our expectation.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The *kissing number of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$* is the maximum number of pairwise-nonoverlapping unit spheres that can simultaneously touch a central unit sphere. Mittelmann and Vallentin (2010), based on the semidefinite programming bound of Bachoc and Vallentin (2008), computed the best known upper bounds for the kissing number for several values of $n \leq 23$. In this paper, we exploit the symmetry present in the semidefinite programming bound to provide improved upper bounds for $n = 9$, …, $23$.' address: 'F.C. Machado and F.M. de Oliveira Filho, Instituto de Matemática e Estatística, Rua do Matão 1010, 05508-090 São Paulo/SP, Brazil.' author: - Fabrício Caluza Machado - Fernando Mário de Oliveira Filho date: 'September 16, 2016.' title: Improving the semidefinite programming bound for the kissing number by exploiting polynomial symmetry --- Introduction ============ The *kissing number problem* asks for the maximum number $\tau_n$ of pairwise-nonoverlapping unit spheres that can simultaneously touch a central unit sphere in $n$-dimensional Euclidean space. Its value is known only for $n = 1$, 2, 3, 4, 8, and 24. The case $n = 3$ is already difficult; a detailed proof that $\tau_3 = 12$ appeared only in 1953, given by Schütte and van der Waerden [@SchutteW1953]. For $x$, $y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, denote by $x \cdot y = x_1 y_1 + \cdots + x_n y_n$ the Euclidean inner product and let $S^{n-1} = \{\, x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n : x \cdot x = 1\, \}$ be the $(n-1)$-dimensional unit sphere. The *angular distance* between $x$, $y \in S^{n-1}$ is $d(x, y) = \arccos(x \cdot y)$. A *spherical code with minimum angular distance $\theta$* is a set $C \subseteq S^{n-1}$ such that $d(x, y) \geq \theta$ for all distinct $x$, $y \in C$. Determining the parameter $$A(n, \theta) = \max\{\, |C| : \text{$C \subseteq S^{n-1}$ and~$d(x, y) \geq \theta$ for all distinct~$x$, $y \in C$}\,\}$$ is a problem of interest in communication theory (see Conway and Sloane [@ConwayS1988], Chapters 1 and 3). The kissing number $\tau_n$ equals $A(n, \pi/3)$. Delsarte, Goethals, and Seidel [@DelsarteGS1977] proposed an upper bound for $A(n, \theta)$, known as the linear programming bound, that was later used by Odlyzko and Sloane [@OdlyzkoS1979], and independently Levenshtein [@Levenshtein1979], to prove $\tau_8 = 240$ and $\tau_{24} = 196560$. Musin [@Musin2008] used a stronger version of this bound to show $\tau_{4} = 24$ and Bachoc and Vallentin [@BachocV2008] strengthened it further via semidefinite programming. Mittelmann and Vallentin [@MittelmannV2010] used the semidefinite programming bound to provide a table with the best upper bounds for the kissing number for $n \leq 24$. The semidefinite programming bound of Bachoc and Vallentin is based on an infinite-dimensional polynomial optimization problem. To obtain a finite optimization problem, the maximum degree of the polynomials involved is restricted. By exploiting the symmetry displayed by the polynomials in this problem, using techniques such as the ones described by Gatermann and Parrilo [@GatermannP2004] and Bachoc, Gijswijt, Schrijver, and Vallentin [@BachocGSV2012], it is possible to use polynomials of higher degree, and as a result one obtains improved upper bounds for the kissing number in dimensions 9 through 23. The resulting problems are also more stable and can be solved in less time in comparison to the problems obtained by Mittelmann and Vallentin. Finally, the numerical results are rigorously verified using a method similar to the one presented by Dostert, Guzmán, Oliveira, and Vallentin [@DostertGOV2015]. The semidefinite programming bound {#sec:sdp-bound} ================================== Let us start by recalling the semidefinite programming bound of Bachoc and Vallentin [@BachocV2008]. Let $P_k^n(u)$ denote the Jacobi polynomial of degree $k$ and parameters $((n-3) / 2, (n-3) / 2)$, normalized so that $P_k^n(1) = 1$ (for background on orthogonal polynomials, see e.g. the book by Szegö [@Szego1975]). Fix $d > 0$. Let $Y_k^n$ be the $(d - k + 1) \times (d - k + 1)$ matrix whose entries are polynomials on the variables $u$, $v$, $t$ given by $$(Y_k^n)_{i,j}(u,v,t) = P_i^{n+2k}(u)P_j^{n+2k}(v)Q_k^{n-1}(u,v,t)$$ for $0 \leq i, j \leq d - k$, where $$Q_k^{n-1}(u,v,t) = \big((1-u^2)(1-v^2)\big)^{k/2}P_k^{n-1}\biggl(\frac{t -uv}{\sqrt{(1-u^2)(1-v^2)}}\biggr).$$ The symmetric group on three elements ${\mathcal{S}}_3$ acts on a triple $(u, v, t)$ by permuting its components. This induces an action $$\label{eq:s3-action} \sigma p(u, v, t) = p(\sigma^{-1} (u, v, t))$$ on ${\mathbb{R}}[u, v, t]$, where $\sigma \in {\mathcal{S}}_3$. Matrix $S_k^n$ is obtained from $Y_k^n$ by symmetrization with respect to this action: $$S_k^n(u, v, t) = \frac{1}{6} \sum_{\sigma \in {\mathcal{S}}_3} \sigma Y_k^n(u, v, t).$$ For square matrices $A$, $B$ of the same dimensions, write $\langle A, B \rangle = {\mathrm{tr}}(B^t A)$. For a matrix $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$, we write $A \succeq 0$ to mean that $A$ is positive semidefinite. Fix a dimension $n \geq 3$ and an angle $\theta$ and let $\Delta$ be the set of all triples $(u, v, t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$ that are possible inner products between three points in a spherical code in $S^{n-1}$ of minimum angular distance $\theta$, that is, $(u, v, t) \in \Delta$ if and only if there are points $x$, $y$, $z \in S^{n-1}$ with pairwise minimum angular distance at least $\theta$ such that $u = x \cdot y$, $v = x \cdot z$, and $t = y \cdot z$. The semidefinite programming bound of Bachoc and Vallentin [@BachocV2008] for $A(n, \theta)$ is given by the following optimization problem, where $J$ is the all-ones matrix: $$\label{eq:sdp-bound} \begin{array}{rl} \min&\displaystyle1 + \sum_{k=1}^d a_k + b_{11} + \langle J, F_0\rangle\\[5pt] &\text{(i)\enspace}\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^d a_k P_k^n(u) + 2 b_{12} + b_{22}\\[5pt] &\phantom{(i)\enspace}\displaystyle\qquad {} + 3 \sum_{k=0}^d \langle S_k^n(u, u, 1), F_k \rangle \leq -1\quad\text{for~$u \in [-1, \cos\theta]$},\\ &\text{(ii)\enspace}\displaystyle b_{22} + \sum_{k=0}^d \langle S_k^n(u, v, t), F_k\rangle \leq 0\quad\text{for~$(u, v, t) \in \Delta$},\\[5pt] &a_k \geq 0\quad\text{for~$k = 1$, \dots,~$d$},\\[5pt] &B = \begin{psmallmatrix} b_{11}&b_{12}\\ b_{21}&b_{22} \end{psmallmatrix} \succeq 0,\\[5pt] &\text{$F_k \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(d - k + 1) \times (d - k + 1)}$ and~$F_k \succeq 0$ for~$k = 0$, \dots,~$d$}. \end{array}$$ Bachoc and Vallentin showed the following theorem: If $(a_k, B, F_k)$ is a feasible solution of , then $$A(n, \theta) \leq 1 + \sum_{k=1}^d a_k + b_{11} + \langle J, F_0\rangle.$$ Problem  has infinitely many constraints of types (i) and (ii). These are polynomial constraints: the right-hand side of (i) minus the left-hand side is a univariate polynomial on $u$, which is required to be nonnegative on the interval $[-1, \cos\theta]$; the situation is similar for (ii), but then we have a multivariate polynomial on $u$, $v$, $t$. Polynomial constraints such as (i) and (ii) can be rewritten with sum-of-squares polynomials and semidefinite programming. Writing a (univariate or multivariate) polynomial $p$ as a sum of squares $$p = q_1^2 + \cdots + q_s^2$$ of polynomials $q_i$ is a sufficient condition for $p$ to be nonnegative everywhere. Similarly, let $$D = \{\, x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n : \text{$g_1(x) \geq 0$, \dots,~$g_m(x) \geq 0$}\,\},$$ where the $g_i$ are polynomials, be a basic and closed semialgebraic set. A sufficient condition for a multivariate polynomial $p$ to be nonnegative on $D$ is for there to exist sum-of-squares polynomials $q_0$, $q_1$, …, $q_m$ such that $$\label{eq:domain-sos} p = q_0 + q_1 g_1 + \cdots + q_m g_m.$$ Sum-of-squares polynomials can be represented by positive semidefinite matrices. Indeed, say $p \in {\mathbb{R}}[x]$, with $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$, is a polynomial of degree $2d$ and let $B \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}[x]$ be the set of all monomials of degree up to $d$. Let $v_B\colon B \to {\mathbb{R}}[x]$ be such that $v_B(r) = r$ for $r \in B$. We see $v_B$ as a vector indexed by $B$ whose entries are polynomials, so that $v_B v_B^t$ is a matrix whose entry $(r, s)$, for $r$, $s \in B$, is the polynomial $v_B(r) v_B(s) = rs$. Then $p$ is a sum of squares if and only if there is a positive semidefinite matrix $Q\colon B \times B \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\label{eq:sos-rep} p = v_B^t Q v_B = \langle v_B v_B^t, Q \rangle.$$ For $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, we also write $v_B(x)$ for the vector obtained from $v_B$ by evaluating every entry on $x$; analogously, $(v_B v_B^t)(x)$ is the matrix obtained from $v_B v_B^t$ by evaluating every entry on $x$. So, for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $$p(x) = v_B(x)^t Q v_B(x) = \langle (v_B v_B^t)(x), Q\rangle.$$ Using this relation, we may rewrite constraints (i) and (ii) of . Let $g(u) = (u + 1)(\cos\theta - u)$. Constraint (i) can be then rewritten as $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:i-rewrite} \sum_{k=1}^d a_k P_k^n(u) + 2 b_{12} + b_{22} + 3 \sum_{k=0}^d \langle S_k^n(u, u, 1), F_k \rangle\\ + \langle V_0(u), Q_0 \rangle + \langle g(u) V_1(u), Q_1\rangle = -1\end{gathered}$$ with $Q_0$, $Q_1 \succeq 0$, where $V_0 = v_{B_0} v_{B_0}^t$ with $B_0 = \{1, u, u^2, \ldots, u^d\}$ and $V_1 = v_{B_1} v_{B_1}^t$ with $B_1 = \{ 1, u, u^2, \ldots, u^{d-1} \}$, so that the maximum degree of any polynomial appearing on the left-hand side of  is $2d$. Notice that two more variable matrices have been added to our optimization problem, namely $Q_0$ and $Q_1$. To rewrite constraint (ii), observe that $\Delta$ is a basic and closed semialgebraic set. Indeed, we have $$\Delta = \{\, (u, v, t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^3 : \text{$g_i(u, v, t) \geq 0$ for~$i = 1$, \dots,~4}\,\},$$ where $$\label{eq:delta-polys} \begin{aligned} g_1(u, v, t) &= g(u),&g_2(u, v, t) &= g(v),\\ g_3(u, v, t) &= g(t),&g_4(u, v, t) &= 1 + 2uvt - u^2 - v^2 - t^2. \end{aligned}$$ Constraint (ii) can then be similarly rewritten using , requiring us to add five more variable matrices to the problem: one for the polynomial $q_0$, plus one for each polynomial multiplying one of the $g_i$ polynomials that define $\Delta$. In the next section we will see that, in order to exploit the symmetry of the polynomials in the $S_k^n$ matrices, we need to use different polynomials to represent $\Delta$; we will therefore leave the rewriting of constraint (ii) for later. Finally, notice that the identity in  is not a linear constraint on the entries of the variable matrices, but rather an identity between polynomials. It can however be represented as several linear constraints, by taking any basis of ${\mathbb{R}}[u]_{\leq 2d}$, the space of univariate polynomials of degree up to $2d$, expanding both left and right-hand sides on this basis, and comparing coefficients. We have to do something similar for constraint (ii), but then we need to use a basis of the space ${\mathbb{R}}[u, v, t]_{\leq 2d}$; in §\[sec:results\] we will discuss our choices for such bases. Using sum-of-squares polynomials and their relation with semidefinite programming, we see therefore how to obtain from  a semidefinite programming problem any feasible solution of which provides an upper bound for $A(n, \theta)$. Exploiting symmetry =================== If we rewrite constraint (ii) of  using sum-of-squares polynomials as in , then the largest variable matrix we need will be indexed by all monomials on variables $u$, $v$, $t$ of degree at most $d$. There are $\binom{d+3}{3}$ such monomials, hence for $d = 15$ the largest matrix will be $816 \times 816$. So even for moderate values of $d$ we get quite large problems that cannot be easily solved in practice. The polynomials occurring in the $S_k^n$ matrices are however invariant under the action  of ${\mathcal{S}}_3$. Thanks to this fact it is possible to block-diagonalize the matrices needed to represent sum-of-squares polynomials when rewriting constraint (ii), and this leads us to smaller and more stable problems: the block structure of a variable matrix can be informed to the solver and is used to speed up computations. (The general theory of symmetry reduction for semidefinite programming has been described e.g. by Bachoc, Gijswijt, Schrijver, and Vallentin [@BachocGSV2012]; Gatermann and Parrilo [@GatermannP2004] deal with the case of sum-of-squares problems.) The left-hand side of constraint (ii) is an invariant polynomial that should be nonpositive on $\Delta$. A sufficient condition for this to hold is for there to exist sum-of-squares polynomials $q_0$, …, $q_4$ such that $$\label{eq:ii-ansatz} b_{22} + \sum_{k=0}^d \langle S_k^n, F_k\rangle + q_0 + q_1 g_1 + \cdots + q_4 g_4 = 0,$$ with $g_i$ as in . The issue here is that, though the entries of the $S_k^n$ matrices are invariant, polynomials $g_i$ are not, and hence the $q_i$ polynomials cannot be taken to be invariant. The domain $\Delta$ is itself invariant however, and we may represent it with invariant polynomials. \[lem:inv-delta\] Consider the polynomials $$\label{eq:inv-delta-polys} \begin{aligned} s_1 &= g_1 + g_2 + g_3,&s_2 &= g_1 g_2 + g_1 g_3 + g_2 g_3,\\ s_3 &= g_1 g_2 g_3,&s_4 &= g_4, \end{aligned}$$ with $g_i$ as in . Then $$\Delta = \{\, (u, v, t) \in {\mathbb{R}}^3 : \text{$s_i(u, v, t) \geq 0$ for~$i = 1$, \dots,~4}\,\}.$$ Since $s_1$, …, $s_4$ are positive combinations of products of $g_1$, …, $g_4$, we have that $g_i(u,v,t) \geq 0$ for $i = 1$, …, $4$ implies $s_i(u,v,t) \geq 0$ for $i = 1$, …, $4$. For the converse, we may assume that $g_1(u,v,t) < 0$. Suppose $s_2(u,v,t)$, $s_3(u, v, t) \geq 0$. Then $(g_1 g_2 g_3)(u,v,t) \geq 0$ and so $(g_2 g_3)(u,v,t) \leq 0$. Moreover, $(g_1 g_2 + g_1 g_3 + g_2 g_3)(u,v,t) \geq 0$ implies that $$(g_1 (g_2 + g_3))(u,v,t) \geq -(g_2 g_3)(u,v,t) \geq 0,$$ and so $(g_2 + g_3)(u,v,t) \leq 0$, whence $s_1(u,v,t) = (g_1 + g_2 + g_3)(u,v,t) < 0$. Since the $s_i$ are invariant, if in  we replace the $g_i$ by $s_i$, then we may assume without loss of generality that the $q_i$ polynomials are also invariant. We may then use the following theorem in order to represent each polynomial $q_i$ (cf. Gatermann and Parrilo [@GatermannP2004]). \[thm:block-diag\] For each integer $d > 0$, there are square matrices $V^{\mathrm{trv}}_d$, $V^{\mathrm{alt}}_d$, and $V^{\mathrm{std}}_d$, whose entries are invariant polynomials in ${\mathbb{R}}[u, v, t]_{\leq 2d}$, such that a polynomial $p \in {\mathbb{R}}[u, v, t]_{\leq 2d}$ is invariant and a sum of squares if and only if there are positive semidefinite matrices $Q^{\mathrm{trv}}$, $Q^{\mathrm{alt}}$, and $Q^{\mathrm{std}}$ of appropriate sizes satisfying $$p = \langle V^{\mathrm{trv}}_d, Q^{\mathrm{trv}}\rangle + \langle V^{\mathrm{alt}}_d, Q^{\mathrm{alt}}\rangle + \langle V^{\mathrm{std}}_d, Q^{\mathrm{std}}\rangle.$$ If moreover the dimensions of the matrices $V^{\mathrm{trv}}_d$, $V^{\mathrm{alt}}_d$, and $V^{\mathrm{std}}_d$ are $a$, $b$, and $c$, respectively, then $\binom{d+3}{3} = a + b + 2c$. Instead of using only one positive semidefinite matrix of dimension $\binom{d+3}{3}$, as in , to represent a sum-of-squares polynomial $p$ of degree $2d$, the theorem above exploits the fact that $p$ is invariant to represent it with three smaller matrices of dimensions $a$, $b$, and $c$. For $d = 15$ for instance we have $\binom{d+3}{3} = 816$, whereas $a = 174$, $b = 102$, and $c = 270$. These smaller matrices correspond to the block-diagonalization of the matrix $Q$ in ; each of them is related to one of the three irreducible representations of ${\mathcal{S}}_3$. A proof of this theorem, together with a description of how to compute the matrices $V^{\mathrm{trv}}_d$, $V^{\mathrm{alt}}_d$, and $V^{\mathrm{std}}_d$, shall be presented in the next section. When using the theorem above to rewrite constraint (ii) of  we have to choose the degrees of the polynomials $q_i$. In this regard, since the left-hand side of (ii) is a polynomial of degree at most $2d$, we choose the degree of $q_0$ to be $2d$ and the degree of $q_i$, for $i \geq 1$, to be the largest possible so that $s_i q_i$ has degree at most $2d$. These choices are important for improving numerical stability and performing the rigorous verification of results presented in §\[sec:verify\]. The rewritten constraint is as follows: /\#1/\#2/\#3/[\#3 V\^\_[\#1]{}, \#2\^+ \#3 V\^\_[\#1]{}, \#2\^+ \#3 V\^\_[\#1]{}, \#2\^]{} $$\label{eq:ii-rewrite} \begin{split} &b_{22} + \sum_{k=0}^d \langle S_k^n, F_k\rangle + \foo/d/R_0//\\ &\qquad+ \foo/d-1/R_1/s_1/\\ &\qquad+ \foo/d-2/R_2/s_2/\\ &\qquad+ \foo/d-3/R_3/s_3/\\ &\qquad+ \foo/d-2/R_4/s_4/ = 0, \end{split}$$ with the $R$ matrices positive semidefinite. A proof of Theorem \[thm:block-diag\] {#sec:thm-proof} ===================================== The proof of Theorem \[thm:block-diag\] uses some basic facts from group representation theory; the reader is referred to the book by Fulton and Harris [@FultonH2004] for background material. It is simpler to prove a stronger statement that works for any finite group $G$ that acts on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by permuting coordinates, and for that we need to work with complex polynomials. Since all irreducible representations of ${\mathcal{S}}_3$ are real, however, when $G = {\mathcal{S}}_3$ we will be able to use only real polynomials, obtaining Theorem \[thm:block-diag\]. Say $G$ is a finite group that acts on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ by permuting coordinates. This induces for every $d$ a representation of $G$ on ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$, where $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$: $$\sigma p(x) = p(\sigma^{-1} x)$$ for all $p \in {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ and $\sigma \in G$. Let $B$ be the set of all monomials on $x_1$, …, $x_n$ of degree at most $d$. Notice that $G$ acts on $B$ by permuting monomials, and so for each $\sigma \in G$ there is a permutation matrix $P_\sigma\colon B \times B \to \{0,1\}$ such that $$v_B(\sigma^{-1} x) = P_\sigma^t v_B(x).$$ Say $p = v_B^* Q v_B$ is an invariant polynomial, where $Q\colon B \times B \to {\mathbb{C}}$ is (Hermitian) positive semidefinite. Then, for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $$\begin{split} p(x) &= \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{\sigma \in G} \sigma p(x)\\ &= \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{\sigma \in G} v_B(\sigma^{-1} x)^* Q v_B(\sigma^{-1} x)\\ &= \frac{1}{|G|} (P_\sigma^t v_B(x))^* Q (P_\sigma^t v_B(x))\\ &= v_B(x)^* \biggl(\frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{\sigma \in G} P_\sigma Q P_\sigma^t\biggr) v_B(x). \end{split}$$ Now, matrix $$\overline{Q} = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{\sigma \in G} P_\sigma Q P_\sigma^t$$ is positive semidefinite and defines a linear transformation on ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ that commutes with the action of $G$: for $\sigma \in G$ and $p \in {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ we have $$\overline{Q}(\sigma p) = \sigma (\overline{Q} p).$$ Equip ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ with the inner product $(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)$ for which the standard monomial basis $B$ is an orthonormal basis. This inner product is invariant under the action of $G$, and the representation of $G$ on ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ is unitary with respect to it. So ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ decomposes as a direct sum of pairwise-orthogonal irreducible subspaces $$\label{eq:cx-dec} {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d} = \bigoplus_{i=1}^r \bigoplus_{k=1}^{h_i} W_{i,k},$$ where $W_{i, k}$ is equivalent to $W_{j, l}$ if and only if $i = j$. The space $\operatorname{Hom}_G({\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}, {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d})$ of linear transformations on ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ that commute with the action of $G$ can be naturally identified with the space $({\mathbb{C}}[x]^*_{\leq d} \otimes {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d})^G$ of tensors that are invariant under the action of $G$, and $$\label{eq:dec} ({\mathbb{C}}[x]^*_{\leq d} \otimes {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d})^G = \bigoplus_{i,j=1}^r \bigoplus_{k=1}^{h_i}\bigoplus_{l=1}^{h_j} (W_{i,k}^* \otimes W_{j,l})^G.$$ Schur’s lemma implies that $(W_{i,k}^* \otimes W_{j,l})^G$ is $\{0\}$ when $i \neq j$, and a one-dimensional space whose elements are isomorphisms between $W_{i,k}$ and $W_{i,l}$ when $i = j$. For every $i = 1$, …, $r$ and $k = 1$, …, $h_i$, we may choose an isomorphism $\phi_{i,k} \in (W_{i,1}^* \otimes W_{i,k})^G$ that preserves the inner product in ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$: $$(\phi_{i,k} u, \phi_{i,k} v) = (u, v)\qquad\text{for all~$u$, $v \in W_{i,1}$}.$$ Then  simplifies, and any $\overline{Q} \in ({\mathbb{C}}[x]^*_{\leq d} \otimes {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d})^G$ can be written as $$\overline{Q} = \sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{k,l=1}^{h_i} \lambda_{i,kl} \phi_{i,l} \phi_{i,k}^{-1}$$ for some numbers $\lambda_{i,kl}$. For $i = 1$, …, $r$, let $e_{i,1}$, …, $e_{i,n_i}$ be an orthonormal basis of $W_{i,1}$. Then for $k = 1$, …, $h_i$ we have that $\phi_{i,k}(e_{i,1})$, …, $\phi_{i,k}(e_{i,n_i})$ is an orthonormal basis of $W_{i,k}$. Putting all these bases together, we get an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ called *symmetry adapted*. Transformation $\overline{Q}$ has a very special structure when expressed on this basis: for $i$, $j = 1$, …, $r$, $k = 1$, …, $h_i$, $l = 1$, …, $h_j$, $\alpha = 1$, …, $n_i$, and $\beta = 1$, …, $n_j$, we have $$\label{eq:block-structure} (\overline{Q} \phi_{i,k}(e_{i,\alpha}), \phi_{j,l}(e_{j,\beta})) = \lambda_{i,kl} \delta_{ij} \delta_{\alpha\beta}.$$ In particular, we see that $\overline{Q}$ is positive semidefinite if and only if the matrices $\bigl(\lambda_{i,kl}\bigr)_{k,l=1}^{h_i}$ are positive semidefinite. For linear transformations $A$, $B\colon {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d} \to {\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$, write $\langle A, B\rangle = {\mathrm{tr}}(B^* A)$. In view of , for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ we then have $$\begin{split} p(x) &= \langle (v_B v_B^*)(x), \overline{Q}\rangle\\ &=\sum_{i,j=1}^r \sum_{k=1}^{h_i} \sum_{l=1}^{h_j} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{n_i} \sum_{\beta=1}^{n_j} ((v_B v_B^*)(x) \phi_{i,k}(e_{i,\alpha}), \phi_{j,l}(e_{j,\beta}))\\[-1.5em] &\phantom{=\sum_{i,j=1}^r \sum_{k=1}^{h_i} \sum_{l=1}^{h_j} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{n_i} \sum_{\beta=1}^{n_j}}\qquad\qquad\qquad\cdot\overline{(\overline{Q} \phi_{i,k}(e_{i,\alpha}), \phi_{j,l}(e_{j,\beta}))}\\[-1.5em] &=\sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{k,l=1}^{h_i} \overline{\lambda_{i,kl}} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{n_i} ((v_B v_B^*)(x) \phi_{i,k}(e_{i,\alpha}), \phi_{i,l}(e_{i,\alpha}))\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{k,l=1}^{h_i} \overline{\lambda_{i,kl}} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{n_i} \phi_{i,k}(e_{i,\alpha})(x) \overline{\phi_{i,l}(e_{i,\alpha})}(x), \end{split}$$ where $\overline{\phi_{i,l}(e_{i,\alpha})}$ is the polynomial obtained from $\phi_{i,l}(e_{i,\alpha})$ by conjugating every coefficient. So by taking as $V^i_d$, for $i = 1$, …, $r$, the matrix whose entry $(k, l)$ is equal to the polynomial $$\sum_{\alpha=1}^{n_i} \phi_{i,k}(e_{i,\alpha})(x) \overline{\phi_{i,l}(e_{i,\alpha})}(x)$$ we get $$p(x) = \sum_{i=1}^r \langle V^i_d(x), \bigl(\lambda_{i,kl}\bigr)_{k,l=1}^{h_i}\rangle.$$ Since moreover for any choice of $\lambda_{i,kl}$ we get, by construction, an invariant polynomial, the polynomials in the $V^i_d$ matrices must be invariant. Finally, matrix $V_d^i$ has dimension $h_i$, the multiplicity of $W_{i,1}$ in the decomposition of ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$. Hence, if $N$ is the dimension of ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$ and $n_i$ is the dimension of $W_{i,1}$, then $$N = \sum_{i=1}^r n_i h_i.$$ So we see that each matrix $V^i_d$ corresponds to one of the irreducible representations of $G$ that appear in the decomposition of ${\mathbb{C}}[x]_{\leq d}$. Moreover, all we need to compute $V^i_d$ is the symmetry-adapted basis, and for that we need decomposition  and the $\phi_{i,k}$ isomorphisms, both of which can be computed using standard linear algebra. In practice, however, a projection formula such as the one found in §2.7 of the book by Serre [@Serre1977] can be used to compute the symmetry-adapted basis directly, given that we know all irreducible representations of $G$. Matrices $V^i_d$ might have polynomials with complex coefficients, and some of the $\lambda_{i,kl}$ might be complex numbers, even if $p$ is a real polynomial. This is unavoidable in general, but when $G$ has only real irreducible representations (i.e., representations that can be expressed by real matrices), all computations involve only real numbers and the matrices $V^i_d$ contain only real polynomials; as a result, all the $\lambda_{i,kl}$ can be taken real. Every symmetric group has only real irreducible representations (see e.g. Chapter 4 of the book by Fulton and Harris [@FultonH2004]). The symmetric group on three elements, ${\mathcal{S}}_3$, has only three irreducible representations: the *trivial* and *alternating* representations, both of dimension one, and the *standard* representation, of dimension two. All of them appear in the decomposition  of ${\mathbb{C}}[u, v, t]_{\leq d}$, and so we get Theorem \[thm:block-diag\]. Results {#sec:results} ======= We solve problem  with constraints (i) and (ii) replaced by  and , respectively. These constraints are polynomial identities that have to be expanded on bases of the corresponding vector spaces to produce linear constraints in the problem variables, as explained in §\[sec:sdp-bound\]. For constraint , we simply take the standard monomial basis of ${\mathbb{R}}[u]_{\leq 2d}$. For constraint , we note that all polynomials involved are invariant, so we have fewer constraints if we use a basis of the subspace of invariant polynomials of ${\mathbb{R}}[u,v,t]_{\leq 2d}$. One way to find such basis is to consider all triples $(a,b,c)$ of nonnegative integers such that $a +2b + 3c \leq 2d$ and for each triple take the polynomial $(u+v+t)^a(u^2+v^2+t^2)^b(u^3+v^3+t^3)^c$. By Proposition 1.1.2 of Sturmfels [@Sturmfels2008], these polynomials generate the subspace of invariant polynomials of degree at most $2d$, and by Theorem 1.1.1 of the same book together with a dimension argument, they actually form a basis of this subspace. The application of symmetry reduction lead to big improvements in practice. For instance, the high-precision solver SDPA-GMP [@Nakata2010] with 200 bits of precision running on a 2.4GHz processor took 9 days to solve the problem for $n = 12$ and $d = 11$ without symmetry reduction. After the reduction, the resulting semidefinite program could be solved in less than 12 hours. In this way, it was possible to make computations with $d$ up to $16$ within a computing time of 6 weeks and get new upper bounds for the kissing number on dimensions 9 to 23, improving the results given by Mittelmann and Vallentin [@MittelmannV2010]. [center]{} ----- -------- ----- --------------------------- ------------- -- ----- -------- ----- --------------------------- --------------- *previous* *previous* $n$ *l.b.* $d$ *u.b. [@MittelmannV2010]* *new u.b.* $n$ *l.b.* $d$ *u.b. [@MittelmannV2010]* *new u.b.* 3 12 14 12.38180947 12.381921 14 1606 14 3183.133169 3183.348148 15 12.374682 15 3180.112464 16 12.368591 16 .917052 4 24 14 24.06628391 24.066298 15 2564 14 4866.245659 4866.795537 15 24.062758 15 4862.382161 16 24.056903 16 .505436 5 40 14 44.99899685 44.999047 16 4320 14 7355.809036 7356.238006 15 44.987727 15 7341.324655 16 44.981067 16 .776399 6 72 14 78.24061272 78.240781 17 5346 14 11072.37543 11073.844334 15 78.212731 15 11030.170254 16 78.187761 16 .183845 7 126 14 134.4488169 134.456246 18 7398 14 16572.26478 16575.934858 15 134.330898 15 16489.848647 16 134.270201 16 .090329 9 306 14 364.0919287 364.104934 19 10668 14 24812.30254 24819.810569 15 363.888016 15 24654.968481 16 .675154 16 .871259 10 500 14 554.5075418 554.522392 20 17400 14 36764.40138 36761.630730 15 554.225840 15 36522.436885 16 .827497 16 .675795 11 582 14 870.8831157 870.908146 21 27720 14 54584.76757 54579.036297 15 869.874183 15 54069.067238 16 .244985 16 .722941 12 840 14 1357.889300 1357.934329 22 49896 14 82340.08003 82338.035075 15 1357.118955 15 81688.317095 16 .603728 16 .459564 13 1154 14 2069.587585 2069.675634 23 93150 14 124416.9796 124509.320059 15 2067.388613 15 123756.492951 16 .405173 16 .397290 ----- -------- ----- --------------------------- ------------- -- ----- -------- ----- --------------------------- --------------- : Lower and upper bounds (l.b. and u.b.) for the kissing number in dimensions 3, …, 24. Dimensions 8 and 24 are omitted since in these dimensions the linear programming bound is tight. All lower bounds can be found in the book of Conway and Sloane [@ConwayS1988], except for dimensions 13 and 14, in which case they were obtained by Ericson and Zinoviev [@ZinovievE1999]. Improvements over previously known upper bounds are underlined. All new bounds reported have been rigorously verified; see §\[sec:verify\].[]{data-label="tab:bounds"} -5mm The results are shown on Table \[tab:bounds\]. Following Mittelmann and Vallentin, the table includes different values of $d$ and decimal digits, since the sequence of values gives a clue about how strong the bound of Bachoc and Vallentin [@BachocV2008] can be if polynomials of higher degree are used. This is not the case for the linear programming bound, where the increase in degree does not give significant improvements [@OdlyzkoS1979]. Even the decimal digits in dimension 4 are interesting, since a tight bound can provide information about the optimal configurations (it is still an open problem whether the configuration of 24 points in dimension 4 is unique; for dimensions 8 and 24 uniqueness was proved by Bannai and Sloane [@BannaiS1981] using the linear programming bound). Finally, we observe that most values for $d = 14$ are in fact bigger than the corresponding values provided by Mittelmann and Vallentin [@MittelmannV2010], as the problems solved are not exactly the same: polynomials $s_i$ and $g_i$, used to represent $\Delta$, are different. Rigorous verification of results {#sec:verify} ================================ Floating-point arithmetic is used both in the process of computing the input to the solver (in particular when computing the symmetry-adapted basis) and by the solver itself. So the solution obtained by the solver is likely not feasible and hence its objective value might not be an upper bound to the kissing number. If the solution is, however, composed by positive *definite* matrices and is close enough to being feasible, it is possible to prove that it can be turned into a feasible solution without changing its objective value, thus showing that its objective value is an upper bound for the kissing number. The idea is very similar to the one used by Dostert, Guzmán, Oliveira, and Vallentin [@DostertGOV2015]. The first step is to find a good solution to our problem, namely one satisfying the following condition: *the minimum eigenvalue of any matrix is large compared to the maximum violation of any constraint*. (The precise meaning of “large” will be clarified soon.) If this condition is satisfied, then it is possible to turn the solution into a feasible one, without changing its objective value. Next, we need to verify rigorously that the solution satisfies the condition. It is not enough for such a verification procedure to use floating-point arithmetic, since then we cannot be sure of the correctness of the computations. We will see how rigorous bounds on the minimum eigenvalue of each matrix and also on the violation of each constraint can be obtained using high-precision interval arithmetic. The first step is to obtain a good solution. To get small constraint violations, we need to use a high-precision solver; we use SDPA-GMP [@Nakata2010] with 200 bits of precision. Usually, solvers will return a solution that lies close to the boundary of the cone of positive semidefinite matrices, and so the minimum eigenvalues of the solution matrices will be very close to zero. To get a solution with large minimum eigenvalues, we solve the problem with a change of variables: we fix $\lambda_{\min} > 0$ and replace each variable $X$ by $X' + \lambda_{\min} I$ with $X' \succeq 0$. This gives a solution where $X$ has minimum eigenvalue at least $\lambda_{\min}$, but of course the objective value increases as $\lambda_{\min}$ increases. Parameter $\lambda_{\min}$ has to be chosen small enough so that the loss in objective value is small, but large enough in comparison to the constraint violations. Choosing an appropriate $\lambda_{\min}$ is a matter of trial and error; we observed that values around $10^{-8}$ or $10^{-10}$ work well in practice. To be able to choose a strictly positive $\lambda_{\min}$, a feasible solution consisting of positive definite matrices must exist. So we need to avoid dependencies in our formulation; this is one reason why it is important to carefully choose the degrees of the polynomials appearing in . To carry out the rigorous verification, it is convenient to rewrite constraint  without using Theorem \[thm:block-diag\], that is, using only one large positive semidefinite matrix for each sum-of-squares polynomial. If we use the standard monomial basis $B_d$ for ${\mathbb{R}}[u,v,t]_{\leq d}$, then matrix $V_d = v_{B_d}v_{B_d}^t$ is easy to construct and all numbers appearing in the input are rational. Constraint  becomes $$\begin{gathered} \label{eq:ii-rerewrite} b_{22} + \sum_{k=0}^d \langle S_k^n, F_k\rangle + \langle V_d, R_0\rangle + \langle s_1V_{d-1}, R_1\rangle + \langle s_2V_{d-2}, R_2\rangle\\ + \langle s_3V_{d-3}, R_3\rangle + \langle s_4V_{d-2}, R_4\rangle = 0.\end{gathered}$$ We can convert the solution obtained by the solver for a problem with constraint  into a solution for the problem where  is replaced by . Indeed, note that in the process described in §\[sec:thm-proof\] matrix $\overline{Q}$ becomes block-diagonal when expressed in the symmetry-adapted basis (cf. equation ), so the conversion between constraints amounts to a change of basis. The problem size increases, since the matrices in the sum-of-squares formulation will not be block-diagonal anymore, but this is not an issue since the problem is already solved and the conversion is not an expensive operation. Once we have a good solution to our reformulated problem, it is time to carry out the verification. For each variable $X$, we use high-precision floating-point arithmetic to perform a binary search to find a large $\lambda_X > 0$ such that $X - \lambda_X I$ has a Cholesky decomposition $LL^t$. Typically, this $\lambda_X$ is a bit smaller than the $\lambda_{\min}$ used to find the solution. Now, we convert the floating-point matrix $L$ to a rational matrix $\overline{L}$ and set $$\overline{X} = \overline{L}\hskip1pt\overline{L}^t + \lambda_X I,$$ so that $\overline{X}$ is a rational matrix. Doing this for every matrix variable, we obtain a rational almost-feasible solution of our problem together with a rigorous lower bound on the minimum eigenvalue of each matrix. Next we check that the violation of the equality constraints in  and  for our rational almost-feasible solution is small compared to the minimum eigenvalues. Both cases are similar, so let us think of constraint . We now have a rational polynomial $r$ that is the left-hand side of , which will likely not be the zero polynomial. Note however that all monomials of degree at most $2d$ appear as entries of $V_d$, so there is a rational matrix $A$ such that $r = \langle V_d, A\rangle$. Replacing $\overline{R_0}$ by $\overline{R_0} - A$, we manage to satisfy constraint . To ensure that $\overline{R_0} - A \succeq 0$ it suffices to require that $\|A\| = \langle A, A\rangle^{1/2} \leq \lambda_{R_0}$, and this condition can be verified directly from $r$. Notice moreover that changing $\overline{R_0}$ does not change the objective value of the solution. In practice, computing $\overline{X}$ using rational arithmetic can be computationally costly. Since we only care about comparing $\|A\|$ with the bound on the minimum eigenvalue, we do not need to use rational arithmetic: it is sufficient to use, say, high-precision interval arithmetic, as provided for instance by a library such as MPFI [@RevolR2005]. The solutions that provide all the new upper bounds given on Table \[tab:bounds\] as well as the verification script described above are available at $$\hbox{\tt http://www.ime.usp.br/\~{}fabcm/kissing-number}$$ [18]{} C. Bachoc, D.C. Gijswijt, A. Schrijver, and F. Vallentin, Invariant semidefinite programs, in: [*Handbook on semidefinite, conic, and polynomial optimization*]{} (M.F. Anjos and J.B. Lasserre, eds.); Springer, New York, 2012, pp. 219–269. C. Bachoc and F. Vallentin, New upper bounds for kissing numbers from semidefinite programming, [*Journal of the American Mathematical Society*]{} 21 (2008) 909–924. E. Bannai and N.J.A. Sloane, Uniqueness of certain spherical codes, [*Canadian Journal of Mathematics*]{} 33 (1981) 437–449. J.H. Conway and N.J.A. Sloane, [*Sphere Packings, Lattices, and Groups*]{}, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 290, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988. P. Delsarte, J.M. Goethals, and J.J. Seidel, Spherical codes and designs, [*Geometriae Dedicata*]{} 6 (1977) 363–388. M. Dostert, C. Guzmán, F.M. de Oliveira Filho, and F. Vallentin, New upper bounds for the density of translative packings of three-dimensional convex bodies with tetrahedral symmetry, arXiv:1501.00168, 2015, 29pp. W. Fulton and J. Harris, [*Representation Theory: A First Course*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 129, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004. K. Gatermann and P.A. Parrilo, Symmetry groups, semidefinite programs, and sums of squares, [*Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra*]{} 192 (2004) 95–128. V.I. Levenshtein, On bounds for packings in $n$-dimensional Euclidean space, [*Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR*]{} 245 (1979) 1299–1303. H.D. Mittelmann and F. Vallentin, High-accuracy semidefinite programming bounds for kissing numbers, [*Experimental Mathematics*]{} 19 (2010) 175–179. O.R. Musin, The kissing number in four dimensions, [*Annals of Mathematics*]{} 168 (2008) 1–32. M. Nakata, A numerical evaluation of highly accurate multiple-precision arithmetic version of semidefinite programming solver: SDPA-GMP,-QD and-DD, in: [*2010 IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Aided Control System Design*]{}, 2010, pp. 29–34. A.M. Odlyzko and N.J.A. Sloane, New bounds on the number of unit spheres that can touch a unit sphere in $n$ dimensions, [*Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A*]{} 26 (1979) 210–214. N. Revol and F. Rouillier, Motivations for an arbitrary precision interval arithmetic and the MPFI library, [*Reliable Computing*]{} 11 (2005) 275–290. K. Schütte and B.L. van der Waerden, Das Problem der dreizehn Kugeln, [*Mathematische Annalen*]{} 125 (1953) 325–334. J.-P. Serre, [*Linear representations of finite groups*]{} (Translated from the second French edition by Leonard L. Scott), Graduate Texts in Mathematics 42, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. B. Sturmfels, [*Algorithms in Invariant Theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 2008. G. Szegö, [*Orthogonal Polynomials*]{} (Fourth Edition), American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications Volume XXIII, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1975. V.A. Zinoviev and T. Ericson, New lower bounds for contact numbers in small dimensions, [*Problems of Information Transmission*]{} 35 (1999) 287–294.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this paper we consider Jacobi forms of half-integral index for any positive definite lattice $L$ (classical Jacobi forms from the book of Eichler and Zagier correspond to the lattice $A_1={{\langle{2}\rangle}}$). We give a lot of examples of Jacobi forms of singular and critical weights for root systems using Jacobi theta-series. We give the Jacobi lifting for Jacobi forms of half-integral indices. In some case it gives additive lifting construction of new reflective modular forms.' author: - 'F. Cléry and V. Gritsenko' title: 'Modular forms of orthogonal type and Jacobi theta-series' --- Introduction ============ The divisor of a reflective modular form with respect to an integral orthogonal group of signature $(2,n)$ is determined by reflections. Such modular forms determine Lorentzian Kac–Moody Lie (super) algebras. The most famous reflective modular form is the Borcherds function $\Phi_{12}$ with respect to ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(II_{2,26})$ which determines the Fake Monster Lie algebra (see [@B1]). One can consider reflective modular forms as automorphic discriminants or multi-dimensional Dedekind $\eta$-functions (see [@B2]–[@B3], [@GN1]–[@GN4]). Reflective modular forms play also an important role in complex algebraic geometry (see [@GHS] and [@G10]). All of them are Borcherds automorphic products and some of them can be constructed as additive (or Jacobi) lifting. If a reflective modular form can be obtained by additive (Jacobi) lifting then one has a simple formula for its Fourier coefficients which determine the generators and relations of Lorentzian Kac–Moody algebras (see [@GN1]). In [@G10] the second author constructed the Borcherds-Enriques form $\Phi_4$, the automorphic discriminant of the moduli space of Enriques surfaces (see [@B2]), as Jacobi lifting, ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}\bigl(\vartheta(\tau,z_1)\dots \vartheta(\tau,z_8)\bigr)$, of the tensor product of eight classical Jacobi theta-series (see [@G-K3] for the definition of Lift which provides a modular form on orthogonal group by its first Fourier–Jacobi coefficient). This new construction of $\Phi_4$ gives an answer to a problem formulated by K.-I. Yoshikawa ([@Y]) and to a question of Harwey and Moore ([@HM]) about the second Lorentzian Kac–Moody super Lie algebras determined by the Borcherds–Enriques form $\Phi_4$ and its quasi-pullbacks. Another application of reflective modular forms of type ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta(\tau,z_1)\dots \vartheta(\tau,z_8))$ is the construction of new examples of modular varieties of orthogonal type of Kodaira dimension $0$ (see the beginning of §2). The first two examples of this type of dimension $3$ are related to reflective Siegel cusp forms of weight $3$ and Siegel modular three-folds having compact Calabi–Yau models (see [@GH1], [@CG] and [@FS-M]). In the case of dimension $4$ the unique cusp form of weight $4$ was defined in [@G10] as a Borcherds product but it can also be constructed as a lifting of a Jacobi form of half-integral index with a character of order $2$ of the full modular group ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ (see Example 2.4 in §2). Jacobi forms of half-integral index in one variable are very important in the theory of Lorentzian Kac–Moody algebras of hyperbolic rank $3$ corresponding to Siegel modular forms (see [@GN1]–[@GN3]). Moreover they are very natural in the structure theory of classical Jacobi forms (in the sense of Eichler and Zagier [@EZ]) and in applications to topology and string theory (see [@DMVV], [@G-EG]). In this paper we consider Jacobi forms of half-integral index for any positive definite lattice $L$ (Jacobi forms in [@EZ] correspond to the lattice $A_1={{\langle{2}\rangle}}$). Jacobi forms in many variables naturally appeared in the theory of affine Lie algebras (see [@K] and [@KP]). One can consider Jacobi forms as vector valued modular forms in one variable. Vector valued modular forms are used in the additive Borcherds lifting (see [@B3 §14]) which is a genralization of the Jacobi lifting of [@G-K3]. In this paper we follow the general approach to Jacobi forms proposed in [@G-K3]. The first section contains all necessary definitions and basic results on Jacobi forms in many variables. It turns out that the order of the character of the integral Heisenberg group of such Jacobi forms is always at most $2$ (see Proposition \[pr-index\]). Using the classical Jacobi theta-series we give examples of Jacobi forms for the root lattices. We show at the end of the first section (Examples 1.8–1.11) that the natural theta-products give all Jacobi forms of singular weight (or vector valued ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$-modular forms of weight $0$ related to the Weil representation) for the lattices $D_m$. In §2 we give the Jacobi lifting for Jacobi forms of half-integral index with a possible character. This explicit construction has many advantages: one can see immediately a part of its divisor, the maximal modular group of the lifting, etc. We construct many modular forms of singular, critical and canonical weights on orthogonal groups. In particular, we give in Example 2.4 natural reflective generalizations of the classical Igusa modular form $\Delta_5$. In §3 we analyze Jacobi forms of singular (the minimal possible) and critical (singular weight$+\frac{1}2$) weights using the theta-products and their pullbacks (see Proposition 3.1–3.2). In this way we construct many examples (see Propositions \[Ptheta-Am\]–\[Form-crit\]). In particular, using this approach we give a new explanation of theta-quarks in Corollary \[singJ-A2\], which are the simplest examples of holomorphic theta-blocks (see [@GSZ]). [**Acknowledgements:**]{} This work was supported by the grant ANR-09-BLAN-0104-01. The authors are grateful to the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik in Bonn for support and for providing excellent working conditions. The Jacobi group and Jacobi modular forms ========================================= In this section we discuss Jacobi forms of orthogonal type. In the definitions below we follow the paper [@G1]–[@G-K3] where Jacobi forms were considered as modular forms with respect to a parabolic subgroup of an orthogonal group of signature $(2,n)$. By a lattice we mean a free ${\mathbb Z}$-module equipped with a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form $(\cdot , \cdot)$ with values in ${\mathbb Z}$. A lattice is even if $(l,l)$ is even for all its elements. Let $L_2$ be a lattice of signature $(2,n_0+2)$. All the bilinear forms we deal with can be extended to $L_2\otimes {\mathbb C}$ (respectively to $L_2\otimes {\mathbb R}$) by ${\mathbb C}$-linearity (respectevely by ${\mathbb R}$-linearity) and we use the same notations for these extensions. Let $${\mathcal D}(L_2)=\{[{\mathcal Z}] \in {\mathbb P}(L_2\otimes {\mathbb C}) \mid ({\mathcal Z},{\mathcal Z})=0, \ ({\mathcal Z},\overline{{\mathcal Z}})>0\}^+$$ be the $(n_0+2)$-dimensional classical Hermitian domain of type IV associated to the lattice $L_2$ (here $+$ denotes one of its two connected components). We denote by ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L_2\otimes {\mathbb R})$ the index $2$ subgroup of the real orthogonal group preserving ${\mathcal D}(L_2)$. Then ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L_2)$ is the intersection of the integral orthogonal group ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}(L_2)$ with ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L_2\otimes {\mathbb R})$. We use the similar notation ${\mathop{\mathrm {SO}}\nolimits}^+(L_2)$ for the special orthogonal group. In this paper we assume that $L_2$ is an even lattice of signature $(2,n_0+2)$ containing two hyperbolic planes $$L_2=U\oplus U_1\oplus L(-1), \qquad U_1=U\simeq \begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix}$$ where $L(-1)$ is a negative definite even lattice of rank $n_0$. The restriction of the bilinear form $(. ,.)$ to $L(-1)$ i.e. $(. , .)|L(-1)$ is denoted by $-( .,. )$ with $(. , .)$ definite positive. We fix a basis of the hyperbolic plane $U={\mathbb Z}e\oplus{\mathbb Z}f$: $e\cdot f=(e,f)=0$ and $e^2=f^2=0$. Similarly $U_1={\mathbb Z}e_1\oplus{\mathbb Z}f_1$. Let $F$ be the totally isotropic plane spanned by $f$ and $f_1$ and let $P_F$ be the parabolic subgroup of ${\mathop{\mathrm {SO}}\nolimits}^+(L_2)$ that preserves $F$. This corresponds to a $1$-dimensional cusp of the modular variety ${\mathop{\mathrm {SO}}\nolimits}^+(L_2)\backslash{\mathcal D}(L_2)$ (see [@GHS]). We choose a basis of $L_2$ of the form $(e,e_1,\dots , f_1,f)$ where $\dots$ denote a basis of $L(-1)$. In this basis the quadratic form associated to the bilinear form on $L_2$ has the following Gram’s matrix $$S_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc|ccc|cc} 0&0&0&\cdots&0&0&1\\ 0&0&0&\cdots&0&1&0\\ \hline 0&0& & & &0&0\\ \vdots&\vdots& &-S& &\vdots& \vdots\\ 0&0& & & &0&0\\ \hline 0&1&0&\cdots&0&0&0\\ 1&0&0&\cdots&0&0&0\\ \end{array}\right)$$ where $S$ is a positive definite integral matrix with even entries on the main diagonal. In this paper we denote the [*positive definite*]{} even integral bilinear form on the lattice $L$ by $(.,.)$ and the bilinear form of signature $(1,n_0+1)$ on the hyperbolic lattice $U_1\oplus L(-1)$ by $(.,.)_1$. Therefore for any $v=ne_1+l+mf_1\in L_1$ we have $(v,v)_1=2nm-(l,l)$. The subgroup $\Gamma^J(L)$ of $P_F$ of elements acting trivially on the sublattice $L$ is called the *Jacobi group*. The Jacobi group has a subgroup isomorphic to ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$. For any $A=\left(\smallmatrix a&b\\c&d \endsmallmatrix\right)\in {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ we put $$\label{A-im} \{A\}:=\begin{pmatrix} A^*&0&0\\ 0&{{\mathbf 1}}_{n_0}&0\\ 0&0&A \end{pmatrix}\in \Gamma^J(L)\quad\text{where\ }\ A^*=\left(\smallmatrix 0&1\\1&0\endsmallmatrix\right) {}^tA^{-1} \left(\smallmatrix 0&1\\1&0\endsmallmatrix\right)= \left(\smallmatrix \ a&-b\\-c&\ d \endsmallmatrix\right).$$ The second standard subgroup of $\Gamma^J(L)$ is the Heisenberg group $H(L)$ acting trivially on the totally isotropic plane $F$. This is the central extension ${\mathbb Z}\rtimes (L\times L)$. More precisely we define $$H(L)=\{[x,y;r]\,:\ x, y\in L,\ r\in \frac{1}{2}\,{\mathbb Z}\ \text{\ with }\ r+\frac{1}{2}(x,y)\in {\mathbb Z}\}$$ where $$\label{H(L)} [x,y;r]:= \begin{pmatrix} 1&0&{}^tyS& (x,y)/2-r& (y,y)/2\\ 0&1&{}^txS&(x,x)/2& (x,y)/2+r\\ 0&0&{{\mathbf 1}}_{n_0}&x&y\\ 0&0&0&1&0\\ 0&0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}$$ with $S$ the positive definite Gram matrix of the quadratic form $L$ of rank $n_0$, $(x,y)={}^txSy$ and we consider $x$ and $y$ as column vectors. The multiplication in $H(L)$ is given by the following formula $$\label{eq-H-prod} [x,y;r]\cdot [x',y';r']=[x+x',y+y';r+r'+\frac{1}{2}((x,y')-(x',y))].$$ In particular, the center of $H(L)$ is equal to $\{[0,0;r],\ r\in {\mathbb Z}\}$. We introduce a subgroup of $H(L)$ $$H_s(L)=<[x,0;0],\ [0,y;0]\,|\, x,y\in L>$$ with a smaller center and we call it [*minimal*]{} integral Heisenberg group of $L$. The group ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ acts on $H(L)$ by conjugation: $$\label{eq-A-action} A.[x,y;r]:=\{A\}[x,y;r]\{A^{-1}\}= [dx-cy,-bx+ay;r].$$ Using and one can define the integral Jacobi group or its subgroup $\Gamma_s^J(L)$ as the semidirect product of ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ with the Heisenberg group $H(L)$ or $H_s(L)$ $$\Gamma^J(L)\simeq {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})\rtimes H(L)\quad {\rm and}\quad \Gamma_s^J(L)\simeq {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})\rtimes H_s(L)$$ Extending the coefficients we can define the real Jacobi group which is a subgroup of the real orthogonal group $\Gamma^J(L\otimes {\mathbb R})\simeq {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb R})\rtimes H(L\otimes {\mathbb R})$. In what follows we need characters of Jacobi groups. Let $\chi: \Gamma^J(L)\to {\mathbb C}^*$ be a character of finite order. Its restriction to ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$, $\chi|_{{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})}$, is an even power $v_\eta^{D}$ of the multiplier system of the Dedekind $\eta$-function and we have $$\label{J-chi} \chi(\{A\}\cdot [x,y;r])= v_\eta^D(A)\cdot \nu([x,y;r]), \quad\text{ where }\ \chi|_{{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})}=v_\eta^{D}, \ \ \nu=\chi|_{H(L)}.$$ If $D$ is odd then we obtain a multiplier system of the Jacobi group. The properties of the character of the Heisenberg group are clarified by the next proposition. \[pr-char\] [**1.**]{} Let $s(L)\in {\mathbb N}^*$ (resp. $n(L)$) denote the generator of the integral ideal generated by $(x,y)$ (resp. $(x,x)$) for $x$ and $y$ in $L$. Let $\left[H(L),H(L)\right]$ be the derivated group of $H(L)$. Then $$\left[H(L),H(L)\right]=\left[H_s(L),H_s(L)\right]=\{[0,0; r]\,|\, r\in s(L){\mathbb Z}\}.$$ This subgroup is the center of $H_s(L)$. [**2.**]{} Let $\nu: H(L)\to {\mathbb C}^*$ be a character of finite order which is invariant with respect to ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$-action $\nu(A.[x,y;r])=\nu([x,y;r])$. Then $$\nu([x,y;r])=e^{\pi i t ((x,x)+(y,y)-(x,y)+2r)}$$ where $t\in {\mathbb Q}$ such that $t\cdot s(L)\in {\mathbb Z}$. The restriction $\nu|_{H_s(L)}$ is a binary character which is trivial if $t\cdot n(L)\in 2{\mathbb Z}$. [**Remark.**]{} The constants $s(L)$ and $n(L)$ are called [*scale*]{} and [*norm*]{} of the integral lattice $L$. The scale $s(L)$ is the greatest common divisor of the entries of the Cartan matrix $S$ of $L$. For any even lattice $L$ the norm $n(L)$ is an even divisor of $s(L)$. The first property follows from the formula for the commutator of the elements of $H(L)$ $$\label{eq-H-comt} [x,y;r]\cdot [x',y';r']\cdot [x,y;r]^{-1}\cdot [x',y';r']^{-1}= [0,0;(x,y')-(x',y)]$$ because $[x,y;r]^{-1}=[-x,-y;-r]$. Considering the restriction of the character to the center of $H(L)$, isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z}$, we get $\nu([0,0;r])=\exp(2\pi i t r)$ with $t\in {\mathbb Q}$. The formula for the commutator shows that $t\cdot s(L)\in {\mathbb Z}$. The invariance of the character with respect to $A=-{{\mathbf 1}}_{2}$, $A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 0&-1\\1&\ 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ and $A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&1\\0&1\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ gives us $ \nu([x,y;r])=\nu([-x,-y;r])=\nu([-y,x;r])=\nu([x,y-x;r]) $. Therefore $\nu([x,0;0])=\nu([-x,0;0])=\nu([x,0;0])^{-1}$, $\nu([0,y;0])=\nu([y,0;0])$ and $\nu([x,0;0])=\nu([x,-x;0])$. We have $$[x,-x;0]=[x, 0;0]\cdot [0, -x; 0]\cdot [0,0,\tfrac{1}2(x,x)].$$ Therefore $\nu([x,0;0])=\nu([x,-x;0])=e^{\pi i t (x,x)}$ and the final formula follows from the decomposition $$[x,y;r]=[x,y;\tfrac{1}2(x,y)]\cdot [0,0;r-\tfrac{1}2(x,y)]= [x,0;0]\cdot[0,y;0]\cdot [0,0;r-\tfrac{1}2(x,y)].$$ We see that $t\cdot (x,x)\in {\mathbb Z}$. Therefore the order of $\nu|_{H_s(L)}$ is equal to $1$ or $2$. In order to define Jacobi forms we have to fix a tube realization of the homogeneous domain ${\mathcal D}(L_2)$ related to the $1$-dimensional boundary component of its Baily–Borel compactification corresponding to the Jacobi group related to the isotropic tower ${{\langle{f}\rangle}}\subset {{\langle{f,f_1}\rangle}}$. Let $[{\mathcal Z}]=[{\mathcal X}+i{\mathcal Y}] \in {\mathcal D}(L_2)$. Then $$({\mathcal X},{\mathcal Y})=0,\ ({\mathcal X},{\mathcal X})=({\mathcal Y},{\mathcal Y})\ \text{\ and \ }({\mathcal Z},\overline{{\mathcal Z}})=2({\mathcal Y},{\mathcal Y})>0.$$ Using the basis ${{\langle{e,f}\rangle}}_{\mathbb Z}=U$ we write ${\mathcal Z}=z'e+\widetilde Z+zf$ with $\widetilde Z\in L_1\otimes {\mathbb C}$, where $$L_1=U_1\oplus L(-1)$$ is the hyperbolic lattice of signature $(1,n_0+1)$ with the bilinear form $(\cdot,\cdot)_1$. We note that $z\ne 0$. (If $z=0$ then the real and imaginary parts of $\widetilde Z$ form two orthogonal vectors of positive norm in the hyperbolic lattice $L_1\otimes {\mathbb R}$.) Thus $[{}^t{\mathcal Z}]=[(-\frac{1}2(Z,Z)_1, {}^tZ,1)]$. Using the basis ${{\langle{e_1,f_1}\rangle}}_{\mathbb Z}=U_1$ of the second hyperbolic plane in $L$ we see that ${\mathcal D}(L_2)$ is isomorphic to the tube domain $${\mathcal H}(L)={\mathcal H}_{n_0+2}(L)= \{Z=\left(\smallmatrix\omega\\ \mathfrak{Z}\\ \tau \endsmallmatrix\right),\ \tau,\,\omega\in{\mathbb H}_1,\ {\mathfrak Z}\in L\otimes {\mathbb C},\ ({\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}Z, {\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}Z)_1>0\}$$ where $$({\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}Z, {\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}Z)_1=2{\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}(\omega){\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}(\tau)-({\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}({\mathfrak Z}),{\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}({\mathfrak Z}))>0.$$ We fix the isomorphism $[\rm{pr}]:{\mathcal H}(L)\to{\mathcal D}(L_2)$ defined by the $1$-dimensional cusp $F$ fixed above $$\label{pr-Z} Z=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\omega\\ {\mathfrak Z}\\ \tau\end{smallmatrix}\right)\ {\mapsto}\ {{\rm{pr}}(Z)}= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}-\frac{1}{2}(Z,Z)_1\\\omega\\ {\mathfrak Z}\\ \tau\\1\end{smallmatrix}\right) \mapsto\ \left[{\rm{pr}}(Z)\right].$$ The map $\rm{pr}$ gives us the embedding of $\mathcal{H}(L)$ into the affine cone ${\mathcal D}^\bullet(L_2)$ over ${\mathcal D}(L_2)$. Using the map $[\rm{pr}]$, we can define a linear-fractional action of $M\in {\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L_2\otimes {\mathbb R})$ on the tube domain $$M\cdot {\rm{pr}}(Z)=J(M,Z)\cdot {\rm{pr}}(M{{\langle{Z}\rangle}})$$ where the automorphic factor $J(M,Z)$ is the last (non-zero) element of the column vector $M\cdot {\rm{pr}}(Z)\in {\mathcal D}^\bullet(L_2)$. In particular for the standard elements of the Jacobi group we have the following action $$\{A\}\langle Z \rangle= {}^t\bigl(\omega-\frac{c(\mathfrak{Z},\mathfrak{Z})}{2(c\tau+d)},\, \frac{{}^t\mathfrak{Z}}{c\tau+d},\, \frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}), \quad A=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}\in {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb R});$$ $$\left[x,y;r\right]\langle Z \rangle= {}^t\bigl(\omega+\tfrac{1}{2}(x,x)\tau+(x,\mathfrak{Z})+\tfrac{1}{2}(x,y)+r, \,{}^t(\mathfrak{Z}+x\tau+y),\, \tau\bigl) $$ where $x,y\in L\otimes {\mathbb R}$, $r\in {\mathbb R}$. We note that $J(\{A\},Z)=c\tau+d$ and $J([x,y;r],Z)=1$. For a function $\psi: {\mathcal H}(L)\to {\mathbb C}$, we define as usual $$(\psi\vert_{k}M)(Z):= J(M,Z)^{-k}\psi(M{{\langle{Z}\rangle}}), \qquad M\in {\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L_2\otimes {\mathbb R}).$$ In the next definition, Jacobi forms are considered as modular forms with respect to the parabolic subgroup $\Gamma^J(L)$ of ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L_2)$. \[def-JF\] Let $\chi$ be a character (or a multiplier system) of finite order of $\Gamma^J(L)$, $k$ be integral or half-integral and $t$ be a (positive) rational number. A holomorphic function $\varphi: {\mathbb H}_1\times (L\otimes {\mathbb C})\to {\mathbb C}$ is called a holomorphic [**[Jacobi form]{}**]{} of weight $k$ and index $t$ with a character (or a multiplier system) $\chi$ if the function $$\widetilde{\varphi}(Z)=\varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})e^{2i\pi t\omega}, \quad Z=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\omega \\ \mathfrak{Z} \\ \tau \end{smallmatrix}\right) \in {\mathcal H}(L)$$ satisfies the functional equation $$\label{eq-JF} \widetilde{\varphi}\vert_{k}M=\chi(M)\widetilde{\varphi} \quad {\rm for\ any\ } M\in\Gamma^J(L)$$ and is holomorphic at “infinity” (see the condition below). [**Remarks.**]{} 1) We show below that for any non zero Jacobi form of rational index $t$ we have $t\cdot s(L)\in {\mathbb Z}$ where $s(L)$ is the scale of the lattice (see Proposition \[pr-char\]). 2\) One can reduce this definition to the only two cases $t=1$ and $t=\frac{1}2$ (see Proposition \[pr-index\]). 3\) One can give another definition of Jacobi forms in more intrinsic terms (see Definition 1.2’). In order to precise the condition “to be holomorphic at infinity” we analyse the character $\chi$, the functional equation and the Fourier expansion of Jacobi forms. We decompose the character into two parts $$\chi=\chi|_{{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})}\times \chi|_{H(L)}=\chi_1\times \nu,\qquad \text{where } \chi_1=v_\eta^D$$ (see ) and $\nu$ satisfies the condition of Proposition \[pr-char\]. For a central element $[0,0;(x,y)]\in H_s(L)$ the equation gives $\nu([0,0;(x,y)])=e^{2 \pi i t (x,y)}=1$. Therefore $$t\cdot s(L)\in {\mathbb Z}\quad {\text{if $\varphi$ is not identically zero}}$$ and $$\nu([x,y;r])=e^{\pi i t ((x,x)+(y,y)-(x,y)+2r)}, \qquad [x,y;r]\in H(L)$$ as in Proposition \[pr-char\]. The formulae above for the action of the generators of the Jacobi group on the tube domain define also an action, denoted by $M\langle \tau,\mathfrak{Z}\rangle$, of the real Jacobi group $\Gamma^J(L\otimes {\mathbb R})$ on the domain ${\mathbb H}_1\times (L\otimes {\mathbb C})$. We can always add to any $(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})\in {\mathbb H}_1\times (L\otimes {\mathbb C})$ a complex number $\omega\in {\mathbb H}_1$ such that $Z=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\omega\\ \mathfrak{Z}\\ \tau\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ belongs to ${\mathcal H}(L)$. If we denote the first component of $M\langle Z\rangle$ (that is the component along the vector $e_1$ of our basis) by $\omega\{M\langle Z\rangle\}$ for $M\in \Gamma^J(L\otimes {\mathbb R})$ then $$J_{k,t}(M;\tau,\mathfrak{Z})=J(M,Z)^ke^{-2i\pi t\omega\{M\langle Z\rangle\}}e^{2i\pi t\omega}$$ defines an automorphic factor of weight $k$ and index $t$ for the Jacobi group. For the generators of the Jacobi group, we get $$J_{k,t}(\{A\};\tau,\mathfrak{Z})=(c\tau+d)^k e^{i\pi t\frac{c(\mathfrak{Z},\mathfrak{Z})}{c\tau+d}}, \quad A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\right)\in {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb R})$$ and $$J_{k,t}(\left[x,y;r\right];\tau,\mathfrak{Z})= e^{-2i\pi t(\frac{1}{2}(x,x)\tau+(x,\mathfrak{Z})+\frac{1}{2}(x,y)+r)}.$$ We also get an action of the Jacobi group on the space of functions defined on ${\mathbb H}_1\times (L\otimes {\mathbb C})$: $$(\varphi\vert_{k,t}M)(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}):= J^{-1}_{k,t}(M;\tau,\mathfrak{Z})\varphi(M\langle \tau,\mathfrak{Z}\rangle).$$ Then the equation $\eqref{eq-JF}$ in the definition of Jacobi forms is equivalent to $$(\varphi\vert_{k,t}M)(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})=\chi(M)\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}), \qquad M\in\Gamma^J(L).$$ For the generators of the Jacobi group we obtain $$\label{jacobi-A} \varphi(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d},\frac{\mathfrak{Z}}{c\tau+d}) =\chi(A)(c\tau+d)^k e^{i\pi t\, \frac{c(\mathfrak{Z},\mathfrak{Z})}{(c\tau+d)}} \varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})$$ for all $A=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{smallmatrix}\right)\in{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ and $$\label{jacobi-H} \varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}+x\tau+y)=\chi([x,y; \tfrac{1}{2}(x,y)]) e^{-i\pi t ((x,x)\tau+2(x,\mathfrak{Z}))}\varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})$$ for all $x,y\in L$. (We note that $t(x,y)\in {\mathbb Z}$ for any $x$, $y$ in $L$ if $\varphi\not\equiv 0$.) The variables $\tau$ and ${\mathfrak Z}$ are called modular and abelian variables. To clarify the last condition of Definition \[def-JF\] we consider the Fourier expansion of a Jacobi form $\varphi$. We see that the function $\varphi$ have the following periodic properties $$\varphi(\tau+1,{\mathfrak Z})=e^{2\pi i\frac{D}{24}}\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}) \qquad {\rm{and}} \qquad \varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}+2y)=\nu([0,2y;0])\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z})=\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}).$$ The function $\varphi$ is called [*holomorphic at infinity*]{} if it has the Fourier expansion of the following type $$\label{F-exp-phi} \varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})= \sum_{\substack{n\in {\mathbb Q}_{\geqslant0},\, n\equiv \frac{D}{24} \bmod {\mathbb Z},\ l\in \frac 1{2} L^\vee \\ \vspace{1\jot} 2nt-(l,l)\geqslant 0}} f(n,l)e^{2i\pi({n}\tau+(l,\mathfrak{Z}))}$$ where $L^\vee$ is the dual lattice of the even positive definite lattice $L$. This condition is equivalent to the fact that the function $\widetilde{\varphi}$ is holomorphic at the zero-dimensional cusp defined by isotropic vector $f$ in the first copy $U$ in the lattice $L_2=U\oplus U_1\oplus L(-1)$. Definition \[def-JF\] suits well for the applications considered in this paper but we can give another definition which does not depend on the orthogonal realization of the Jacobi group $\Gamma_s^J(L)\simeq {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})\rtimes H_s(L)$. [**Definition 1.2’.**]{} [*A holomorphic function $\varphi: {\mathbb H}_1\times (L\otimes {\mathbb C})\to {\mathbb C}$ is called a holomorphic Jacobi form of weight $k\in \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb Z}$ and index $t\in {\mathbb Q}$ with a character (or a multiplier system) of finite order $\chi: \Gamma^J_s(L)\to {\mathbb C}^*$ if $\varphi$ satisfies the functional equations and and has a Fourier expansion of type* ]{}. [**Remarks.**]{} 1) [*The classical Jacobi forms of Eichler and Zagier*]{}. Note that for $n_0=1$, the tube domain ${\mathcal H}_{3}(L)$ is isomorphic to the classical Siegel upper-half space of genus $2$. If $L\simeq A_1={{\langle{2}\rangle}}$ is the lattice ${\mathbb Z}$ with quadratic form $2x^2$ and $\chi={\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits}$ then the definition above is identical to the definition of Jacobi forms of integral weight $k$ and index $t$ given in the book [@EZ]. 2\) The difference between the definitions 1.2 and 1.2’ is the character of the center of the “orthogonal” Heisenberg group $H(L)$. It is more natural to consider a Jacobi forms $\varphi$ as a modular form with respect to the minimal Jacobi group $\Gamma_s^J(L)$ and the [*extended*]{} Jacobi form $\widetilde{\varphi}(Z)=\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})e^{2\pi i t \omega}$ with respect to $\Gamma^J(L)$. We denote the vector space of Jacobi forms from Definition \[def-JF\]’ by ${J}_{k,L;t}(\chi)$ where $\chi=v_\eta^D\times \nu$ defined by a character (or a multiplier system) $v_\eta^D$ of ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ and a binary (or trivial) character $\nu$ of $H_s(L)$. The space of Jacobi forms from Definition 1.2 is denoted by $\widetilde{J}_{k,L;t}(v_{\eta}^D\times \widetilde{\nu})$ with evident modification for the central part of $\widetilde{\nu}$. The character $\chi$ of $\Gamma^J(L)$ and its restriction $\widetilde{\chi}=\chi|_{\Gamma_s^J(L)}$ determine each other uniquely and we denote both of them by $\chi$, $\widetilde {J}_{k,L;t}(\chi)\simeq {J}_{k,L;t}(\chi)$ and we will identify these spaces. A function $$\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})=\sum_{n,l}f(n,l)e^{2i\pi({n}\tau+(l,\mathfrak{Z}))}\in J_{k,L;t}(\chi)$$ is called a [*[Jacobi cusp form]{}*]{} if $f(n,l)\ne 0$ only if the hyperbolic norm of its index is positive: $2nt-(l,l)>0$. We denote this vector space by $J^{cusp}_{k,L;t}(\chi)$. We define the order of $\varphi$ as follows $$\label{ord-phi} {\rm Ord} (\varphi)=\min_{f(n,l)\ne 0} (2nt-(l,l)).$$ When the character (or the multiplier system) is trivial, we omit it in the notation of these spaces. If $\chi=v_\eta^D\times {\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits}$, we omit the trivial part. We see from the definition that $\varphi\equiv 0$ if $t<0$. If $t=0$ then $J_{k,L;0}(\chi)=M_k({\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z}), \chi|_{{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2})$. In fact a Jacobi form corresponds to a vector-valued modular form of integral or half-integral weight related to the Weil representation of the lattice $L(t)$ and $J_{k,L;t}(\chi)$ is finite dimensional (see §3). The notation $L(t)$ stands for the lattice $L$ equipped with bilinear for $t(\cdot ,\cdot )$. We proved above that if $J_{k,L;t}(\chi)\ne \{0\}$ then the lattice $L(t)$ is integral. Any Jacobi form with trivial character can be considered as Jacobi form of index $1$ (see [@G-K3 Lemma 4.6]). In general we have the following \[pr-index\] [**1.**]{} If $L(t)$ is an even lattice then $$J_{k,L;t}(\chi)=J_{k,L(t);1}(\chi).$$ If this space is non-trivial then the Heisenberg part $\nu=\chi|_{H_s(L)}$ of the character is trivial. [**2.**]{} If $L(t)$ is integral odd (non-even) lattice then $$J_{k,L;t}(\chi)=J_{k,L(2t); \frac{1}2}(\chi).$$ In this case the character $\nu=\chi|_{H_s(L)}$ is of order $2$. [**3.**]{} If $\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})\in J_{k,L;t}(v_\eta^D\times \nu)$ then $\varphi(\tau, 2{\mathfrak Z})\in J_{k,L;4t}(v_\eta^D\times {\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits})$. [**Remark.**]{} This proposition shows that we have to distinguish in fact only between index $1$ and $\frac{1}2$. In what follows we denote by $J_{k,L}(\chi)$ the space of Jacobi forms of index $1$. If $L(t)$ is even then $t(x,x)\in 2{\mathbb Z}$ for any $x\in L$. Therefore $\chi([x,0;0])=e^{i\pi t(x,x)}=1$ and the Heisenberg part of $\chi$ is trivial. If $L(t)$ is odd then there exists $x\in L$ such that $t(x,x)$ is odd. Therefore the Heisenberg part of $\chi$ is non-trivial. We prove the proposition about the indexes using a map that we will need in §2. We define an application for $N\in {\mathbb Q}_{>0}$ $$\label{pi-N} \pi_{N}: {\mathcal H}(L(N))\to{\mathcal H}(L), \qquad \pi_{N}: \left(\begin{smallmatrix}\omega\\\mathfrak{Z}\\\tau\end{smallmatrix}\right)\mapsto \left(\begin{smallmatrix}{\omega}/{N}\\\mathfrak{Z}\\\tau\end{smallmatrix}\right).$$ This map corresponds to the multiplication $I_{N}\cdot {\rm{pr}}(Z)$ with $Z\in {\mathcal H}(L(N))$ and ${\rm{pr}}(Z)\in {\mathcal D}^\bullet(U\oplus U_1\oplus L(-N))$ where $I_{N}=\rm{diag}(N^{-1}{{\mathbf 1}}_2, {{\mathbf 1}}_{n_0}, {{\mathbf 1}}_2)$. We prove the second claim. (The proof of the first one is similar.) If $\varphi\in {J}_{k,L;t}(\chi)$ then $$\widetilde{\varphi}_{1/2}(Z)=\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z})e^{\pi i\omega} =\widetilde{\varphi}\circ \pi_{2t}(Z),\qquad Z\in {\mathcal H}(L(2t))$$ is a holomorphic function on ${\mathcal H}(L(2t))$. We add index $2t$ to $\{A\}$ and $h$ in order to indicate the elements of the Jacobi groups $\Gamma^J(L(2t))$. First we see that $I_{2t}\{A\}_{2t}I_{2t}^{-1}= \{A\}$. Therefore $$\widetilde{\varphi}_{1/2}|_k \{A\}_{2t}(Z)=\chi(A)\widetilde{\varphi}_{1/2}(Z).$$ Second we have $$I_{2t}[x,y;r]_{2t}I_{2t}^{-1}=[x,y; \frac{r}{2t}]=[x,y;\frac{1}2(x,y)]\cdot [0,0; \frac{r-t(x,y)}{2t}]\quad \text{for }\ x,y\in L.$$ Therefore $$\widetilde{\varphi}_{1/2}|_k [x,y;r]_{2t}(Z)= \widetilde{\varphi}|_k ([x,y;\frac{1}2(x,y)]\cdot[0,0; \frac{r}{2t}-\frac{1}2(x,y)])(\pi_{2t}(Z))=$$ $$\chi([x,y;\frac{1}2(x,y)])e^{\pi i (r-t(x,y))}\widetilde{\varphi}_{1/2}(Z) \qquad\text{where }\ r-t(x,y)\in {\mathbb Z}.$$ It means that $\widetilde{\varphi}_{1/2}$ is an (extended) Jacobi form of index $\frac{1}2$ with the same ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$- and Heisenberg characters with respect to the even lattice $L(2t)$. In Definitions \[def-JF\] and \[def-JF\]’ and in the proof of the last proposition we used two interpretations of Jacobi forms as a function on ${\mathbb H}_1\times (L\otimes {\mathbb C})$ and on the tube domain ${\mathcal H}(L)$. For any $\tau=u+iv\in {\mathbb H}_1$ and ${\mathfrak Z}\in L\otimes {\mathbb C}$ we can find $\omega=u_1+iv_1\in {\mathbb H}_1$ such that $2v_1v-({\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}({\mathfrak Z}),{\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}({\mathfrak Z}))>0$ or, equivalently, ${}^t(\omega, {}^t{\mathfrak Z}, \tau)\in {\mathcal H}(L)$. In the next lemma we fix an independent part of this parameter $\omega$. \[lem-v-free\] Let $Z ={}^t(\omega, {}^t{\mathfrak{Z}}, \tau)\in{\mathcal H}(L)$. Then the quantity $$\widetilde{v}(Z)=v_1-\frac{(\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}),\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}))}{2v}>0$$ is invariant with respect to the action of the real Jacobi group $\Gamma^{J}(L\otimes {\mathbb R})$. For any $Z=X+iY\in{\mathcal H}(L)$ we consider its image ${\mathcal Z}={\mathcal X}+i{\mathcal Y}=[{\rm pr}(Z)]=[{}^t(-\frac{1}2 (Z,Z)_1, {}^tZ, 1)]$ in the projective homogeneous domain ${\mathcal D}(L)$ with $L=2U\oplus L(-1)$. For any $M\in {\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L)$ we have $$(M{\mathcal Z}, M\overline{{\mathcal Z}})=({\mathcal Z}, \overline{{\mathcal Z}})=2({\mathcal Y},{\mathcal Y})_1= 2(2v_1\cdot v -(\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}), \hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z})))=4v\cdot \widetilde v(Z).$$ By the definition of the action of the group ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L)$ on the tube domain we have $$4v\cdot \widetilde v({\mathcal Z})= 2({\mathcal Y},{\mathcal Y})_1=(M{\mathcal Z}, M\overline{{\mathcal Z}})=J(M,{\mathcal Z})\cdot \overline{J(M, {\mathcal Z})} (M{{\langle{{\mathcal Z}}\rangle}}, M{{\langle{\overline{{\mathcal Z}}}\rangle}})=$$ $$2|J(M,{\mathcal Z})|^2 \bigl({\mathcal Y}(M{{\langle{{\mathcal Z}}\rangle}}), {\mathcal Y}(M{{\langle{{\mathcal Z}}\rangle}})\bigr)_1= 4|J(M,{\mathcal Z})|^2 v(M{{\langle{{\mathcal Z}}\rangle}})\cdot \widetilde{v}(M{{\langle{{\mathcal Z}}\rangle}})=$$ $$4v\cdot \widetilde{v}(M{{\langle{{\mathcal Z}}\rangle}}).$$ [**Remark.**]{} The quantity $\widetilde{v}(Z)\in {\mathbb R}_{>0}$ is a free part of the variable $Z$ in the extended Jacobi form $\widetilde{\varphi}(Z)$: $$(\tau,{}^t{\mathfrak Z}) \mapsto {}^t(x_1+i(\widetilde{v}+ \frac{(\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}),\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}))}{2v}),\, {}^t{\mathfrak Z},\ \tau ) \in {\mathcal H}(L).$$ The Jacobi forms with respect to a lattice $L$ form a bigraded ring $J_{*, L;*}$ with respect to weights and indexes. In the next proposition we define a direct (or tensor) product of two Jacobi forms. Its proof follows directly from the definition. \[pr-prodJ\] Let $\varphi_1\in J_{k_1,L_1;t}(\chi_1\times \nu_1)$ and $\varphi_2\in J_{k_2,L_2;t}(\chi_2\times \nu_2)$ two Jacobi forms of the same index $t$. Then $$\varphi_1\otimes \varphi_2:=\varphi_1(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_1)\cdot\varphi_2(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_2) \in J_{k_1+k_2,L_1\oplus L_2;t}(\chi_1\chi_2\times \nu_1\nu_2)$$ where $\nu_1\nu_2$ is a character of the group $H(L_1\oplus L_2)$ defined by $$(\nu_1\nu_2)([x,y;r])=\nu_1([x_1,y_1; \tfrac{1}{2}(x_1,y_1)]) \nu_2([x_2,y_2;\tfrac{1}{2}(x_2,y_2)])e^{i\pi t((x_1,y_1)+(x_2,y_2)+2r)}$$ for $[x,y;r]=[x_1\oplus x_2,y_1\oplus y_2;r]\in H(L_1\oplus L_2)$. The tensor product of two Jacobi forms is a cusp form if at least one of them is a cusp form. It is known (see [@G1]) that the space $J_{k,L;t}(\chi)$ is trivial if $k< \frac{n_0}2$ where ${\mathop{\mathrm {rank}}\nolimits}L=n_0$. The minimal possible weight $k=\frac{n_0}2$ is called [*singular weight*]{}. For any Jacobi form $\varphi$ of singular weight the hyperbolic norm of the index of a non-zero Fourier coefficient $f(n,l)$ (see ) is equal to zero: $2nt-(l,l)=0$, i.e. ${\rm Ord} (\varphi)=0$. [**Example 1.6.**]{} [*The Jacobi theta-series*]{}. The Jacobi theta-series of characteristic $(\frac{1}2, \frac{1}2)$ is defined by $$\label{theta} \vartheta(\tau,z)=\sum_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}\left(\frac{-4}{n}\right)q^{\frac{n^2}{8}} r^{\frac{n}{2}} =-q^{1/8}r^{-1/2}\prod_{n\geqslant 1}\,(1-q^{n-1} r)(1-q^n r^{-1})(1-q^n)$$ where $q=e^{2\pi i \tau}$, $\tau\in {\mathbb H}_1$ and $r=e^{2\pi i z}$, $z\in {\mathbb C}$. This is the simplest example of Jacobi form of half-integral index. The theta-series $\vartheta$ satisfies two functional equations $$\vartheta(\tau, z+x \tau+y) =(-1)^{x +y}e^{-\pi i (x^2\tau+2x z)}\vartheta(\tau, z), \quad (x, y) \in {\mathbb Z}^2$$ and $$\vartheta(A{{\langle{\tau}\rangle}}, z)= v_\eta^3(A)(c\tau+d)^{\frac 1{2}}e^{\pi i \frac{cz^2}{c\tau + d}}\vartheta(\tau, z), \quad A=\left(\smallmatrix a&b\\ c&d \endsmallmatrix\right)\in {\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$$ where $v_\eta$ is the multiplier system of the Dedekind $\eta$-function. Using our notations, $A_1 \simeq {{\langle{2}\rangle}}$, we have $$\vartheta(\tau,z)\in J_{\frac{1}{2},A_1;\frac{1}{2}}(v_{\eta}^{3}\times v_{H})$$ where, for short, $v_{H(A_1)}=v_H$ is defined by: $$v_H([x,y;r])=(-1)^{x+y+xy+r},\qquad [x,y;r]\in H({\mathbb Z}),\quad x,y,r\in {\mathbb Z}.$$ The Jacobi theta-series $\vartheta$ is the Jacobi form of singular weight $\frac{1}2$ with a non-trivial character of the Heisenberg group. This Jacobi form was not mentioned in [@EZ] but it plays an important role in the construction of the basic Jacobi forms and reflective modular forms (see [@GN3], [@G-EG], [@G10]). We remind that $${\mathop{\mathrm {div}}\nolimits}\vartheta(\tau, z) = \{h{{\langle{z=0}\rangle}}\,|\, h\in H({\mathbb Z})\}= \{z=x\tau+y\,|\, x ,y \in {\mathbb Z}\}.$$ The Jacobi theta-series $\vartheta$ having the triple product formula will be the first main function in our construction of Jacobi forms for orthogonal lattices. [**Example 1.7.**]{} [*The Jacobi forms of singular weight for $mA_1$*]{}. Using the Jacobi theta-series we can construct Jacobi forms of singular weight for $mA_1={{\langle{2}\rangle}}\oplus \dots \oplus {{\langle{2}\rangle}}$. The tensor product of $m$ Jacobi theta-series is a Jacobi form of singular weight and index $\frac{1}2$ for $mA_1$: $$\label{theta-Am} \vartheta_{mA_1}(\tau, z_1,\dots,z_m)= \prod_{1\leqslant j \leqslant m}\vartheta(\tau,z_j) \in J_{\frac{m}{2},mA_1;\frac{1}{2}}(v_{\eta}^{3m}\times v_H^{\otimes m})$$ where $$v_H^{\otimes m}([x,y;r])=v_{H(mA_1)}([x,y;r])=(-1)^{r+\sum_{j=1}^{m}x_j+y_j+x_jy_j}$$ for any $x_j$, $y_j$, $r$ in ${\mathbb Z}$. For even $m$ we can construct Jacobi forms of singular weight and index $1$ because $$\label{theta-D2} \vartheta_{2A_1}^{(1)}(\tau, z_1,z_2)=\vartheta(\tau,z_1+z_2)\cdot \vartheta(\tau,z_1-z_2) \in J_{1,2A_1}(v_{\eta}^{6}).$$ Taking different orthogonal decompositions of the lattices $8A_1$ we obtain $105$ Jacobi forms of weight $4$ and index $1$ with trivial character. [**Example 1.8.**]{} [*The Jacobi forms of singular weight for $D_m$*]{}. We recall the definition of the even quadratic lattice $D_m$. (In this paper we denote by $A_m$, $D_m$, $E_m$ the lattices generated by the corresponding root systems). We use the standard Euclidian basis ${{\langle{e_i}\rangle}}_{i=1}^m$ ($(e_i,e_j)=\delta_{ij}$) in $\ {\mathbb Z}^m$. Then $$D_m=\{(x_1,\dots,x_m)\in {\mathbb Z}^m\,|\, x_1+\dots+x_m\in 2{\mathbb Z}\}\quad (m\geqslant1)$$ is the maximal even sublattice in ${\mathbb Z}^m$. The theta-product is a Jacobi form of index $1$ for $D_m$ with trivial Heisenberg character because the quadratic form $x_1^2+\dots+x_m^2$ is even on $D_m$ $$\label{theta-Dm} \vartheta_{D_m}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_m)= \vartheta(\tau,z_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot \vartheta(\tau,z_m) \in J_{\frac{m}{2},D_m}(v_{\eta}^{3m}).$$ We note that $D_2\cong A_2$ and $\vartheta_{D_2}=\vartheta_{2A_1}^{(1)}$. For the lattice $D_4$ we can give two more examples: $$\begin{gathered} \label{theta-D4a} \vartheta_{D_4}^{(2)}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_4)= \vartheta(\tau,\frac{-z_1+z_2+z_3+z_4}2) \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1-z_2+z_3+z_4}2)\\ \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1+z_2-z_3+z_4}2) \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1+z_2+z_3-z_4}2) \in J_{2,D_4}(v_{\eta}^{12})\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered} \label{theta-D4b} \vartheta_{D_4}^{(3)}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_4)= \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1+z_2+z_3+z_4}{2}) \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1+z_2-z_3-z_4}{2})\\ \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1-z_2-z_3+z_4}{2}) \vartheta(\tau,\frac{z_1-z_2+z_3-z_4}{2}) \in J_{2,D_4}(v_{\eta}^{12}).\end{gathered}$$ Analyzing the divisors of the Jacobi forms we obtain the relation $$\vartheta_{D_4}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_4)= \vartheta_{D_4}^{(2)}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_4)+ \vartheta_{D_4}^{(3)}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_4).$$ [**Jacobi forms and the Weil representation.**]{} The Jacobi forms can be considered as vector valued $SL_2({\mathbb Z})$-modular forms (see [@B3], [@KP], [@G-K3], [@Sch], [@Sk]) related to the Weil representation. To compare the examples considered above with vector-valued modular forms we recall the definitions from [@G-K3] for Jacobi form of index one. Let $L$ an even positive definite lattice of rank $n_0$ and $$\varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})= \sum_ {\substack{n\in {\mathbb Z},\ l\in L^\vee \\ \vspace{0.5\jot} 2n-(l,l)\geqslant 0}} f(n,l)e^{2i\pi({n}\tau+(l,\mathfrak{Z}))} \in J_{k,L}$$ a Jacobi form of weight $k$ and index one. By $q=q(L)$ we denote the level of the lattice $L$, i.e. the smallest integer such that $L^\vee(q)$ is an even lattice. Then we have the following representation (see [@G-K3 Lemma 2.3] with $m=1$) $$\varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})= \sum_{\mu\in D(L)} \phi_\mu(\tau)\theta^L_{\mu}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})$$ where $$\phi_\mu(\tau)= \sum_ {\substack{ r\geqslant0\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} \frac{2r}q \equiv -(\mu,\mu)\,{\rm mod}\, 2{\mathbb Z}}} f_h(r) \exp{(2\pi i\, \frac{r}{q}\tau)}, \qquad f_\mu(r)=f(\tfrac{2r+(\mu,\mu)}{2q},\mu)$$ and $$\theta^L_{\mu}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})=\sum_{l\in \mu+L} e^{i\pi m((l,l)\tau+2(l,\mathfrak{Z}))}$$ is the theta-series with characteristic $\mu\in D(L)=L^\vee/L$ where $L^\vee$ is the dual lattice. For any matrix $M=(\smallmatrix a&b\\c&d\endsmallmatrix)\in SL_2({\mathbb Z})$ the theta-vector $ \Theta_L(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}) =\bigl(\theta^L_{\mu}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})\bigr)_{\mu\in D(L)} $ has the following transformation property $$\Theta_L (\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d},\frac{\mathfrak{Z}}{c\tau+d}) =(c\tau+d)^{\frac {n_0}2} U(M) \exp(\frac{\pi i c(\mathfrak{Z}, \mathfrak{Z})}{c\tau+d}) \,\Theta_L(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})$$ where $U(M)$ is a unitary matrix. In particular, for $T=\left(\smallmatrix 1&1\\0&1\endsmallmatrix\right)$ and $S=\left(\smallmatrix 0&-1\\1&\ \,0\endsmallmatrix\right)$ we have $$U(T)={\rm diag\,}(e^{i\pi (\mu,\mu)})_{\mu\in D(L)}, \quad U(S)=(-i)^{\frac{n_0}{2}}(\sqrt{|D(L)|})^{-\frac{1}2} \bigl( e^{-2i\pi(\mu,\nu)}\bigr)_{\mu,\nu\in D(L)}.$$ Therefore $\Phi(\tau)=(\phi_\mu(\tau))_{\mu\in D(L)}$ is a holomorphic vector-valued modular form of weight $k-\frac{n_0}2$ for the conjugated representation $\overline{U}(M)$ of $SL_2({\mathbb Z})$. In particular, the weight of any holomorphic Jacobi form is greater or equal to $\frac{n_0}2$ (see [@G1]). We note also that the theta-series $\theta^L_{\mu}$ are linear independent and $\Theta_L$ is invariant with respect to the action of the stable orthogonal group $\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}(L)$ (see Theorem 2.2 below) and, in particular, with respect to the Weyl group of the lattice $L$, $W_{2}(L)$, which is a subgroup of $\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}(L)$ generated by $2$-reflections in the lattice $L$. We get the simplest example for an even unimodular lattice $N$ of rank $n_0$ (see [@G1] and [@G-K3 Lemma 4.1]) $$\label{J-unimodular} \Theta_N(\tau, \mathfrak{Z})= \sum_{l\in N} e^{\pi i (l,l)\tau+ 2\pi i (l, \mathfrak{Z})} \in J_{\frac{n_0}2, N}.$$ Moreover we have that two linear spaces of Jacobi forms are isomorphic $${J}_{k_1, L_1}\cong{J}_{k_1+\frac{n_2-n_1}2, L_2}$$ if $L_1$ (rank$L_1=n_1$) and $L_2$ (rank$L_2=n_2$) are two lattices with isomorphic discriminant forms (see [@G-K3 Lemma 2.4]). [**Example 1.9.**]{} [*The Weil representation for $D_m$*]{}. We recall that $|D_{m}^\vee/D_{m}|=4$ and $$D_m^\vee/D_m=\{\mu_i,\ i\bmod 4\}= \{0,\frac{1}2(e_1+\dots+e_m),\, e_1,\, \frac{1}2(e_1+\dots +e_{m-1}-e_m)\ \bmod D_m\}$$ is the cyclic group of order $4$ generated by $\mu_1=\frac{1}2(e_1+\dots+e_m)\bmod D_m$, if $m$ is odd, and the product of two groups of order $2$, if $m$ is even. We have the following matrix of inner products in the discriminant group of $D_m$ of the non-trivial classes modulo $D_m$ $$\bigl((\mu_i,\mu_j)\bigr)_{i,j\ne 0}= \left(\begin{matrix} \frac{m}4&\frac{1}2&\frac{m-2}4\\ \frac{1}2&1&\frac{1}2\\ \frac{m-2}4&\frac{1}2&\frac{m}4 \end{matrix}\right)\qquad (\mu_i\in D_m^\vee/D_m)$$ where the diagonal elements are taken modulo $2{\mathbb Z}$ and the non-diagonal elements are taken modulo ${\mathbb Z}$. We note that the discriminant group of $D_m$ depends only on $m\bmod 8$. This gives the formula for $U(T)$ and $U(S)$. 1\) For $m\equiv 4\bmod 8$, we have $$U(T)={\rm diag\,}(1,-1,-1,-1),\quad U(S)=-\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&\ \,1&\ \,1&\ \,1\\ 1&\ \,1&-1 &-1\\ 1&-1 &\ \,1&-1\\ 1&-1 &-1&\ \,1 \end{smallmatrix}\right).$$ We put $\theta^{D_m}_{i}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z_m}) :=\theta^{D_m}_{\mu_i}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z_m})$ for $i\bmod 4$. The matrices $U(T)$ and $U(S)$ have the three common eigenvectors: $$\theta^{D_m}_{1}-\theta^{D_m}_{3}, \quad \theta^{D_m}_{1}-\theta^{D_m}_{2}, \quad \theta^{D_m}_{2}-\theta^{D_m}_{3} \qquad (m\equiv 4\bmod 8).$$ If $m=4$ we get the Jacobi forms $\vartheta_{D_4}$, $\vartheta_{D_4}^{(1)}$ and $\vartheta_{D_4}^{(2)}$ obtained above as theta-products. 2\) For $m\equiv 0\bmod 8$, we have $$U(T)={\rm{diag}}(1,1,-1,1),\quad U(S)= \frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & \ \,1 &\ \, 1 & \ \,1 \\ 1 & \ \,1 & -1 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 & \ \,1 & -1\\ 1 & -1 & -1 & \ \,1 \end{smallmatrix}\right).$$ These lattices have again two linear independent common eigenvectors. The first one is the theta-product $\vartheta_{D_m}=\theta^{D_m}_{1}-\theta^{D_m}_{3}$. The second eigenvector $\vartheta_{D_m^+}=\theta^{D_m}_{0}+\theta^{D_m}_{1}$ is equal to the Jacobi theta-series of the unimodular lattice $D_m^+={{\langle{D_m,\, \mu_1}\rangle}}$. In particular, $D_8^+=E_8$ and $\vartheta_{D_m^+}=\Theta_{E_8}$ (see ). To understand better the role of the Jacobi theta-series $\vartheta$ we consider one more case. 3\) For $m\equiv 1 \bmod 8$, we have $$U(T)={\rm{diag}}(1,e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}},-1,e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}), \quad U(S)=\frac{1}{2}e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}} \left(\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & \ \,1 & \ \,1 & \ \,1 \\ 1 & -i & -1 & \ \,i\\ 1 & -1 & \ \,1 & -1\\ 1 & \ \,i & -1 & -i \end{smallmatrix}\right)$$ and $\vartheta_{D_m}=\theta^{D_m}_{1}-\theta^{D_m}_{3}$ is the only Jacobi form of singular weight. Moreover, for $m=1$ we get $$\vartheta_{D_1}(\tau,z) \in J_{\frac{1}{2},{{\langle{4}\rangle}};1}(v_{\eta}^3)=J_{\frac{1}{2},A_1;2}(v_{\eta}^3) =J_{\frac{1}{2},2}(v_{\eta}^3).$$ The last space is the space of classical Jacobi forms of weight $\frac{1}{2}$, index $2$ with the multiplier system $v_{\eta}^3$. It is easy to check that $\vartheta_{D_1}(\tau,0)=\vartheta_{D_1}(\tau,\frac{1}{2})=0$. Therefore $$\vartheta_{D_1}(\tau,z)=\vartheta(\tau,2z).$$ 4\) Analyzing $U(T)$ and $U(S)$ for all other $m$ modulo $8$ we get only one common eigenvector corresponding to the theta-product $\vartheta_{D_m}=\theta^{D_m}_{1}-\theta^{D_m}_{3}$. Therefore Example 1.8 contains all possible Jacobi forms of singular weight (and index one) for $D_m$. [**Example 1.10.**]{} [*The lattice $E_6$*]{}. Let $E^\vee_6$ be the dual lattice of $E_6$ and $D(E_6)$ its discriminant group. We have $$D(E_6)=E^\vee_6/E_6\simeq {\mathbb Z}/3{\mathbb Z}\quad{\rm and }\quad q_{D(E_6)}=-q_{D(A_2)}.$$ The discriminant group has the following system of representatives (see [@Bou], Planche V): $D(E_6)=\left\{0,\mu, 2\mu\right\}$ where $\mu^2\equiv \frac{4}3\mod 2{\mathbb Z}$. We have $$U(T)={\rm{diag}}\left(1,\rho^2,\rho^2\right),\quad U(S)=\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\smallmatrix 1 &1 &1 \\ 1 & \rho^2 & \rho \\ 1 & \rho & \rho^2 \endsmallmatrix\right)$$ with $\rho=e^{\frac{2i\pi}{3}}$. We get $$\theta_{E_6}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_6) =(\theta_{1}-\theta_{2})(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_6)\in J_{3,E_6}(v_{\eta}^{16}).$$ This Jacobi form is invariant with respect to the Weyl group $W(E_6)$. The simple construction of Jacobi forms using products of Jacobi theta-series has a lot of advantages. First, we get Jacobi forms of singular weight with a very simple divisor. Second, we can easily determine the maximal group of symmetries with respect to the abelian variable. This fact is important in the next section in which we construct modular forms of singular weight with respect to orthogonal groups. [**Example 1.11**]{} [*The Jacobi theta-series $\vartheta_{3/2}$.*]{} We can get more examples using the second theta-series of weight $1/2$ and index $3/2$ with respect to the full modular group $SL_2({\mathbb Z})$. This function is related to twisted affine Lie algebras and is important in the construction of basic reflective Siegel modular forms (see [@GN3]) $$\label{theta3/2} \vartheta_{3/2}(\tau,z)=\frac{\eta(\tau)\vartheta(\tau,2z)}{\vartheta(\tau,z)} \in J_{\frac{1}2, A_1;\frac{3}2}(v_\eta\times v_H)= J_{\frac{1}2, {{\langle{6}\rangle}};\frac{1}2}(v_\eta\times v_H)$$ which is given by the quintiple product formula $$\begin{aligned} \ \vartheta_{3/2}(\tau,z)&=\sum_{n\in{\mathbb Z}}\left(\frac{12}{n}\right)q^{\frac{n^2}{24}} r^{\frac{n}{2}}=\\ {}&q^{\frac{1}{24}}r^{-\frac{1}{2}} \prod_{n\geqslant 1}\,(1+q^{n-1} r)(1+q^{n} r^{-1}) (1-q^{2n-1} r^{2})(1-q^{2n-1} r^{-2})(1-q^n).\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\label{theta-mA3} \vartheta_{mA_1(3)}(\tau, z_1,\dots,z_m) =\prod_{1\leqslant j \leqslant m}\vartheta_{3/2}(\tau,z_j) \in J_{\frac{m}{2},m{{\langle{6}\rangle}};\frac{1}{2}}(v_{\eta}^{m}\times v_H^{\otimes m})$$ (we recall that $m{{\langle{6}\rangle}}=mA_1(3)$ denotes the orthogonal sum of $m$ copies of the lattice ${{\langle{6}\rangle}}$ of rank one). The same theta-product can be considered as a Jacobi form of index $1$ for the lattice $D_m(3)$ and $$\label{theta-Dm3} \vartheta_{D_m(3)}(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}_m)= \vartheta_{3/2}(\tau,z_1)\cdot \ldots \cdot \vartheta_{3/2}(\tau,z_m) \in J_{\frac{m}{2},D_m(3)}(v_{\eta}^{m})$$ where $D_m(3)$ is the lattice $D_m$ renormalized by $3$. In this simple way, we construct examples of Jacobi forms of singular weight with trivial character for even $n_0\geqslant8$: $D_8$, $D_7\oplus D_3(3)$, $D_6\oplus D_6(3)$, $D_5\oplus D_9(3)$ and so on (see Proposition \[Form-sing\]). The lifting of Jacobi forms of half-integral index ================================================== The lifting of the Jacobi form $\vartheta_{D_8}$ (see ) is a reflective modular form with respect to the orthogonal group ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(2U\oplus D_8(-1))$ (see [@G10]) which is equal to the Borcherds–Enriques automorphic discriminant $\Phi_4$ of the moduli space of the Enriques surfaces introduced in [@B2]. The lifting of the Jacobi form $$\eta^9(\tau)\vartheta_{D_5}(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}_5)\in J_{7,D_5}$$ determined the unique canonical differential form on the modular variety of the orthogonal group $\widetilde{{\mathop{\mathrm {SO}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_5(-1))$ having Kodaira dimension $0$. In [@G10] there were found three such modular varieties of dimensions $4$, $6$ and $7$. The cusp form of the modular variety of dimension $4$ is defined by a Jacobi form of half-integral index with a character of order $2$ (see Example 2.4 below). In this section we give a variant of the lifting of Jacobi forms of half-integral index with a character. This theorem is a generalization of Theorem 3.1 in [@G-K3] (the case of Jacobi forms of orthogonal type with trivial character) and Theorem 1.12 in [@GN3] (the case of Siegel modular forms with respect to a paramodular group of genus $2$). All these constructions are particular cases of Borcherds additive lifting (see [@B3 §14]) of vector valued modular forms. Nevertheless our approach related to Jacobi forms gives in a natural way many new important examples of reflective modular forms for orthogonal groups. Theorem \[thm-lift\] is a necessary tool for this purpose. We can define a Hecke operator which multiplies the index of Jacobi forms. This operator is similar to the operator $V_m$ of [@EZ] or to the ‘minus’-Hecke operator introduced in [@G-K3]–[@G-Ab] in the case of Siegel modular forms of arbitrary genus or for the modular forms for orthogonal groups. We apply such operators to elements of $J_{k,L;t}(v_{\eta}^{D}\times \nu)$ where $\nu$ is a binary character of the minimal integral Heisenberg group $H_s(L)$ \[pr-hecke\] Let $\varphi\in J_{k,L;t}(v_\eta^D\times \nu)$ not identically zero. We assume that $k$ is integral, $t$ is rational and $D$ is an even divisor of $24$. If $Q=\frac{24}{D}$ is odd we assume that the character of the minimal integral Heisenberg group $\nu: H_s(L)\to \{\pm 1\}$ is trivial. Then for any natural $m$ coprime to $Q$ the function $$\varphi\vert_{k,t}T_-^{(Q)}(m)(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})= \sum_{\substack{ad=m, \ a >0 \\ \vspace{0.5\jot} b \bmod d}} a^{k}v_\eta^D(\sigma_a) \varphi(\frac{a\tau+bQ}{d}, \,a{\mathfrak Z}),$$ where $\sigma_a\in{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ such that $\sigma_a\equiv\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a^{-1}& 0\\0& a\end{smallmatrix}\right)\bmod Q$, belongs to $J_{k,L;mt}(v_{\eta,m}^D\times \nu)$. The new ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$-character is defined as follows: $$v_{\eta,m}^D(A)=v_\eta^D(A_m)\qquad {\rm for \ all}\ A\in{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$$ with $A_m\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1 & 0\\ 0 & m\end{smallmatrix}\right)\equiv \left(\begin{smallmatrix}1 &0\\0&m\end{smallmatrix}\right)A\bmod Q$. The character $v_{\eta,m}^D$ depends only on $m\bmod Q$. It is known that ${\mathop{\mathrm {Ker}}\nolimits}v_\eta^D$ contains the principle congruence subgroup $\Gamma(Q)<{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ (see [@GN3 Lemma 1.2]). We consider the following subgroup $ \Gamma^J(Q)\simeq\Gamma(Q)\rtimes {\mathop{\mathrm {Ker}}\nolimits}(\nu) $ of the Jacobi group. We identify it with the corresponding parabolic subgroup in the orthogonal group ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^{+}(2U\oplus L(-1))$. For $(m,Q)=1$, let $$T^{(Q)}(m)=\Gamma(Q)\sum_{\substack{ad=m, \ a >0 \\b \bmod d}} \sigma_a \begin{pmatrix}a & bQ\\0& d\end{pmatrix}$$ be the usual Hecke operator for $\Gamma(Q)$. We associate to the element $T^{(Q)}(m)$ the element $T_-^{(Q)}(m)$ of the Hecke ring of the parabolic subgroup (see [@G-K3] and [@GN3]) $$T_-^{(Q)}(m)=\Gamma^J(Q)\sum_{\substack{ad=m, \ a >0 \\b \bmod d}} \{\sigma_a\}M_{a,b,d}$$ where $M_{a,b,d}={\mathop{\mathrm {diag}}\nolimits}\bigl( \begin{pmatrix} a&-bQ\\0&d \end{pmatrix},\ {{\mathbf 1}}_{n_0},\ m^{-1}\begin{pmatrix} a& bQ\\0&d \end{pmatrix} \bigr)$. This is a sum of some double cosets with respect to $\Gamma^J(Q)$. We consider the extended Jacobi form $\widetilde{\varphi}(Z)=\varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})e^{2i\pi t\omega}$ with $Z={}^t(\omega, {}^t{\mathfrak Z},\tau) \in{\mathcal H}(L)$ which is modular with respect to the parabolic subgroup. Then we have $$\widetilde{\psi}(Z)=(\widetilde{\varphi}\vert_k T_-^{(Q)}(m))(Z)= \sum_{\substack{ad=m, \ a>0\\b \bmod d}}(\widetilde{\varphi} \vert_k \{\sigma_a\}M_{a,b,d})(Z).$$ By definition, we have $$(\widetilde{\varphi}\vert_k \{\sigma_a\} M_{a,b,d})(Z) =a^k v_{\eta}^D(\sigma_a)\varphi(\frac{a\tau+bQ}{d},a\mathfrak{Z})e^{2i\pi mt\omega}.$$ Therefore the Hecke operator of the proposition corresponds to the Hecke operator $T_-^{(Q)}(m)$ of the parabolic subgroup $\Gamma^J(Q)$ acting on the modular forms with respect to the parabolic subgroup $\Gamma^J(Q)$. We remark that the new index of the extended function on ${\mathcal H}(L)$ is equal to $mt$. The case of modular transformations is similar to the theory of usual Hecke operators (see [@Sh]). If $A\in{\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$, then somewhat lenghty but easy calculations give us $$\widetilde{\psi}\vert_k \{A\} =\sum_{\substack{a'd'=m,\ a'>0\\b' \bmod d'}} (\widetilde{\varphi}\vert_k\{A_m\})\vert_k \{\sigma_{a'}\}M_{a',b',d'} =v_{\eta}^D(A_m)\widetilde{\psi}.$$ This is due to the fact that the group $\Gamma(Q)$ is normal in ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ and then $$\Gamma^J(Q)\{A_m\}^{-1}\{\sigma_a\}M_{a,b,d}\{A\} \neq \Gamma^J(Q)\{A_m\}^{-1}\{\sigma_{a'}\}M_{a',b',d'}\{A\}$$ for distinct $a$ and $a'$ prime to $Q$. Secondly we consider the abelian transformations. Let $h=[x,y;r]\in H_s(L)$. Then we have $$\widetilde{\psi}\vert_k h =\sum_{\substack{ad=m, \ a>0\\b \bmod d}}\nu (h'_{a,b,d})\widetilde{\varphi} \vert_k\{\sigma_a\}M_{a,b,d}$$ where $h'_{a,b,d}=\left\{\sigma_a\right\}(M_{a,b,d}\cdot h)\left\{\sigma_a^{-1}\right\}=[x',y';r']$ and $$[x',y';r'] =[(\delta d+\gamma bQ)x-a\gamma y, -(\beta d+\alpha bQ) x+\alpha ay;mr]\in H(L)$$ with $\sigma_a=\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\alpha& \beta\\ \gamma & \delta\end{smallmatrix}\right) \equiv\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a^{-1} & 0\\0& a\end{smallmatrix}\right)\bmod Q$. We note that $$(x',y')\equiv \bigl(m(\alpha\delta+\beta\gamma)+2\alpha \gamma ab Q\bigr)(x,y) \equiv m(x,y) \bmod 2s(L).$$ Therefore if $\nu={\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits}$ then $$\nu([x',y';r'])=e^{2\pi i t(mr-\frac{1}2 m(x,y))}$$ because $t\cdot s(L)\in {\mathbb Z}$. This proves the formula for odd $Q$. If $Q$ is even we have $[x',y';r']=[mx+Q\widetilde{x}, y+Q\widetilde{y};mr]$. Then $$[-Q\widetilde{x},-Q\widetilde{y}; -\frac{Q^2}2(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})]\cdot [x',y';r'] =[mx, y;mr+\frac{Q}2\bigl( -(\widetilde{x},y')+m(\widetilde{y},x')-Q(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})\bigr)].$$ As $Q$ is even we have $\nu([-Q\widetilde{x},-Q\widetilde{y}; -\frac{Q^2}2(\widetilde{x},\widetilde{y})])=1$. But in this case $m=2m_0+1$ is odd so $$\nu([x',y';r'])=\nu([mx, y;mr])=\nu([x, y; mr-m_0(x,y)])=\nu([x, y;r]).$$ We calculate the Fourier expansion of $\varphi\vert_{k,t}T_-^{(Q)}(m)$ in the proof of Theorem \[thm-lift\] (see below). It shows that it is a holomorphic Jacobi form. Let $L$ be an even lattice. [*The stable orthogonal group*]{} $\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}(L)$ is the subgroup of ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(L)$ whose elements induce the identity on the discriminant group $D(L)=L^\vee/L$ $$\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}(L)=\{g\in {\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}(L) {\rm{\ such \ that \ }} \forall\ l\in L^\vee\,:\, \ g(l)-l \in L\}.$$ \[thm-lift\] Let $\varphi\in J_{k,L;t}(v_\eta^D\times \nu)$, $k$ be integral, $t$ be rational, $D$ be an even divisor of $24$. If the conductor $Q=\frac{24}D$ is odd we assume that $\nu$ is trivial. Fix $\mu\in({\mathbb Z}/Q{\mathbb Z})^*$. Then the function $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)(Z)=f(0,0)E_k(\tau)+ \sum_{\substack{m\equiv \mu \bmod Q\\ m\geqslant 1}} m^{-1}(\widetilde{\varphi}\vert_k T_-^{(Q)}(m))\circ \pi_{Qt}(Z),$$ is a modular form of weight $k$ with respect to the stable orthogonal group $\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus L(Qt))$ of the even lattice $L(Qt)$ with a character of order $Q$ induced by $v_{\eta,\mu}^D$, the binary Heisenberg character $\nu$ of $H_s(L(Qt))$ and the character $e^{2i\pi\frac{\mu}{Q}}$ of the center of $H(L(Qt))$. In the formula above $f(0,0)$ is the zeroth Fourier coefficient of $\varphi$, $E_k$ is the Eisenstein series of weight $k$ with respect to ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ and the map $\pi_{Qt}$ was defined in . [**The Eisenstein series**]{} $E_k$. First we note that $f(0,0)$ could be non-zero only for the trivial character $v_\eta^D={\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits}$. In this case $\varphi(\tau, 0)=f(0,0)+ \dots$ is a non-zero modular form of weight $k$ with respect to ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$. Therefore $k\geqslant 4$ and $E_k$ is well defined. We note that $E_k$ is a Jacobi form of index $0$. [**The lattice $L(Qt)$.**]{} This lattice is even for all $Q$. The lattice $L(t)$ is integral for a non zero Jacobi form $\varphi$. If $Q$ is odd then $L(t)$ is even because the character $\nu$ is trivial in this case (see Proposition \[pr-index\]). Therefore for all $Q$ the lattice $L(Qt)$ is even. [**The character of**]{} $\Gamma^J(L(Qt))$. According to Proposition \[pr-hecke\] $$\varphi_m(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})=(\varphi\vert_{k,t} T_-^{(Q)}(m))(\tau,\mathfrak{Z}) \in J_{k,L;mt}(v_{\eta,\mu}^D \times \nu).$$ We can defined an extended Jacobi form using the map $\pi_{Qt}$ (see ). According to Proposition \[pr-index\] $$\varphi_m(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})e^{2i\pi\frac{m}{Q}\omega}\in \widetilde{J}_{k, L(Qt); \frac m{Q}}(v_{\eta,\mu}^D \times \nu)$$ is a modular form of weight $k$ with respect to the parabolic subgroup $\Gamma^J(L(Qt))$ of the orthogonal group ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(2U\oplus L(-Qt))$. We note that the character $\nu$ of the minimal integral Heisenberg group $H_s(L(Qt))$ is extended to the center of $H(L(Qt))$ by the formula $$\nu([0,0;r])=e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{Q} r}= e^{2\pi i \frac{\mu}{Q} r}.$$ If $f(0,0)\ne 0$ then $v_\eta^D={\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits}$, i.e. $D=24$, $Q=1$ and $\nu={\mathop{\mathrm {id}}\nolimits}$. Therefore all terms in the sum defining the lifting ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)$ have the same character with respect to $\Gamma^J(L(Qt))<{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(2U\oplus L(-Qt))$. [**Convergence.**]{} Let $Z={}^t(\omega, {}^t{\mathfrak Z},\tau)\in {\mathcal H}(L(Qt))$. The extended Jacobi form $\widetilde{\varphi}(Z)=\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})\exp(2\pi i \frac{\omega}{Q})$ of index $\frac{1}Q$ is holomorphic at “infinity” $({{\mathop{\mathrm {Im}}\nolimits}\omega}\to +i\infty)$. Therefore $|\widetilde{\varphi}|$ is bounded in any neighborhood of “infinity” (see [@CG] and [@Kl]). We can rewrite this fact using the free parameter $\widetilde{v}=\widetilde{v}(Z)>0$ from Lemma \[lem-v-free\]. Then we have $$|\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})| \exp\bigl (- \frac{2\pi }{Q}\, \frac{(\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}),\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}))}{2v}\bigr)<C$$ is bounded for $v={\rm Im}(\tau)> \varepsilon$ and the exponential term does not depend on the action of $\Gamma^J(L(Qt))$. Using the action of ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})<\Gamma^J(L(Qt))$ we obtain that $$|\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})| \exp\bigl(-\frac{2\pi}{Q}\frac{(\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}),\hbox{Im}({\mathfrak Z}))}{2v}\bigr) <Cv^{-k}$$ if $v\leqslant \varepsilon$ (see [@CG §2] for similar considerations). Now we can get an estimation of all terms in the sum for ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)$ for $v>\varepsilon$. We have $$|a^k\varphi(\frac{a\tau+bQ}{d}, a{\mathfrak Z}) \exp\bigl(-2\pi \frac{1}{Q}(\frac{(\hbox{Im}(a{\mathfrak Z}),\hbox{Im}(a{\mathfrak Z}))}{2va/d})\bigr)| <C d^k v^{-k}$$ if $\frac {a}{d}v\leqslant \varepsilon$. If $\frac {a}{d}v> \varepsilon$ then we have $< Ca^k$. In the both cases we see that the term above depending on $(a,b,d)$ is smaller than $C_\varepsilon m^k$. It gives us $$|m^{-1}\varphi_m(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})e^{2i\pi\frac{m}{Q}\omega}| <C_\varepsilon m^k\sigma_0(m) \exp(-\frac{2\pi m}{Q}\widetilde{v})< C_\varepsilon m^{k+1}\exp(-2\pi \frac{m}{Q}\widetilde{v})$$ where $\widetilde{v}(Z)>0$. Therefore the function ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)$ is well defined and it transforms like a modular form of weight $k$ and character $v_{\eta,\mu}^D\times \nu\times e^{2\pi i \frac{\mu}{Q} r }$ with respect to the parabolic subgroup $\Gamma^J(L(Qt))$. [**Fourier expansion**]{} of ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)$. In the summation of the Fourier expansion of $\varphi\in {J}_{k, L; t}(v_{\eta}^D \times \nu)$ we have $n\equiv \frac{D}{24}\bmod {\mathbb Z}$ (see ). Rewriting $n$ in terms of the conductor $Q=\frac{24}{D}$, the Fourier expansion of the function $\varphi$ has the following form $$\varphi(\tau,\mathfrak{Z})= \sum_{\substack{n\equiv 1\bmod Q,\,n\geqslant 0\\ \vspace{1\jot} \ l\in \frac 1{2} L^\vee\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} 2nt-(l,l) \geqslant 0}} f(nD,l)e^{2i\pi(\frac{n}{Q}\tau+(l,\mathfrak{Z}))}.$$ After the summation over $b\bmod d$ in the action of the Hecke operator we get $$m^{-1}(\widetilde{\varphi}\vert_k T_-^{(Q)}(m))\circ \pi_{Qt}(Z)=$$ $$\sum_{\substack{ad=m\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} a>0}}a^{k-1} v_{\eta}^D(\sigma_a) \sum_{\substack{nd\equiv 1 \bmod Q, n\geqslant 0\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} l\in \frac{1}{2}L^\vee \\ \vspace{0.5\jot} 2ndDt-(l,l)\geqslant 0}} f(ndD,l)e^{2i\pi(\frac{na}{Q}\tau+a(l,\mathfrak{Z})+\frac{ad}{Q}\omega)}.$$ So we have $$\begin{aligned} {\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)(Z)= \sum_{\substack{m\equiv \mu \bmod Q\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} m\geqslant 1}}\ &\sum_{\substack{ad=m\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} a>0}} a^{k-1} v_{\eta}^D(\sigma_a)\\ &\sum_{\substack{nd\equiv 1 \bmod Q\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} l\in\frac{1}{2} L^\vee\\\vspace{0.5\jot} 2{ndDt}-(l,l)\geqslant 0}} f(ndD,l)e^{2i\pi(\frac{na}{Q}\tau+a(l,\mathfrak{Z})+\frac{ad}{Q}\omega)}.\end{aligned}$$ But $nd\equiv 1 \bmod Q \Leftrightarrow an\equiv \mu \bmod Q$ because for any $(\mu,24)=1$ we have $\mu^2\equiv 1\bmod 24$. (We note that $24$ is the maximal natural number with this property). Using this property we obtain the Fourier expansion of the lifting $$\begin{aligned} {\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)(Z)&= \hspace{-3\jot} \sum_{\substack{m,n\equiv \mu \bmod Q\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} m,n\geqslant 1 \\ \vspace{0.5\jot} l\in \frac{1}2L^\vee\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} 2nmDt-(l,l)\geqslant 0}} \left(\sum_{\substack{a|(n,l,m)}} a^{k-1} v_{\eta}^D(\sigma_a) f(\frac{nmD}{a^2},\frac{l}{a})\right) e^{2i\pi(\frac{n}{Q}\tau+({al},\mathfrak{Z}))+\frac{m}{Q}\omega)}.\end{aligned}$$ We can reformulate the condition on the hyperbolic norm of the index $(n,l,m)$ of the Fourier coefficient in the term of the lattice $L(Qt)$: $2\frac{ndD}{Q}-\frac{1}{Qt}(l,l)\geqslant 0$. The formula for the Fourier expansion is symmetric with respect to $\tau$ and $\omega$. The involution $V$ which permutes the isotropic vectors $e_1$ and $f_1$ in the second copy of the hyperbolic plane of the lattice $U\oplus U_1\oplus L(-Qt)$ realizes the transformation $\tau\leftrightarrow\omega$ and $\mathfrak{Z}\leftrightarrow\mathfrak{Z}$. We see that $V\in \widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus L(-Qt))$, $\rm{det}(V)=-1$, $J(V,Z)=1$ and $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)\vert_k V={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi).$$ It is known (see [@G-K3 p. 1194] or [@GHS2 Proposition 3.4]) that $$\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus L(-Qt))=\langle \Gamma^J(L(Qt)),\ V \rangle.$$ Therefore ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)$ is a modular form of weight $k$ with a character of order $Q$ with respect to $\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus L(-Qt))$. [**Remark to Theorem \[thm-lift\]**]{}. If $\mu=1$ then ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\varphi)={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{1}(\varphi)\not\equiv 0$ because its first Fourier–Jacobi coefficient $\widetilde{\varphi}$ is not zero. For $\mu\ne 1$ the function ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}_{\mu}(\varphi)$ might be identically zero. See [@GN3 Example 1.15] for a non-zero $\mu$-lifting in the case of signature $(2,3)$. At the end of the section we give the first application of Theorem \[thm-lift\]. [**Example 2.3.**]{} [*Modular forms of singular weight*]{}. The first example of such modular forms $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\Theta_{E_8})\in M_4({\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}(II_{2,10}))$$ was given in [@G1]. This function is sometimes called the simplest modular form (or the Gritsenko form) because it has very simple Fourier coefficients. Using the theta-products – we can define modular forms of singular weight on orthogonal groups with a character induced by $v_\eta^D$-character for $D=2$, $4$, $6$, $8$, $12$ and $24$. We give some examples below in order to illustrate different cases: $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{D_8})\in M_4(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_8(-1))),\quad {\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{D_{8}(3)})\in M_{4}(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_{8}(-9)),\chi_3),$$ $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{4A_1})\in M_2(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus 4A_1(-1)), \chi_2),\ {\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{D_{24}(3)})\in M_{12}(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_{24}(-3))),$$ $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{2A_1})\in M_1(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus 2{{\langle{-4}\rangle}}), \chi_4), \quad {\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{D_{2}(3)})\in M_{1}(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus 2{{\langle{-36}\rangle}}),\chi_{12})$$ where $\chi_n$ denotes a character of order $n$ of the corresponding orthogonal group. We note that in many case [*the maximal modular group*]{} of the lifting is larger than the stable orthogonal group $\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus L(-1))$. For example, the maximal modular group of ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta^d\vartheta_{D_{m}})$ for any $d$ and $m$ such that $d+3m\equiv 0\bmod 24$ is the full orthogonal group ${{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_m(-1))$ if $m\ne 4$. The form ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta^d\vartheta_{D_{m}})$ is anti-invariant with respect to the involution of the Dynkin diagram (the reflection with respect to a vector with square $4$). If $m=4$ then $${{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_4(-1))\,/\,\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_4(-1)) \cong S_3.$$ The liftings of $\vartheta_{D_4}$, $\vartheta^{(2)}_{D_4}$, $\vartheta^{(3)}_{D_4}$ (see Example 1.8) are modular with respect to three different subgroups of order $3$ in ${{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_4(-1))$. The lifting of any theta-products vanishes along the divisors of the corresponding Jacobi forms. In particular ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{4A_1})$ vanishes with order one along $z_i=0$. It is known that the full divisor of this modular form is equal to the union of all modular transformations of $z_i=0$, i.e. this is a singular reflective modular form with the simplest possible divisor (see [@G10]). The same is true for ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{D_8})$. The Fourier expansion of ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{4A_1})$ (or ${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{D_8})$) written in a fixed Weyl chamber of the corresponding orthogonal group will define generators and relations of Lorentzian Kac–Moody algebras (see [@GN1]–[@GN3] and a forthcoming paper of Gritsenko and Nikulin about reflective groups of rank $\geqslant4$). Here we consider the formula for $4A_1$ which was given without proof in [@G10]. [**Example 2.4.**]{} [*Jacobi lifting, the modular tower $4A_1$ and modular forms of “Calabi–Yau type”.*]{} We consider the following theta-product as a Jacobi form of index $\frac{1}2$ $$\vartheta_{4A_1}(\tau, \mathfrak{Z}_4) =\vartheta(\tau,z_1)\dots \vartheta(\tau,z_4) \in J_{2,4A_1;\frac{1}2}(v_\eta^{12}\times v_H^{\otimes 4}).$$ According to Theorem \[thm-lift\] we get $$\Phi_2(Z):={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{4A_1})(\tau, \mathfrak{Z}_4,\omega) \in M_2({\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(2U\oplus 4A_1(-1)),\chi_2)$$ where $\chi_2$ is a character of order $2$ of the full orthogonal group. The modular form $\Phi_2$ is reflective with the simplest possible divisor (see [@G10]). The Fourier expansion of this fundamental reflective form of singular weight is the following $$\Phi_2(Z)=\sum_{ \ell=(l_1,\dots, l_4), \ l_i\equiv \frac 1{2} \,{\rm mod \,}{\mathbb Z}}$$ $$\sum_{\substack{ n,\,m\in {\mathbb Z}_{>0}\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} n\equiv m\equiv 1\,{\rm mod\,}{\mathbb Z}\\ \vspace{0.5\jot} nm-(\ell,\ell)=0}} \sigma_1((n,\ell,m)) \biggl(\frac{-4}{2l_1}\biggr)\dots \biggl(\frac{-4}{2l_4}\biggr) \,e^{\pi i (n\tau+ (2\ell,\mathfrak{Z}_4)+m\omega)}$$ where $\sigma_1(n)=\sum_{d|n} d$. The quasi-pullbacks (see [@GHS]) of $\Phi_2$ along the divisors is again reflective (see [@G10]). In this way we obtain the $4A_1$-tower of reflective modular forms in six, five, four and three variables with respect to ${\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}^+(2U\oplus nA_1(-1))$ for $n=4$, $3$, $2$ and $1$: $$\Phi_2={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\vartheta_{4A_1}),\qquad {\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta^3\vartheta_{3A_1}),$$ $$K_4(\tau,z_1,z_2,\omega):={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta^6(\tau)\vartheta(\tau,z_1)\vartheta(\tau,z_2)), \quad \Delta_5={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta^9(\tau)\vartheta(\tau,z))$$ where $\Delta_5\in S_5({\mathop{\mathrm {Sp}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z}),\chi_2)$ is the Igusa modular form (a square root of the first Siegel cusp form of weight $10$). The modular form $\Delta_5$ determines one of the most fundamental Lorentzian Kac–Moody algebras related to the second quantized elliptic genus of $K3$ surfaces (see [@GN1], [@DMVV] and [@G-EG]). The modular form $$K_4 \in S_4\bigl(\widetilde{{\mathop{\mathrm {SO}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus 2A_1(-1)), \chi_2\bigr)$$ is the second member of the modular $4A_1$-tower based on $\Delta_5$. This form defines an (elliptic) Lorentzian Kac–Moody algebra of signature $(1,3)$ (see a forthcoming paper of Gritsenko and Nikulin). Moreover $K_4(Z)dZ$ is the only canonical differential form on the orthogonal modular variety $$M_{\chi_2}(2A_1)=\Gamma_{\chi_2}\setminus {{\mathcal D}}(2U\oplus 2A_1(-1))$$ of complex dimension $4$ and of Kodaira dimension $0$ where $\Gamma_{\chi_2}=\ker(\chi_2)$ (see [@G10]). The first example of cusp forms of this type was considered in [@GH1] where it was shown that the modular form $$\Delta_{1}={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta(\tau)\vartheta(\tau,z)) \in S_{1}(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus {{\langle{-6}\rangle}}), \chi_6)$$ determines the unique, up to a constant, canonical differential form $\Delta_1^3(Z)dZ$ on the Barth-Nieto modular Calabi–Yau three-fold. The second example of Siegel cusp forms of canonical weight with the simplest possible divisor was constructed in [@CG]: $$\nabla_3={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta(\tau)\eta(2\tau)^4\vartheta(\tau,z)) \in S_3(\Gamma^{(2)}_0(2),\chi_2)$$ where $\Gamma^{(2)}_0(2)<{\mathop{\mathrm {Sp}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$ and $\chi_2$ is its character of order $2$. A Calabi-Yau model of the Siegel modular three-fold $\Gamma^{(2)}_0(2)_{\chi_2}\setminus {\mathbb H}_2$ was found in [@FS-M]. The modular form in four variables $K_4$ is the next example of cusp form of “Calabi–Yau type” similar to the Siegel modular forms $\Delta_1^3$ and $\nabla_3$. We can ask a question about the existence of a compact model of Calabi–Yau type of the modular variety $M_{\chi_2}(2A_1)$ of dimension $4$ defined above. Modular forms of singular and critical weights ============================================== The minimal possible weight (singular weight) of holomorphic Jacobi form for $L$ is $\frac{n_0}2$ where $n_0={\mathop{\mathrm {rank}}\nolimits}L$. The first weight for which Jacobi cusp forms might appear is equal to $\frac{n_0+1}2$. This weight is called [*critical*]{}. In the case of classical modular forms in one variable the critical weight is equal to $1$. The simplest possible example of modular forms of critical weight in our context is the cusp form $\Delta_{1}={\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta\,\vartheta)$ of weight $1$ with a character of order $6$ for the lattice $2U\oplus {{\langle{-6}\rangle}}$ of signature $(2,3)$. We mentioned in Example 2.4 above that this function determines one of the basic Lorentzian Kac–Moody algebras in the Gritsenko–Nikulin classification (see [@GN2]–[@GN3]) and it induces the unique canonical differential form on a special Calabi–Yau three-folds, the Barth–Nieto quintic. We can construct a simple example of modular form of critical weight with trivial character using Theorem \[thm-lift\]. This is $${\mathop{\mathrm {Lift}}\nolimits}(\eta\,\vartheta_{D_{23}(3)}) \in M_{12}(\widetilde{{\mathop{\null\mathrm {O}}\nolimits}}^+(2U\oplus D_{23}(-3)))$$ which is a modular form with trivial character with respect to the orthogonal group of signature $(2,25)$. In this section we construct examples of Jacobi cusp forms of critical weight for all even ranks. For this aim we use the pullback of Jacobi forms of singular weight such that its Fourier coefficient $f(0,0)=0$. This is exactly the case of $\vartheta_{D_{m}}$. Let $M<L$ be an even sublattice of $L$. We can consider the Heisenberg group of $M$ as a subgroup of $H(L)$. Therefore if ${\rm rank} (M)={\rm rank} (L)$ then the Jacobi forms with respect to $L$ can be considered as Jacobi forms with respect to $M$. In the next proposition we consider the operation of pullback. \[prop-pback\] Let $M<L$ be a sublattice of $L$ and ${\rm rank} (M)<{\rm rank} (L)$ $$M\oplus M^\perp < L,\qquad {\mathfrak Z}={\mathfrak Z}_m\oplus {\mathfrak Z}_{\perp}\in L\otimes {\mathbb C}= (M\oplus M^\perp)\otimes {\mathbb C}.$$ For any $\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z})\in J_{k,L;t}(\chi\times \nu)$ its pullback is also a Jacobi form $$\varphi|_{M}:=\phi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}_m)=\varphi(\tau,{\mathfrak Z})|_{({\mathfrak Z}_\perp=0)} \in J_{k,M;t}(\chi\times \nu|_{\Gamma^J(M)}).$$ The pullback of a Jacobi cusp form is a cusp form or $0$. We note that the pullback of Jacobi form might be the zero function. What is more interesting is that the pullback might be a cusp form although the original function is not. The functional equations – are evidently true for $\varphi|_M$. To calculate its Fourier expansion we consider the embedding of the lattices $$M\oplus M^\perp < L<L^\vee < M^\vee \oplus (M^\perp)^\vee.$$ We have to analyze the $M$-projection of any vector $l$ in $\frac{1}2L^\vee=L(2)^\vee$ in the Fourier expansion . If the character $\nu$ of the minimal Heisenberg group is trivial then we do not need the coefficient $\frac{1}2$ before the lattices dual to $L$ and $M$ in the calculation below. For any $l\in \frac{1}2L^\vee=L(2)^\vee$ we have the following decomposition $$l=l_m\oplus l_{\perp}={\rm pr}_{M(2)^\vee} (l)\oplus {\rm pr}_{(M(2)^\perp)^\vee}(l) \in M(2)^\vee \oplus (M(2)^\perp)^\vee.$$ In the coordinates ${\mathfrak Z}={\mathfrak Z}_m\oplus {\mathfrak Z}_{\perp}$ we have $$\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})=\sum_{n\geqslant0,\,l=l_m\oplus\, l_{\perp}} f(n,l)e^{2\pi i({n}\tau+(l_m,{\mathfrak Z}_m)+(l_\perp,{\mathfrak Z}_\perp))}.$$ Therefore $$\varphi|_{M}(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_m)=\sum_{n\geqslant0,\,l_m\in M(2)^\vee} \bigl( \sum_{\substack{l_\perp\in (M(2)^\perp)^\vee\\ l_m\oplus\, l_{\perp}\in L(2)^\vee}} f(n, l_m\oplus\, l_{\perp})\bigr)\, e^{2\pi i({n}\tau+(l_m,{\mathfrak Z}_m))}.$$ We note that $2nt-(l_m,l_m)\geqslant(l_\perp, l_\perp)\geqslant0$. The last inequality is strict if $\varphi$ is a cusp form. Using the operation of pullback we can construct Jacobi [*cusp*]{} forms of critical weight starting from Jacobi forms of singular weight if the constant term $f(0,0)$ of the last one is equal to zero. The estimation on $2nt-(l_m,l_m)$ at the end of the proof of the last proposition gives us the following estimation of the order at infinity (see ) of the pullback. \[col-ordM\] In the conditions of Proposition \[prop-pback\] we have $${\rm Ord}(\varphi|_{M}(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_m))\geqslant \min \{(l_\perp, l_\perp)\,|\ l_\perp= {\rm pr}_{(M^\perp)^\vee}(l)\ {\rm such\ that\ } f(n,l)\ne 0\}.$$ In particular, if ${\rm pr}_{(M^\perp)^\vee}(l)\ne 0$ for all $f(n,l)\ne 0$ then the pullback $\varphi|_{M}$ is a cusp form or the zero function. Using the last corollary we can construct new important examples of Jacobi forms of singular and critical weights. We recall that by $J_{k,L}$ we denote the space of Jacobi forms of index one. We define the root lattice $A_m$ as a sublattice of $D_{m+1}$ $$A_m=\{(x_1,\dots,x_{m+1})\in {\mathbb Z}^{m+1}\,|\, x_1+\dots+x_{m+1}=0\} < D_{m+1}.$$ We note that $A_1\cong {{\langle{2}\rangle}}$, $A_1\oplus A_1\cong D_2$ and $A_3\cong D_3$. \[Ptheta-Am\] [1)]{} Let $v=2(b_1,\ldots ,b_m)\in {\mathbb Z}^m$ be an element in $D_m$ with at least two non-zero coordinates $b_i$ such that $(b_1+\ldots +b_m)\equiv 1 \mod 2$ and g.c.d.$(b_1,\dots, b_m)=1$. Then $$\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v^\perp} \in J_{\frac{m}2, v^\perp_{D_m}}^{cusp} (v_\eta^{3m}) \quad{and}\quad \vartheta_{D_m(3)}|_{v^\perp} \in J_{\frac{m}2, v^\perp_{D_m(3)}}^{cusp} (v_\eta^{m})$$ is a non-zero Jacobi cusp form of critical weight such that $${\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v^\perp})= \frac{1}{(v,v)}>0 \qquad {\rm and}\qquad {\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{D_m(3)}|_{v^\perp})= \frac{1}{3(v,v)}>0.$$ The theta-product $$\vartheta_{A_m}(\tau, z_1,\dots,z_m) =\vartheta(\tau, z_1)\cdot \ldots\cdot \vartheta(\tau, z_m) \cdot\vartheta(\tau, z_1+\ldots+z_m)\in J_{\frac{m+1}2, A_m}(v_\eta^{3m+3})$$ is a Jacobi form of critical weight. If $m$ is even then $\vartheta_{A_m}$ is a Jacobi cusp form and $${\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{A_m})=\frac{1}{4(m+1)}>0.$$ [3)]{} For the renormalized lattice $A_m(3)$ the Jacobi form $$\vartheta_{A_m(3)}(\tau, z_1,\dots,z_m) =\vartheta_{3/2}(\tau, z_1)\cdot \ldots\cdot \vartheta_{3/2}(\tau, z_m) \cdot \vartheta_{3/2}(\tau, z_1+\ldots+z_m)$$ belongs to $J_{\frac{m+1}2, A_m(3)}(v_\eta^{m+1})$. For even $m$ $${\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{A_m(3)})=\frac{1}{12(m+1)}>0.$$ 1\) If in $v$ only one $b_i\ne 0$ then $\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v^\perp}\equiv 0$. To prove the lemma we calculate the Fourier expansion of the pullback function. The discriminant group of $D_m$ was given in Example 1.9. The Fourier expansion of $\vartheta_{D_m}$ has the following form $$\vartheta_{D_m}(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_m)= \sum_{\substack{ n\in {\mathbb Q}_{>0},\ l \in \frac{1}2 {\mathbb Z}^m \vspace{0.5\jot} \\ 2n-(l,l)= 0}} f(n,l)\, e^{2\pi i (n\tau+(l,{\mathfrak Z}_m))}$$ where $$f(n,l)=\biggl(\frac{-4}{2l}\biggr)= \biggl(\frac{-4}{2l_1}\biggr)\cdot \ldots \cdot\biggl(\frac{-4}{2l_m}\biggr)$$ is the product of the generalized Kronecker symbols modulo $4$. In particular all coordinates $2l_i$ are odd. If $v$ is a vector which satisfies the condition of the proposition then $(l, v)=2(l_1b_1+\ldots+l_mb_m)\equiv 1 \mod 2$. The lattice ${{\langle{v}\rangle}}^\vee$ is generated by $\frac{v}{(v,v)}$. We get that $$l_\perp={\rm pr}_{{{\langle{v}\rangle}}^\vee}(l)=(l,v)\frac v{(v,v)} \ne 0$$ is always non trivial. Moreover, there exists a vector $2l=(2l_i)$ with odd coordinates such that $(l,v)=1$. According to Corollary \[col-ordM\] $${\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v^\perp})=|(\frac{v}{(v,v)}, \frac{v}{(v,v)})|=\frac{1}{|(v,v)|}>0$$ and $\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v^\perp}$ is a Jacobi cusp form. The proof for $D_m(3)$ is quite similar. 2\) We have $A_m=v^{\perp}_{D_{m+1}}$ where $v=2(1,\dots,1)\in D_{m+1}$. In particular $z_{m+1}=-(z_1+\ldots +z_{m})$ and $\vartheta_{A_m}=-\vartheta_{D_{m+1}}|_{v^\perp}$. If $m$ is even then $v$ satisfies the condition in 1) and ${\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{A_m})=\frac{1}{4(m+1)}$. The proof of 3) is similar. [**Example.**]{} Since $A_3\cong D_3$ there exist a Jacobi form of singular and two Jacobi forms (cusp and non-cusp) of critical weight for this lattice $$\vartheta_{D_3}\in J_{\frac{3}2,D_3}(v_\eta^9),\quad \eta\,\vartheta_{D_3}\in J^{cusp}_{2,D_3}(v_\eta^{10}),\quad \vartheta_{A_3}\in J_{2,A_3}(v_\eta^{12}).$$ We can construct many Jacobi forms of singular, critical and other small weights using the equalities of the previous proposition. For any $\varphi\in J_{k, L;t}(\chi)$ we denote by $\varphi^{[n]}$ the direct (tensor) product of $n$-copies of $\varphi$, i.e. the Jacobi form for the lattice $nL$ $$\varphi^{[n]}(\tau, ({\mathfrak Z}_1,\ldots, {\mathfrak Z}_n))= \varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_1)\cdot\ldots\cdot \varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_n)\in J_{nk, nL;t}(\chi^n).$$ The next example is very important. \[singJ-A2\] There exists a Jacobi form of singular weight for $A_2$ $$\label{sigmaA2} \sigma_{A_2}(\tau, z_1,z_2) =\frac{\vartheta(\tau,z_1)\vartheta(\tau,z_2)\vartheta(\tau,z_1+z_2)} {\eta(\tau)} \in J_{1,A_2}(v_\eta^8).$$ In particular the Jacobi form of singular weight $\sigma_{3A_2}=\sigma_{A_2}^{[3]}\in J_{3,3A_2}$ has trivial character. We note that $\eta(\tau)^{-1}=q^{-1/24}(1+q(\dots))$. Therefore $${\rm Ord}(\frac{\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z})}{\eta(\tau)})= {\rm Ord}(\varphi(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}))-\frac{1}{12}.$$ Therefore $\sigma_{A_2}$ is holomorphic Jacobi form of singular weight for $A_2$. [**Remarks**]{}. 1) The Jacobi form $\sigma_{A_2}$ is equal to the denominator function of the affine Lie algebra $A_2$ (see [@KP] and [@D]). We consider the Jacobi forms related to the denominator functions of all affine Kac–Moody Lie algebras in a forthcoming paper of V. Gritsenko and K.-I. Iohara. 2\) The lifting of $\sigma_{3A_2}$ is a reflective modular form of singular weight. The lifting of $\eta^8\sigma_{2A_2}$ determined the unique canonical differential form on a modular variety of Kodaira dimension $0$ (see [@G10]). 3\) The form $\sigma_{A_2}$ is the first example of Jacobi form obtained as theta/eta-quotients. Using such Jacobi form we can produce important classical Jacobi forms in one variable called [*theta-blocks*]{}. See Corollary \[quarks\] and [@GSZ]. Using the same principle we obtain \[critJ-2A4\] The Jacobi forms given below are cusp forms of critical weight. $$\kappa_{2A_4}=\frac{\vartheta_{A_4} \otimes \vartheta_{A_4}}{\eta} \in J^{cusp}_{\frac{9}2, 2A_4}(v_\eta^5), \qquad \kappa_{A_4\oplus A_6}= \frac{\vartheta_{A_4}\otimes \vartheta_{A_6}}{\eta} \in J^{cusp}_{\frac{11}2, A_4\oplus A_6}(v_\eta^{11}).$$ Let $v_5=2(2,1,0,\dots,0)\in D_m$ ($m\geqslant2$) and $v_7=2(2,1,1,1,0,\dots,0)\in D_n$ ($n\geqslant4$). Then $$\frac{\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v_5^\perp}\otimes\vartheta_{D_n}|_{v_a^\perp}} {\eta} \in J^{cusp}_{\frac{m+n-1}{2}, {D_m}|_{v_5^\perp}\otimes {D_n}|_{v_a^\perp}}(v_{\eta}^{3(n+m)-1})$$ where $a=5$ or $7$. According to Proposition \[Ptheta-Am\] $${\rm Ord}(\kappa_{2A_4})=\frac{1}{60},\ {\rm Ord}(\kappa_{A_4 \oplus A_6})=\frac{1}{420},\ {\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v_5^\perp})=\frac{1}{20},\ {\rm Ord}(\vartheta_{D_m}|_{v_7^\perp})=\frac{1}{28}.$$ [**Remark.**]{} In the same way we get [*non-cusp*]{} Jacobi forms of weight $\frac{n_0}2+1$ (singular weight $+1$): $$\frac{\vartheta_{A_4}^{[5]}}{\eta^3} \in J_{11, 5A_4},\quad \frac{\vartheta_{A_6}^{[7]}}{\eta^3} \in J_{23, 7A_6},\quad \frac{\vartheta_{A_8}^{[3]}}{\eta} \in J_{13, 3A_8}(v_\eta^8).$$ The first two functions have trivial character. It might be that these functions are interesting Eisenstein series. We can also mention the non-cusp form $$\vartheta_{A_2(3)}^{[3]}/\eta\in J_{4,3A_2(3)}(v_\eta^8).$$ \[Form-sing\] Theta-products give examples of Jacobi forms of singular weight with trivial character for some lattices of all even ranks $\geqslant 6$. The corresponding Jacobi form are tensor products of the following Jacobi theta-products $$\begin{aligned} \sigma_{A_2} &\quad {\rm with\ character\ } v_\eta^8,\qquad\qquad\qquad \vartheta_{D_m} \quad {\rm with\ character\ }v_\eta^{3m},\\ \vartheta^{(i)}_{D_4}& \quad {\rm with\ character}\ v_\eta^{3m}\ (i=2,3),\quad \vartheta_{2A_1}^{(1)} \quad {\rm with\ character}\ v_\eta^{6},\\ &\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\vartheta_{D_m(3)} \quad {\rm with\ character\ } v_\eta^{m}.\end{aligned}$$ See , , , , and . Below we give a list of lattices of rank smaller or equal to $24$ since for larger ranks one can use the periodicity of the characters: $$n=6,\ 3A_2;\quad n=8,\ D_8,\ 2D_4,\ 8A_1; \quad n=10,\ D_7\oplus D_3(3),\ A_2\oplus D_4\oplus D_4(3);$$ $$n=12,\ D_6\oplus D_6(3),\ 2A_2\oplus D_8(3),\ 6A_2;\quad n=14,\ D_5\oplus D_9(3);\quad$$ $$n=16,\ D_{16},\ D_4\oplus D_{12}(3);\quad n=18,\ D_3\oplus D_{15}(3);\qquad n=20,\ D_2\oplus D_{20}(3);$$ $$n=22,\ D_1\oplus D_{21}(3);\quad n=24,\ D_{24},\ 12A_2,\ D_{24}(3).$$ We note that we consider $8A_1$ as $4(A_1\oplus A_1)$. The corresponding Jacobi form is the product of four functions of type $\vartheta_{2A_1}^{(1)}$. Moreover instead of any $D_m$ in the list above we can put a direct sum $D_{m_1}\oplus\dots \oplus D_{m_k}$ with $m_1+\dots+m_k=m$. Jacobi forms of singular weight with respect to the full Jacobi group of a lattice $L$ have a ${\mathop{\mathrm {SL}}\nolimits}_2({\mathbb Z})$-character of type $v_\eta^{2m}$ if the rank of $L$ is even (the singular weight is integral) or a multiplier system of type $v_\eta^{2m+1}$ if the rank is odd (the singular weight is half-integral). Analyzing the examples of theta-products given above we get the following table of possible characters $v_\eta^m$ $$\begin{aligned} {\rm \bf rank}\ n&\quad d: {\rm \bf character\ of\ type\ } v_\eta^d\\ 1&\quad 1,3\\ 2&\quad 2,4,6,8\\ 3&\quad 3,5,7,9,11\\ 4&\quad 4,6,8,10,12,14,16\\ 5&\quad 5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19\\ 6&\quad 6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24\\ 7&\quad 7,9,11,13,15,17,19,21,23,1,3\\ 8&\quad 8,10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,2,4,6.\end{aligned}$$ As a corollary we obtain \[sing-char\] If $n\geqslant8$ is even (respectively, $n\geqslant9$ is odd) and $d\equiv n\bmod 2$ then there exists a lattice $L$ of rank $n$ such that the space of Jacobi forms of singular weight $J_{\frac{n}2,L}(v_\eta^{d})$ is not empty. [**Remark.**]{} For some $n$ we can prove that the table above contains all possible characters. We are planning to come to this question in another publication. Now we would like to analyze Jacobi forms of critical weight. First we note that the multiplication by $\eta$ gives us the simplest such Jacobi form $$\label{J-D23} \eta\,\vartheta_{D_{23}(3)} \in J_{12,D_{23}(3)}.$$ The tensor product of a Jacobi form of singular weight and Jacobi form of critical weight has critical weight for the corresponding lattice. In particular there exist two simple series of Jacobi cusp forms with trivial character for the lattices $A_m\oplus D_n$ where $m$ is even and $m+n\equiv 7\mod 8$ $$\label{J-AmDn} \vartheta_{A_m\oplus D_n}= \vartheta_{A_m}(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}_m)\otimes \vartheta_{D_n}(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}_n) \in J^{cusp}_{(m+n+1)/2,\, A_m\oplus D_n},$$ $$\label{J-AmD3n} \vartheta_{A_m\oplus D_{3n}(3)}= \vartheta_{A_m}(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}_m)\otimes \vartheta_{D_{3n}(3)}(\tau,{\mathfrak Z}_{3n}) \in J^{cusp}_{(m+3n+1)/2,\, A_m\oplus D_{3n}(3)}.$$ In particular we get examples of Jacobi cusp forms of weight one with character in one abelian variable. The simplest examples of such forms can be found in [@GN2] (see also [@GH2] where many different cusp theta-products of small weights were considered): $$\eta(\tau)\vartheta_{3/2}(\tau,2z)\in J_{1,D_1(3)}(v^2_\eta), \qquad \eta(\tau)\vartheta(\tau,2z)\in J_{1,D_1}(v^4_\eta).$$ To get more interesting examples we take the pullback of $\sigma_{A_2}$. We consider $A_2$ as the sublattice $v^\perp_{D_3}$ where $v=2(1,1,1)$. Let $u=2(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in D_3$. Let $u_a$ be the projection of $u$ on $A_2^\vee$, i.e. $u=u_a+u_v$ where $u_a\in {{\langle{v^\perp}\rangle}}^\vee=A_2^\vee$ and $u_v\in {{\langle{v^\vee}\rangle}}={{\langle{\frac{v}{12}}\rangle}}$. We put $\sigma_{A_2}|_u:=\sigma_{A_2}|_{(u_a)^\perp_{A_2}}$. \[Pb-A2\] Let $u=2(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in D_3$ such that $u_i\ne u_j$ and $u_1+u_2+u_3\not\equiv 0\bmod 3$. Then $\sigma_{A_2}|_u$ is a Jacobi cusp form of critical weight $1$ with character $v_\eta^8$. We note first that if $u_i\ne u_j$ then the pullback $\sigma_{A_2}|_u$ is not equal to zero identically. According to the proof of Proposition \[prop-pback\] and Corollary \[singJ-A2\] the Fourier expansion of Jacobi form $\sigma_{A_2}$ of singular weight $1$ has the following form $$\sigma_{A_2}(\tau, {\mathfrak Z}_2)= \sum_{\substack{n>0,\, l_a\in A_2^\vee \vspace{0.5\jot}\\ 2n-(l_a,l_a)=0\vspace{0.5\jot} \\ l_a\pm v^\vee\in \frac{1}2{\mathbb Z}^3}} f(n, l_a)\, e^{2\pi i({n}\tau+(l_a,{\mathfrak Z}_2))}.$$ More exactly, in the last summation we have $l^\vee=l_a\pm \frac {v}{12}=\frac{1}{2}(l_1,l_2,l_3)$ with odd $l_i$ because the division by $\eta$ does not change the ${\mathfrak Z}_2$-part of $\vartheta_{A_2}$. Let $u_a$ be the projection of $u$ on $A_2$, i.e. $u=u_a+u_v$ where $u_a\in {{\langle{v^\perp}\rangle}}^\vee=A_2^\vee$ and $u_v\in {{\langle{v^\vee}\rangle}}={{\langle{\frac{v}{12}}\rangle}}$. We have to analyze the Fourier expansion of $\sigma_{A_2}|_u$. As in the proof of Proposition \[prop-pback\] we put $l_a=l_u\oplus l_\perp$ where $(l_u, u_a)=0$. If the hyperbolic norm of the index of a Fourier coefficient $f_u(n,l_u)$ of $\sigma_{A_2}|_{u}$ is equal to zero then $l_\perp=0$. Therefore $(l_u,u_a)=(l_a,u_a)=(l_a,u)=0$ and $$(l^\vee,u)=\pm \frac{(u,v)}{12}=\pm \frac{u_1+u_2+u_3}{3}\in {\mathbb Z}.$$ The last inclusion is not possible. Thus the pullback $\sigma_{A_2}|_u$ is a cusp form. We note that the Jacobi form in Proposition 3.8 is a classical Jacobi form of type [@EZ]. We give its more explicit form in the next \[quarks\] Let $a,b\in {\mathbb Z}_{>0}$. The following function, called theta-quark, $$\theta_{a,b}(\tau,z)= \frac{\vartheta(\tau, az)\vartheta(\tau, bz)\vartheta(\tau, (a+b)z)} {\eta(\tau)} \in J_{1,A_1;a^2+ab+b^2}(v_\eta^8)$$ is holomorphic Jacobi form of Eichler–Zagier type of weight $1$, index $(a^2+ab+b^2)$ and character $v_\eta^8$. This is a Jacobi cusp form if $a\not \equiv b\mod 3$. We can assume that $a$ and $b$ are coprime. We obtain this function as $\sigma_{A_2}|_u$ for $u=2(b,-a,0)$. [**Remark.**]{} The Jacobi form $\theta_{a,b}$ was proposed by the second author many years ago in his talks on canonical differential forms on Siegel modular three-folds. The Jacobi forms of similar types, called [*theta-blocks*]{}, are studied in the paper [@GSZ] where the Fourier expansion of theta-quark $\theta_{a,b}$ is found explicitly. The method of the proof of Proposition \[Pb-A2\] can be used for other Jacobi forms when one takes a pullback on a sublattice of co-rank $2$. Propositions \[Ptheta-Am\] and \[Pb-A2\] give a method to pass from Jacobi forms of singular weight to Jacobi forms of critical weight. We have noticed that the tensor product of Jacobi forms of singular and critical weights is a form of critical weight. In some cases we can divide some products of two forms of critical weight by $\eta$ (see Corollary \[critJ-2A4\]). We can control that the obtained Jacobi form is a cusp (or non-cusp) form. Analyzing the table of characters before Proposition \[sing-char\] we obtain \[crit-char\] If $n\geqslant7$ is odd (respectively, $n\geqslant8$ is even) and $d\equiv n+1\bmod 2$ then there exists a lattice $L$ of rank $n$ such that the space of Jacobi forms of critical weight $J^{(cusp)}_{\frac{n+1}2,L}(v_\eta^{d})$ is not empty. The analogue of Proposition \[Form-sing\] is the following \[Form-crit\] Theta-products give examples of Jacobi cusp forms of critical weight with trivial character for some lattices of all odd ranks $\geqslant5$. The corresponding Jacobi forms of critical weight are pullbacks (see Proposition \[Ptheta-Am\]) of Jacobi forms of singular weight of Proposition \[Form-sing\]. One can also use $\vartheta_{A_m(3)}$ instead of $\vartheta_{A_m}$ in theta-products. [DMVV]{} R.E. Borcherds, [*Automorphic forms on $O_{s+2,2}(R)$ and infinite products.*]{} Inventiones Math. [**120**]{} (1995), 161–213. R.E. Borcherds, [*The moduli space of Enriques surfaces and the fake monster Lie superalgebra.*]{} Topology [**35**]{} (1996), 699–710. R. E. Borcherds, [*Automorphic forms with singularities on Grassmannians*]{}. Inventiones Math. [**132**]{} (1998), 491–562. N. Bourbaki, [*Groupes et algèbres de Lie. Chapitre IV: Groupes de Coxeter et systèmes de Tits. Chapitre V: Groupes engendrés par des réflexions. Chapitre VI: systèmes de racines.*]{} Éléments de mathématique. Fasc. XXXIV. Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles, No. 1337 Hermann, Paris, 1968. F. Cléry, V. Gritsenko, [*Siegel modular forms of genus $2$ with the simplest divisor.*]{} Proc. London Math. Soc. [**102**]{} (2011), 1024–1052. M. Eichler, D. Zagier, [*The theory of Jacobi forms*]{}. Progress in Mathematics [**55**]{}. Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1985. E. Freitag, R. Salvati Manni, [*Some Siegel threefolds with a Calabi-Yau model*]{}. ArXiv: 0905.4150, 18 pp. C. Desreumaux, [*Construction de formes automorphes réflectives sur un espace de dimension $4$*]{}. J. Théor. Nombres Bordeaux [**18**]{} (2006), 89–111. R. Dijkgraaf, G. Moore, E. Verlinde, H. Verlinde, [*Elliptic genera of symmetric products and second quantized strings*]{}. Commun. Math. Phys. [**185**]{} (1997), 197–209. V. Gritsenko, [*Jacobi functions of n-variables*]{}. Zap. Nauk. Sem. LOMI [**168**]{} (1988), 32–45; English transl. in J. Soviet Math. [**53**]{} (1991), 243–252. V. Gritsenko, [*Modular forms and moduli spaces of abelian and ${\mathop{\mathrm {K3}}\nolimits}$ surfaces*]{}. Algebra i Analiz [**6**]{} (1994), 65–102; English translation in St. Petersburg Math. J. [**6**]{} (1995), 1179–1208. V. Gritsenko, [*Irrationality of the moduli spaces of polarized Abelian surfaces*]{}. Intern. Math. Res. Notices [**6**]{} (1994), 235–243. V. Gritsenko, [*Elliptic genus of Calabi-Yau manifolds and Jacobi and Siegel modular forms*]{}. St. Petersburg Math. J. [**11**]{} (1999), 100–125. V. Gritsenko, [*Reflective modular forms and algebraic geometry*]{}. ArXiv: 1005.3753, 28 pp. V. Gritsenko, K. Hulek, [*The modular form of the Barth–Nieto quintic*]{}. Intern. Math. Res. Notices [**17**]{} (1999), 915–938. V. Gritsenko, K. Hulek, [*Commutator covering of Siegel threefolds*]{}. Duke Math. J. [**94**]{} (1998), 509–542. V. Gritsenko, K. Hulek, G. Sankaran, [*The Kodaira dimension of the moduli of K3 surfaces*]{}. Inventiones Math. [**169**]{} (2007), 215–241. V. Gritsenko, K. Hulek, G. Sankaran, [*Abelianisation of orthogonal groups and the fundamental group of modular varieties*]{}. J. of Algebra [**322**]{} (2009), 463–478. V. Gritsenko, V. Nikulin, [*Siegel automorphic form correction of some Lorentzian Kac–Moody Lie algebras*]{}. Amer. J. Math. [**119**]{} (1997), 181–224. V. Gritsenko, V. Nikulin, [*Automorphic forms and Lorentzian Kac-Moody algebras. I*]{}. International J. Math. [**9**]{} (1998), 153–200. V. Gritsenko, V. Nikulin, [*Automorphic forms and Lorentzian Kac-Moody algebras. II*]{}. International J. Math. [**9**]{} (1998), 200–275. V. Gritsenko, V. Nikulin, [*The arithmetic mirror symmetry and Calabi–Yau manifolds*]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. [**200**]{} (2000), 1–11. V. Gritsenko, N.-P. Skoruppa, D. Zagier, [*Theta-blocks*]{}. Preprint. J.A. Harvey, G. Moore, [*Exact gravitational threshold correction in the Ferrara-Harvey-Strominger-Vafa model*]{}. Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{} (1998), 2329–2336. V. Kac, [*Infinite dimensional Lie algebras*]{}. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990. V. Kac, D.H. Peterson, [*Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras, theta functions and modular forms.*]{} Adv. in Math. [**53**]{} (1984), 125–264. H. Klingen, [*Uber Kernfunktionen für Jacobiformen und Siegelsche Modulformen.*]{} Math. Ann. [**285**]{} (1989), 405–416. D. Mumford, [*Tata lectures on theta I*]{}. Progress in Mathem. [**28**]{}, Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1983. N. Scheithauer, [*On the classification of automorphic products and generalized Kac-Moody algebras*]{}. Inventiones Math. [**164**]{} (2006), 641–678. N.-P. Skoruppa [*Jacobi forms of critical weight and Weil representations*]{}. Modular forms on Schiermonnikoog, 239–266, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2008. G. Shimura, [*Introduction to the arithmetic theory of automorphic functions*]{}. Princeton Univ. Press, 1971. K.-I. Yoshikawa, [*Calabi-Yau threefolds of Borcea-Voisin, analytic torsion, and Borcherds products*]{}. Astérisque, [**327**]{} (2009), 351–389. F. Cléry\ Korteweg de Vries Instituut voor Wiskunde\ Universiteit van Amsterdam\ P.O. Box 94248\ 1090 GE AMSTERDAM\ [email protected] V. Gritsenko\ University Lille 1\ Laboratoire Paul Painlevé\ F-59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq, Cedex\ [email protected]\

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the semi-classical behavior of the spectral function of the Schrödinger operator with short range potential. We prove that the spectral function is a semi-classical Fourier integral operator quantizing the forward and backward Hamiltonian flow relations of the system. Under a certain geometric condition we explicitly compute the phase in an oscillatory integral representation of the spectral function.' --- **[Semi-Classical Behavior of the Spectral Function]{}[^1]** [**Ivana Alexandrova**]{} Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3, Tel.: 1-416-946-0318, Fax: 1-416-978-4107, email: [email protected] February 25, 2005 Introduction ============ We study the structure of the spectral function associated with the semi-classical Schrödinger operator with short range potential on $\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ We prove that the appropriately cut-off spectral function is a semi-classical Fourier integral operator associated to the union of the backward and the forward Hamiltonian flow relations of the principle symbol of the operator. We also show how this allows us, under a certain geometric assumption, to compute the phase in an oscillatory integral representation of the spectral function. Our result is motivated by the following theorem by Vainberg. In [@V Theorem XII.5] Vainberg considers operators of the form $$A=\sum_{i, j=1}^{n}a_{i,j}\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}+\sum_{i=1}^{n}b_i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}+c,$$ where $a_{i,j}, b_{i}, c\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ and $A\equiv -\Delta$ for $\|x\|\geq 1.$ He assumes that the energy $1$ is non-trapping for the principal symbol of $A.$ Vainberg then establishes an asymptotic expansion in $\lambda\to\infty$ of the spectral function $e_{\lambda},$ which is defined as the Schwartz kernel of $\frac{d E_{\lambda}}{d\lambda},$ where $\{E_{\lambda}\}$ denotes the spectral family of $A.$ Vainberg expresses this asymptotic expansion in the form of a Maslov canonical operator $K_{\Lambda, \lambda}$ associated to a certain Lagrangian submanifold $\Lambda=\Lambda_y\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and acting on another asymptotic sum in $\lambda.$ The Lagrangian submanifold $\Lambda_y$ consists of the phase trajectories at energy 1 of the principal symbol of $A$ passing through a fixed base point $x(0)=y,$ while the terms of the asymptotic sum on which $K_{\Lambda, \lambda}$ acts solve a recurrent system of transport equations along the phase trajectories of the system. The Semi-Classical Spectral Function ==================================== Here we study the semi-classical behavior of the spectral function of a Schrödinger operator with short range potential at a fixed energy $\lambda>0.$ More precisely, we work in the following setting. Let $X$ be a smooth manifold of dimension $n>1$ such that $X$ coincides with $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash B(0, R_0)$ for some $R_{0}>0,$ where $B(0, R_0)=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}: \|x\|<R_0\}$ and $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the Euclidean norm on $\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ Let $g$ be a Riemannian metric on $X$ which satisfies the condition $$g_{ij}\left(x\right)=\delta_{ij} \text{ for } \|x\|>R_{0}.$$ Let $V\in C^{\infty}(X; \mathbb{R})$ be such that $$\left|\frac{\partial^{\alpha}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}V(x)\Big|_{\mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash B(0, R_0)}\right|\leq C_{\alpha}(1+\|x\|)^ {-\mu-|\alpha|},\; x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}, \mu>0.$$ Then the operators $P\left(h\right)=\frac{1}{2}h^{2}\Delta_{g}+V,$ $0<h\leq 1,$ admit unique self-adjoint extensions with common domain $H^{2}(X).$ We denote by $\{E_{\mu}(h)\}$ the spectral family of the operator $P(h)$ and by $e_{\mu}(h)$ the spectral function of $P(h),$ i.e. the Schwartz kernel of $\frac{dE_{\mu}(h)}{d\mu}.$ We also let $p(x, \xi)=\frac{1}{2}\|\xi\|^{2}_{g}+V(x)$ be the semi-classical principal symbol of $P.$ We set $R(\lambda\pm i0, h)=\lim_{\epsilon\downarrow 0}\left(P(h)-\lambda\mp i\epsilon\right)^{-1},$ where the limit is taken in the space of bounded operators $\mathcal{B}(L^{2}_{\alpha}(X), L^{2}_{-\alpha}(X)),$ $\alpha>\frac{1}{2},$ where $$L^{2}_{\pm\alpha}(X)=\left\{f\in L^{2}(X): f|_{B(0, R_0)}\langle\cdot\rangle^{\pm\alpha}\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash B(0, R_0))\right\}.$$ The operator norm in $\mathcal{B}(L^{2}_{\alpha}(X), L^{2}_{-\alpha}(X))$ will be denoted by $\|\cdot\|_{\alpha, -\alpha}.$ Let $H_{p}$ be the Hamiltonian vector field of $p$ and let $\gamma(\cdot; x_0, \xi_0)=(x\left(\cdot; x_0, \xi_0\right), \xi(\cdot; x_0, \xi_0))$ denote the integral curve of $H_{p}$, or (phase) trajectory, with initial conditions $(x_0, \xi_0)\in T^{*}X.$ We define a non-trapping energy level as follows: The energy $\lambda>0$ is non-trapping if for every $\left(x_{0}, \xi_{0}\right)$ with $\frac12\|\xi_0\|^{2}+V(x_0)=\lambda$ there exists $t_0>0$ such that $x\left(s; x_{0}, \xi_{0}\right)\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash B(0, R_0)$ for every $|s|>t_0.$ A phase trajectory $\gamma(\cdot; x_0, \xi_0)$ is non-trapped if there exists $t>0$ such that $x(s; x_{0}, \xi_{0})\in \mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash B(0, R_{0})$ for all $|s|>t.$ We now choose functions $\chi_j\in C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash B(0, R_0); \mathbb{R}),$ $j=1, 2,$ with disjoint supports. We assume that $\lambda>0$ is such that $P-\lambda$ is of principal type. Then it follows that $\Sigma_{\lambda}=p^{-1}(\lambda)$ is a $2n-1-$ dimensional submanifold of $T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $$\Lambda^{+}_{R}(\lambda)=\left\{(y, -\eta; x, \xi): (y, \eta)\in\Sigma_{\lambda}, (x, \xi)=\exp(tH_p)(y, \eta), t>0\right\}\cap T^{*}(\operatorname{supp}\chi_1\times\operatorname{supp}\chi_2)$$ and $$\Lambda^{-}_{R}(\lambda)=\left\{(x, -\xi; y, \eta): (x, \xi)\in\Sigma_{\lambda}, (y, \eta)=\exp(tH_p)(x, \xi), t<0\right\}\cap T^{*}(\operatorname{supp}\chi_1\times\operatorname{supp}\chi_2)$$ are Lagrangian submanifolds of $T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}.$ To state our main theorem, we further let $\pi_2: T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\to T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}$ denote the canonical projection onto the second factor. We also refer the reader to the Appendix for the definition of the class of semi-classical Fourier integral operators $\mathcal{I}_{h}^{r},$ $r\in\mathbb{R},$ as well as for a review of the relevant notions from semi-classical analysis. We can now state the following \[tspffio\] Let $\rho_0\in\Lambda_{R}^{+}(\lambda)$ be such that $\gamma\left(\pi_2\left(\rho_0\right)\right)$ is non-trapped. Let $\|R(\lambda\pm i0, h)\|_{\alpha, -\alpha}=\mathcal{O}(h^{s}),$ $s\in\mathbb{R}.$ Then there exist open sets $W_{\pm}\in T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n},$ such that $$\chi_2 \frac{d E_{\lambda}}{d \lambda}\chi_1\in\mathcal{I}_{h}^{1}\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n}, \left(\overline{W}_{+}\cap\Lambda_{R}^{+}(\lambda)\right)\cup\left(\overline{W}_{-}\cap\Lambda_{R}^{-}(\lambda)\right)\right).$$ Before proving the theorem, we would like to make two remarks: [**Remark 1.**]{} The assumption on the polynomial bound of the resolvent is satisfied in a number of interesting situations: at non-trapping energies (see [@RT Lemma 2.2]) and at trapping energies $\lambda$ when we assume that the resonances $\left(\lambda_j\right)$ of $P(h)$ are such that $\left|\Im\lambda_j\right|\geq Ch^{q},$ if $\Re\lambda_j\in\left[\lambda-\epsilon, \lambda+\epsilon\right]$ for some $\epsilon>0$ (see [@M Proposition 5.1]). In the latter case, in order to define the resonances by complex scaling, the author also assumes that there exists $\theta_0\in[0, \pi),$ $\epsilon>0,$ and $R>0$ such that $V$ extends holomorphically to $$D_{\epsilon, R, \theta_0}=\left\{r\omega: \omega\in\mathbb{C}^{n}, \operatorname{dist}(\omega, \mathbb{S}^{n-1})<\epsilon, r\in\mathbb{C}, |r|>R, \arg r\in[-\epsilon, \theta_0+\epsilon)\right\}$$ and $$\exists\beta>0, \exists M>0, \forall x\in D_{\epsilon, R, \theta_0}, |V(x)|\leq C|x|^{-\beta}.$$ [**Remark 2.**]{} [@AIfio Theorem 1] roughly says that semi-classical Fourier integral distributions, i.e., Schwartz kernels of the elements of $\mathcal{I}_{h}^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{k}, \Lambda),$ $r\in\mathbb{R},$ $k\in\mathbb{N},$ where $\Lambda\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{k}$ is a smooth closed Lagrangian submanifold, can be represented microlocally as oscillatory integrals $\int e^{i\phi(x, \theta)/h} a_{\phi}(x, \theta)d\theta$ with $a_{\phi}\in S(1)$ for every non-degenerate phase function $\phi=\phi(x, \theta)$ which parameterizes $\Lambda$ in the sense that $\Lambda=\{(x, d_x \phi): d_\theta \phi=0\}$ near some point $\rho\in\Lambda.$ Furthermore, such a phase function always exists near any point $\rho\in\Lambda$ (see [@AIfio Section 4.1]) and the corresponding symbol $a_{\phi}$ with an asymptotic expansion in $h$ can always be found (see [@AIfio Theorem 1]). Theorem \[tspffio\] thus implies that the appropriately cut-off spectral function always admits such an oscillatory integral representation. In Lemma \[laction\] below we explicitly compute the phase for certain Lagrangians. We recall that $$\chi_2 R(\lambda+i0, h)\chi_1-\chi_2 R(\lambda-i0, h)\chi_1=2\pi i\chi_2\frac{d E_{\lambda}}{d \lambda}\chi_1$$ Since $\gamma(\pi_{2}(\rho_0))$ is non-trapped, it follows that there exists an open set $W_{+}\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $\gamma(\pi_{2}(\rho))$ is non-trapped for every $\rho \in \overline{W}_{+}.$ Let $W_{-}=\{(x, -\xi; y, \eta): (y, -\eta; x, \xi)\in W_{+}\}.$ By [@AI Lemma 1] and the estimate $\|R(\lambda\pm i0, h)\|_{\alpha, -\alpha}=\mathcal{O}(h^{s})$ we then obtain that $K_{\chi_2 R(\lambda\pm i0, h)\chi_1}\in\mathcal{D}'_{h}(\mathbb{R}^{2n}),$ where $K_{\chi_2 R(\lambda\pm i0, h)\chi_1}$ denotes the Schwartz kernel of $\chi_2 R(\lambda\pm i0, h)\chi_1.$ The same proof as in [@AI Theorem 2] then shows that $$\chi_2 R(\lambda\pm i0, h)\chi_1\in\mathcal{I}_{h}^{1}\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n}, \overline{W}_{\pm}\cap\Lambda^{\pm}_{R}(\lambda)\right).$$ The assumption that $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$ have disjoint supports is essential in the proof of [@AI Theorem 2]. Since $\Lambda^{+}_{R}(\lambda)$ and $\Lambda^{-}_{R}(\lambda)$ are disjoint, it follows that $$\chi_2 \frac{d E_{\lambda}}{d\lambda}\chi_1\in\mathcal{I}_{h}^{1}\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n}, \left(\overline{W}_{+}\cap\Lambda^{+}_{R}(\lambda)\right)\cup \left(\overline{W}_{-}\cap\Lambda^{-}_{R}(\lambda)\right)\right). \qedhere$$ We now turn to showing how the forward and backward flow relations, $\overline{W}_{+}\cap\Lambda^{+}_{R}(\lambda)$ and $\overline{W}_{-}\cap\Lambda^{-}_{R}(\lambda),$ respectively, can be parameterized by a non-degenerate phase function. For that we make the following assumption \[cf\] The trajectory $\gamma_0(\cdot; y_0, \eta_0)=(x_0(\cdot; y_0, \eta_0), \xi_0(\cdot; y_0, \eta_0))\subset\Sigma_{\lambda}$ with $y_0\in\operatorname{supp}\chi_1$ and $x_0(t_0; y_0, \eta_0)=z_0\in\operatorname{supp}\chi_2$ is non-trapped and is contained in a central field, i.e. (see [@Arnold Section 46.C]), $$\det\left(\frac{\partial x_0}{\partial \eta}\left(t_0; y_0, \cdot\right)\right)(\eta_0)\ne 0.$$ By the Implicit Function Theorem, then, there exist open neighborhoods $T\times Y\times Z$ of $t_0, y_0, x_0$ and a unique function $\eta\in C^{\infty}(T\times Y\times Z)$ such that $\eta(t_0, y_0, x_0)=\eta_0$ and $x(t; y, \eta(t, y, x))=x.$ We can therefore define the action $$S_{\nu}(y, z, t)=\int_{l(t, y, z)}L(\dot{x}, x)dt$$ over the segment $l(t, y, z)$ from $(y, \eta(t, y, z))$ to $(z, \xi(t; y, \eta(t, y, z)))$ of the trajectory $\gamma(y, \eta(t, y, z))$ for $(t, y, z)\in T\times Y\times Z,$ where $L(\dot{x}, x)=\frac12\|\dot{x}\|^{2}-V(x)+\lambda$ is the Lagrangian associated to the Hamiltonian $p-\lambda$ and $\nu=\operatorname{sgn}t_0.$ We now have the following \[laction\] Let $\lambda>0$ be such that $P-\lambda$ is of principal type and let $\gamma_0,$ $T,$ $Y,$ $Z,$ $\nu$ be as above. Then $S_\nu$ is a non-degenerate phase function and $\Lambda_{S_{\nu}}=\{(z, y, d_z S_\nu, d_y S_\nu):d_t S_\nu=0, (t, y, z)\in T\times Y\times Z\}$ is a closed Lagrangian submanifold such that $\Lambda_{S_{\nu}}\subset\Lambda_{R}^{\nu}(\lambda).$ Assumption \[cf\] allows us to apply [@Arnold Theorem 46.C] and we obtain $$\label{dz} d_z S_{\nu}(t; y, z)=\xi(t; y, \eta(t, y, z)).$$ From $$\det\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial \eta}\left(t_0; y_0, \cdot\right)\right)(\eta_0)\ne 0$$ it follows that there exists an open set $U\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $(y_0, \eta_0)\in U$ such that $$\pi: \{(y, \eta; \exp(t_0 H_p)(y, \eta)): (y, \eta)\in U\}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^{n},$$ where $\pi:T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{n}\times \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the canonical projection, is a diffeomorphism. Therefore there exists $\psi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{2n})$ such that $\operatorname{graph}\exp(t_0 H_p)=\Lambda_{\psi}$ near $(y_0, \eta_0; z_0, \xi(t_0; y_0, \eta_0)).$ Since $\exp(t_0 H_p)$ is a symplectomorphism, it follows that $\det\left(\frac{\partial^{2}\psi(\cdot, \cdot\cdot)}{\partial_x \partial_y}\right) (x_0, y_0)\ne 0.$ This implies that $\det\left(\frac{\partial \xi}{\partial y}(t_0; \cdot, \eta_0)\right)(y_0) \ne 0.$ This, on the other hand, implies that $$\det\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial \eta}(-t_0; x_0, \cdot)\right)(\xi_0)\ne 0, \text{ where } (x_0, \xi_0)=\exp(t_0 H_p)(y_0, \eta_0).$$ Thus we can again apply [@Arnold Theorem 46.C] and obtain $$\label{dy} d_y S_{\nu}(t; y, z)=-\eta(t, y, z).$$ Lastly, we observe that since $P-\lambda$ is of principal type, it follows that $dd_t S_{\nu}\ne 0$ on $\{d_t S_{\nu}=p-\lambda=0\}$ and therefore $S_{\nu}$ is a non-degenerate phase function. This, together with and , implies that, perhaps after decreasing $T\times Y\times Z$ around $(t_0, y_0, z_0),$ $$\begin{aligned} \Lambda_{S_{\nu}}=\bigg\{&\left(z, y, \xi\left(t; y, \eta\left(t, y, z\right)\right), \eta\left(t, y, z\right)\right):\\ & d_t S_\nu(t, y, z)=\frac{1}{2}\left\|\dot{x}\left(t; y, \eta\left(t, y, z\right)\right)\right\|^{2}+V\left(x\left(t; y, \eta\left(t, y, z\right)\right)\right)-\lambda=0,\\ & (t, y, z)\in T\times Y\times X\bigg\}\subset\Lambda_{R}^{\nu}(\lambda) \end{aligned}$$ and $\Lambda_{S_{\nu}}$ is a closed Lagrangian submanifold of $T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{2n}.$ The following lemma describes the microlocal structure of the cut-off spectral function. Let $\lambda>0$ be such that $P-\lambda$ is of principal type and $\|R(\lambda+i0, h)\|_{\alpha, -\alpha}=\mathcal{O}(h^s),$ $s\in\mathbb{R}.$ Let $\gamma(\cdot; y_0, \eta_0)$ with $(y_0, \eta_0)\in\Sigma_\lambda,$ $y_0\in\operatorname{supp}\chi_1,$ and $x(t_0; y_0, \eta_0)=z_0\in\operatorname{supp}\chi_2$ be non-trapped and contained in a central field. Let $\nu=\operatorname{sgn}t_0.$ Then there exists $a_{\nu}\in S_{2n+1}^{\frac{n+3}{2}}(1)\cap C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{2n+1})$ such that $$\left(\chi_2\otimes\chi_1\right)e_\lambda=\int e^{\frac{i}{h}S_{\nu}(y, x, t)}a_{\nu}(y, x, t)dt$$ microlocally near $(y_0, -\eta_0; z_0, \xi(t_0; y_0, \eta_0))$ if $t_0>0$ or near $(z_0, -\xi(t_0; y_0, \eta_0); y_0, \eta_0)$ if $t_0<0.$ With Theorem \[tspffio\] and Lemma \[laction\] the conditions of [@AIfio Theorem 1] are satisfied and we obtain that there exist $a_{\nu}\in S_{2n+1}^{\frac{n+3}{2}}(1)\cap C_{c}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{2n+1})$ such that $$\left(\chi_2\otimes\chi_1\right)e_\lambda=\int e^{\frac{i}{h}S_{\nu}(y, x, t)}a_{\nu}(y, x, t)dt$$ microlocally near $(y_0, -\eta_0; z_0, \xi(t_0; y_0, \eta_0))$ for $t_0>0$ and near $(z_0, -\xi(t_0; y_0, \eta_0); y_0, \eta_0)$ for $t_0<0.$ Elements of Semi-Classical Analysis =================================== In this section we recall some of the elements of semi-classical analysis which we will use here. First we define two classes of symbols $$S_{2n}^{m}\left(1\right)= \left\{ a\in C^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}^{2n}\times(0, h_0]\right): \forall \alpha, \beta\in\mathbb{N}^{n}, \sup_{(x, \xi, h)\in\mathbb{R}^{2n}\times (0, h_{0}]}h^{m}\left|\partial^{\alpha}_{x}\partial^{\beta}_{\xi}a\left(x, \xi; h\right)\right|\leq C_{\alpha, \beta}\right\}$$ and $$S^{m, k}\left(T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)=\left\{a\in C^{\infty}\left(T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\times(0, h_0]\right): \forall \alpha, \beta\in\mathbb{N}^{n}, \left|\partial^{\alpha}_{x}\partial^{\beta}_{\xi} a\left(x, \xi; h\right)\right|\leq C_{\alpha, \beta}h^{-m}\left\langle\xi\right\rangle^{k-|\beta|}\right\},$$ where $h_0\in(0,1]$ and $m, k\in\mathbb{R}.$ For $a\in S_{2n}\left(1\right)$ or $a\in S^{m, k}\left(T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ we define the corresponding semi-classical pseudodifferential operator of class $\Psi_{h}^{m}(1, \mathbb{R}^{n})$ or $\Psi_{h}^{m, k}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$ respectively, by setting $$Op_{h}\left(a\right)u\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\left(2\pi h\right)^{n}}\int\int e^{\frac{i\left\langle x-y, \xi\right\rangle}{h}}a\left(x, \xi; h\right)u\left(y\right) dy d\xi, \;u\in \mathcal{S}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right),$$ and extending the definition to $\mathcal{S}'\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ by duality. Below we shall work only with symbols which admit asymptotic expansions in $h$ and with pseudodifferential operators which are quantizations of such symbols. For $A\in\Psi_{h}^{k}(1, \mathbb{R}^{n})$ or $A\in\Psi_{h}^{m, k}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$ we shall use $\sigma_{0}(A)$ and $\sigma(A)$ to denote its principal symbol and its complete symbol, respectively. A semi-classical pseudodifferential operator will be called of principal type if its principal symbol $a_0$ satisfies $$a_0=0\implies da_0\ne 0.$$ We also define the class of semi-classical distributions $\mathcal{D}_{h}'(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ with which we will work here $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{D}'_{h}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) = & \big\{u\in C^{\infty}_{h}\left((0, 1]; \mathcal{D}'\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)\right): \forall\chi\in C_{c}^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right) \exists\: N\in\mathbb{N}\text{ and } C_{N}>0:\\ & \quad |\mathcal{F}_{h}\left(\chi u\right)\left(\xi, h\right)|\leq C_{N}h^{-N}\langle\xi\rangle^{N}\big\} \end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{F}_{h}\left(u\right)\left(\xi, h\right)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}e^{-\frac{i}{h}\left\langle x, \xi\right\rangle}u\left(x, h\right)dx$$ with the obvious extension of this definition to $\mathcal{E}_{h}'(\mathbb{R}^{n}).$ Everywhere here we work with the $L^{2}-$ based semi-classical Sobolev spaces $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n}),$ $s\in\mathbb{R},$ which consist of the distributions $u\in\mathcal{D}_{h}'(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ such that $$\|u\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{n})}^{2}=\frac{1}{(2\pi h)^{n}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}(1+\|\xi\|^{2})^{s}\left|\mathcal{F}_{h}(u)(\xi, h)\right|^{2}d\xi<\infty.$$ We shall say that $u=v$ [*microlocally*]{} (or $u\equiv v$) near an open or closed set $U\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}$, if $P(u-v)=\mathcal{O}\left(h^{\infty}\right)$ in $C_{c}^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ for every $P\in \Psi^{0}_{h}\left(1, \mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ such that $$WF_{h}\left(P\right)\subset \tilde{U}, \bar{U}\Subset \tilde{U}\Subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}, \tilde{U} \text{ open}.$$ We shall also say that $u$ satisfies a property $\mathcal{P}$ [*microlocally*]{} near an open set $U\subset T^{*}{\mathbb{R}^{n}}$ if there exists $v\in\mathcal{D}_{h}'\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ such that $u=v$ microlocally near $U$ and $v$ satisfies property $\mathcal{P}$. For open sets $U, V\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n},$ the operators $T, T'\in\Psi^{m}_{h}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ are said to be [*microlocally equivalent*]{} near $V\times U$ if for any $A, B\in\Psi_{h}^{0}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)$ such that $$WF_{h}\left(A\right)\subset\tilde{V}, WF_{h}\left(B\right)\subset\tilde{U}, \bar{V}\Subset\tilde{V}\Subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}, \bar{U}\Subset\tilde{U}\Subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{n}, \tilde{U}, \tilde{V} \text{ open }$$ $$A\left(T-T'\right)B=\mathcal{O}\left(h^{\infty}\right)\colon\mathcal{D}_{h}' \left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right)\rightarrow C^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}^{n}\right).$$ We shall also use the notation $T\equiv T'.$ Lastly, we define global semi-classical Fourier integral operators. \[dfio\] Let $\Lambda\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{k}$ be a smooth closed Lagrangian submanifold with respect to the canonical symplectic structure on $T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{k}.$ Let $r\in\mathbb{R}.$ Then the space $I^{r}_{h}\left(\mathbb{R}^{k}, \Lambda\right)$ of semi-classical Fourier integral distributions of order $r$ associated to $\Lambda$ is defined as the set of all $u\in\mathcal{D}'_{h}\left(\mathbb{R}^{k}\right)$ such that $$\left(\prod_{j=0}^{N} A_{j}\right)\left(u\right)=\mathcal{O}_{L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}^{k}\right)}\left(h^{N-r-\frac{k}{4}}\right), h\to 0,$$ for all $N\in\mathbb{N}_{0}$ and for all $A_{j}\in \Psi_{h}^{0}\left(1, \mathbb{R}^{k}\right),$ $j=0, \dots, N-1,$ with compactly supported symbols and principal symbols vanishing on $\Lambda$, and any $ A_N \in \Psi_h^{0} ( 1 , \mathbb{R}^{k}) $ with a compactly supported symbol. A continuous linear operator $C_{c}^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R}^{m}\right)\rightarrow\mathcal{D}_{h}'\left(\mathbb{R}^{l}\right),$ whose Schwartz kernel is an element of $I_{h}^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{m+l}, \Lambda)$ for some Lagrangian submanifold $\Lambda\subset T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{m+l}$ and some $r\in\mathbb{R}$ will be called a global semi-classical Fourier integral operator of order $r$ associated to $\Lambda.$ We denote the space of these operators by $\mathcal{I}_{h}^{r}(\mathbb{R}^{m+l}, \Lambda).$ [99]{} Alexandrova, Ivana. Semi-Classical Wavefront Set and Fourier Integral Operators. Preprint mathAP/0407460 on arxiv.org. Alexandrova, Ivana. Structure of the Semi-Classical Amplitude for General Scattering Relations. To appear in Comm. PDE. Alexandrova, Ivana. Structure of the Short Range Amplitude for General Scattering Relations. Preprint mathAP/0411599 on arxiv.org. Arnold, Vladimir. [*Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics*]{}; Springer-Verlag: New York, 1980. Michel, Laurent. Semi-classical Behavior of the Scattering Amplitude for Trapping Perturbations at Fixed Energy. Canadian Journal of Mathematics. [ **2004**]{}, [*56*]{}, (4), 794–824. Robert, Didier and Tamura, Hideo. Asymptotic Behavior of Scattering Amplitudes in Semi-Classical and Low Energy Limits. Annales de l’Institut Fourier [**1989**]{}, [*39*]{} (1), 155–192. Vainberg, Boris. [*Asymptotic Methods in Equations of Mathematical Physics.*]{} Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. New York. 1989. [^1]: 2000 MSC: Primary 35P05, 35S99.\ Keywords and phrases: Semi-classical Schrödinger operators, spectral function, Fourier integral operators.\ Prepared using AMS-LaTeX.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We observe that there is an example of an automorphism group of a model of an $ \omega $-stable theory—in fact, the prime model of an uncountably-categorical theory—that is not locally (OB), answering a question of C. Rosendal.' address: 'Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, 322 Science and Engineering Offices (M/C 249), 851 S. Morgan Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7045' author: - Joseph Zielinski bibliography: - 'UncountablyCategoricalLSG.bib' nocite: '[@MR1066691]' title: 'An automorphism group of an $ \omega $-stable structure that is not locally (OB)' --- Introduction ============ Towards extending the techniques of geometric group theory to all topological groups, C. Rosendal, in [@2014arXiv1403.3106R], identifies, for a general topological group, the appropriate notion of “boundedness”. The sets with this property play the role of the compact subsets of a locally-compact group and norm-bounded subsets of (the additive group of) a Banach space—and indeed, coincide with these examples for the above classes of groups. Here, the sets with the *relative property (OB)* are those that are inexorably bounded, in the sense that they take finite diameter with respect to *every* continuous, left-invariant pseudometric on the group. Recall that a *coarse structure* on a set, $ X $, is any family of subsets of $ X^{2} $ extending the powerset of the diagonal and closed under subsets, unions, inverses, and compositions of relations. For example, a coarse structure naturally arising from a metric space, $ (X,d) $, consists of those sets $ E \subseteq X^{2} $ such that $ \sup \{d(x,y) \mid (x,y) \in E\} $ is finite (see [@MR2007488]). The family of sets with the relative property (OB) forms an ideal, stable under the group operations, and thereby induces a left-invariant coarse structure on the group generated by the entourages, $ \{(x,y) \mid x^{-1}y \in A \} $, as $ A $ varies over relatively (OB) sets. Associated to this concept are several attributes that a given topological group may possess. A group is *locally (OB)* if there is an open neighborhood of the identity element with the property (OB). For a broad class of topological groups, this completely coincides with the situation where the above coarse structure may be given by a metric. Additionally, the group simply *has the property (OB)* when every subset has the relative property (OB) as above, i.e., when the group has finite diameter with respect to every continuous, left-invariant pseudometric. These are the groups for which the above coarse structure is trivial. Much of the motivation for better understanding “large” topological groups is that they often arise as transformations of important mathematical objects, e.g., homeomorphism groups of compact topological spaces, isometry groups of metric spaces, diffeomorphism groups of manifolds, and automorphism groups of countable structures in model theory. The coarse geometry of the groups from this latter class received a more thorough treatment in [@2014arXiv1403.3107R]. One of the main results of that paper was, If $ \mathcal{M} $ is the countable, saturated model of an $ \omega $-stable theory, then $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ has the property (OB). Recall that a theory is *$ \omega $-stable* when there are only countably-many complete types over countable parameter sets, and that a countable model is *saturated* when it realizes all types over finite parameter sets. This theorem and its proof led to the conjecture, If $ \mathcal{M} $ is any model of an $ \omega $-stable theory, must $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ be locally (OB)? Here we answer this question is the negative, namely we show, \[counterexample\] There is a countable structure, $ \mathcal{M} $, for which $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $ is uncountably-categorical, $ \mathcal{M} $ is its prime model, and $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ is not locally (OB). Preliminaries ============= The important notions for the coarse geometry of automorphism groups were introduced above. Let us recall here, from [@2014arXiv1403.3106R], an important source of examples of groups that are not locally (OB). \[products\] A product of groups, $ G = \prod_{i \in I} G_{i} $, is locally (OB) if and only if $ G_{i} $ has the (full) property (OB) for all-but-finitely-many $ i \in I $. As it suffices for our needs here, we will show just (the contrapositive of) the “only if” direction, and for metrizable $ G $. A full proof is found in Proposition 13 of [@2014arXiv1403.3106R]. Let $ U \subseteq G $ be open. Then for some $ j \in I $, the projection of $ U $ onto the $ j $th coordinate is all of $ G_{j} $, and $ G_{j} $ does not have the property (OB). Let $ d $ be a compatible, left-invariant metric on $ G_{j} $ of infinite diameter, and let $ \rho $ be any compatible, left-invariant metric on $ G $. Then $ \rho((g_{i})_{i \in I},(h_{i})_{i \in I}) + d(g_{j},h_{j}) $ is a compatible, left-invariant metric on $ G $ assigning infinite diameter to $ U $. Therefore, $ U $ does not have the property (OB), and as it was an arbitrary open set, $ G $ is not locally (OB). For our purposes, “theory” will mean “full theory of an infinite structure in a countable language”. Recall that, for an infinite cardinal, $ \kappa $, a theory is *$ \kappa $-categorical* if it has exactly one model, up to isomorphism, of cardinality $ \kappa $, and that by a foundational result of M. Morley, a theory is categorical in one uncountable cardinal if and only if it is categorical in all uncountable cardinals. Such theories are then unambiguously termed *uncountably categorical*. If such a theory is also $ \omega $-categorical, then it is said to be *totally categorical*. Given a structure, $ \mathcal{M} $, and a tuple $ \bar{a} \in M^{n} $, a formula $ \varphi(x,\bar{a}) $ is *strongly minimal* if it defines an infinite set, and in every elementary extension of $ \mathcal{M} $, every further definable subset is either finite or cofinite. Strongly minimal formulas (and the *strongly minimal sets* they define) play a fundamental role in the structure theory of uncountably-categorical theories. If a theory, $ T $, is uncountably categorical, then there is a strongly-minimal $ \varphi(x,\bar{a}) $ (with parameters from the prime model), and models of $ T $ are determined, up to isomorphism, by the minimal cardinality of a set, $ B \subseteq \varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{a}) $ for which $ \varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{a}) \subseteq \operatorname{acl}(\bar{a} \cup B) $. Here, $ \varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{a}) $ is the set of points in $ M $ defined by $ \varphi(x,\bar{a}) $, and the *algebraic closure* of a set, $ C \subset M $, is $ \operatorname{acl}(C) = \bigcup \{\varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{c}) \mid \bar{c} \subseteq C \text{ and } | \varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{c}) | < \infty \} $, the union of all finite sets definable with parameters from $ C $. A theory is *strongly minimal* if $ x = x $ is strongly minimal (i.e., every definable subset of every model is finite or cofinite), and *almost strongly minimal* if every model is algebraic over a strongly minimal set. Such theories are uncountably categorical. Let us remark that the example in the following section has a theory that is uncountably categorical, but not totally categorical, not almost strongly minimal, and for which $ \mathcal{M} $ is not the saturated model. In fact, for an uncountably categorical structure to be a counterexample, these additional properties are necessary. Suppose $ \mathcal{M} $ is a countable structure and $ T = \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $ is uncountably categorical. Then if $ T $ is totally categorical, or more generally if $ \mathcal{M} $ is the countable, saturated model of $ T $, or if $ T $ is almost strongly minimal, then $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ is locally (OB). The case where $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $ is $ \omega $-categorical is due to P. Cameron, and as mentioned above, was extended by Rosendal to saturated models of $ \omega $-stable theories. In both cases $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ has the property (OB). So suppose that $ \mathcal{M} $ is not saturated, but that $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $ is almost strongly minimal. Then there is a strongly minimal formula, $ \varphi(x,\bar{a}) $, and $ M = \operatorname{acl}(\varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{a})) $. As $ \mathcal{M} $ is not saturated, there is a finite $ B \subseteq \varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{a}) $ so that $ \varphi(\mathcal{M},\bar{a}) \subseteq \operatorname{acl}(\bar{a} \cup B) $. Therefore, $ M = \operatorname{acl}(\bar{a} \cup B) $. Let $ V \leq \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ be the stabilizer subgroup of $ \bar{a} \cup B $. Then $ V $ is an open subgroup and as $ \mathcal{M} $ is algebraic over $ \bar{a} \cup B $, every $ c \in M $ has a finite $ V $-orbit. Therefore (see [@Cameron01031996]), $ V $ is compact, and so $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ is locally-compact, and thus locally (OB). We remark that all natural and frequently-cited examples of uncountably categorical structures possess at least one of the aforementioned properties, contributing to the plausibility of the conjecture refuted here. The example =========== The example here, of an uncountably categorical structure whose automorphism group is not locally (OB), is essentially that of section 4 of [@JSL:9103821], with some modifications. Therefore, in the proof of categoricity we will provide only an outline, referring the reader to the above paper for more details on that aspect. Let $ \mathcal{L} = \{f,R,0,1 \} $, a language with a ternary function symbol, a binary relation symbol, and two constants. Let $ M = \mathbb{Q} \cup \mathbb{Q}^{2} $. Interpret the symbols $ 0 $ and $ 1 $ as the corresponding elements of $ \mathbb{Q} $, and let $ R^{\mathcal{M}}= \{(p,(p,q)) \in M^{2} \mid p,q \in \mathbb{Q} \} $. We define $ f^{\mathcal{M}} $ by cases: - $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(p,q,r) = (q-p) + r $ for $ p,q,r \in \mathbb{Q} $ - $ f^{\mathcal{M}}((s,p),(s,q),(s,r)) = (s, (q-p)+r) $ for $ p,q,r,s \in \mathbb{Q} $ - $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(p,(p,q),r) = (p,(q-p)+r) $ for $ p,q,r \in \mathbb{Q} $ - $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b,c) = c $ if $ (a,b,c) $ is not one of the above forms One should keep in mind the following picture of $ \mathcal{M} $: It consists of a “parent” copy of $ \mathbb{Q} $, and corresponding to each of its elements, a “child” copy of $ \mathbb{Q} $. The elements $ 0 $ and $ 1 $ of the parent copy are distinguished, and the relation $ R^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b) $ holds precisely when $ a $ is a member of the parent copy and $ b $ is a member of the child copy associated to $ a $. The function $ f^{\mathcal{M}} $ is best considered not as a three-variable function, but as a family of single-variable functions parameterized by pairs of elements of $ \mathcal{M} $. That is, $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b,c) $ should be viewed as the value that $ c $ takes in the function determined by $ (a,b) $. So the first condition says that if $ a $ and $ b $ are both in the parent copy of $ \mathbb{Q} $, then $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b,\cdot) $ acts as a translation of the parent copy by $ (b-a) $, and as the identity on the child copies. Similarly if $ a $ and $ b $ are in the same child copy, then $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b,\cdot) $ translates that child copy. The third case is probably the least intuitive, but if $ c $ is in the parent copy and $ R^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b) $, then $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b,c) $ is best described as “where $ c $ would go if the parent copy was laid on top of the child copy corresponding to $ a $, in such a way that $ a $ was made to line up with $ b $”. \[Baldwin-Lachlan\] \[categorical\] $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $ is uncountably categorical. First, note that it suffices to show that $ \mathcal{M}' $, the reduct of $ \mathcal{M} $ to the language $ \mathcal{L}' = \{f,R\} $, is uncountably categorical. Next, we see that the structure $ (\mathbb{Q},F) $ where $ F(p,q,r) = (q-p) + r $ is strongly minimal. To see this, first verify, by induction, that for every term $ t(x_{1},\dots,x_{n}) $ there are $ r_{1},\dots,r_{n} \in \mathbb{Z} $, summing to $ 1 $, so that $ (\mathbb{Q},F) $ interprets $ t(a_{1},\dots,a_{n}) $ as $ r_{1}a_{1}+ \cdots + r_{n}a_{n} $ for every choice of $ a_{1},\dots,a_{n} $. Therefore, for every atomic formula $ \varphi(x_{1},\dots,x_{n}) $ there are $ r_{1},\dots,r_{n} \in \mathbb{Z} $, summing to $ 0 $, so that $ (\mathbb{Q},F) \models \varphi(a_{1},\dots,a_{n}) $ if and only if $ r_{1}a_{1}+ \cdots + r_{n}a_{n} = 0 $. Then by induction on the construction of formulas, every $ \emptyset $-definable relation in $ (\mathbb{Q},F) $ is a Boolean combination of sets of the form $$\{(a_{1},\dots,a_{n}) \in \mathbb{Q}^{n} \mid r_{1}a_{1}+ \cdots + r_{n}a_{n} = 0 \}$$ where the $ r_{i} $’s sum to $ 0 $. So for every $ \varphi(x_{1},\dots,x_{n}) $, there is a $ k_{\varphi} \in \mathbb{N} $ so that for any $ a_{2},\dots,a_{n} $, either $ \varphi(x_{1},a_{2},\dots,a_{n}) $ or $ \neg \varphi(x_{1},a_{2},\dots,a_{n}) $ has at most $ k_{\varphi} $ solutions. This fact is expressible in a first-order manner, and so in every model of $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathbb{Q},F) $, every set defined by $ \varphi $ with parameters is either of size less than $ k_{\varphi} $ or has compliment with this bound. Therefore, $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathbb{Q},F) $ is strongly minimal. Hence, $ \psi(x) = \exists y R(x,y) $ is a strongly minimal formula in $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}') $. Suppose $ \mathcal{N}_{1} $ and $ \mathcal{N}_{2} $ are $ \aleph_{1} $-models of $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}') $. In $ \mathcal{M} $, for every $ a$ and $b $ with $ R^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b) $, the restriction of $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,b,\cdot) $ to $ \psi(\mathcal{M}) $ is one-to-one and onto $ R(a,\mathcal{M}) $—in fact, it is an isomorphism of $ \{f\} $-structures. This is expressible in $ \mathcal{L}' $, and is therefore known to $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $, and consequently each $ \mathcal{N}_{i} $ is a $ (|\psi(\mathcal{N}_{i})| +1) $-sized union of sets of size $ |\psi(\mathcal{N}_{i})| $, and so $ |\psi(\mathcal{N}_{i})| = \aleph_{1} $. Therefore, as the $ \psi(\mathcal{N}_{i}) $’s are models of the uncountably-categorical theory, $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathbb{Q},F) $, there is an $ \{ f \} $-isomorphism $ g: \psi(\mathcal{N}_{1}) \to \psi(\mathcal{N}_{2}) $. Extend $ g $ to all of $ \mathcal{N}_{1} $ by choosing, for each $ a \in \psi(\mathcal{N}_{1}) $, a point $ c_{a} $ with $ R^{\mathcal{N}_{1}}(a,c_{a}) $, and likewise for each element of $ \psi(\mathcal{N}_{2}) $. Then if $ d \in \mathcal{N}_{1} \setminus \psi(\mathcal{N}_{1}) $, say if $ R^{\mathcal{N}_{1}}(a,d) $, let $ g(d) = f^{\mathcal{N}_{2}}(g(a),c_{g(a)},g((f^{\mathcal{N}_{1}})^{-1}(a,c_{a},d))) $, where $ (f^{\mathcal{N}_{1}})^{-1}(a,c_{a},d) $ denotes the (unique) element, $ b $, of $ \psi(\mathcal{N}_{1}) $, for which $ f^{\mathcal{N}_{1}}(a,c_{a},b) = d $. One then verifies that this extension of $ g $ is an $ \mathcal{L}' $-isomorphism, by again appealing to first-order properties of $ \mathcal{M} $ true in the $ \mathcal{N}_{i} $. So $ \operatorname{Th}(\mathcal{M}) $ is uncountably categorical, and one can easily see that $ \mathcal{M} $ is the prime model. \[not locally (OB)\] $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ is not locally (OB). That is, the coarse structure associated to the relatively (OB) subsets of $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ cannot be given by a metric. Observe that every element of the structure $ (\mathbb{Q},F) $ introduced in the proof of Proposition \[categorical\] is definable over $ \{0,1\} $. For this, let $ F_{(a,b)} $ denote $ F(a,b,\cdot) $, and observe that for $ n \in \mathbb{N} $, $$n = F_{(0,1)}^{n}(0) \text{ and } -n = F_{(1,0)}^{n}(0),$$ while $ \frac{k}{n} \in \mathbb{Q} $ ($ n \geq 1 $) is the unique $ x $ for which, $$k = F_{(0,x)}^{n}(0).$$ Therefore, every automorphism of $ (\mathbb{Q},F) $ is determined by where it sends $ 0 $ and $ 1 $. Now suppose $ g \in \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $. Then as every point in the strongly minimal set, $ \psi(\mathcal{M}) $, is definable over $ \emptyset $ (recall $ \mathcal{L} $ contains symbols for $ 0 $ and $ 1 $), $ g $ must fix $ \psi(\mathcal{M}) $ pointwise, and so for every $ a \in \psi(\mathcal{M}) $, fixes $ R(a,\mathcal{M}) $ setwise. Let $ g_{a}: \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q} $ be the automorphism of $ (\mathbb{Q},F) $ induced by the action of $ g $ on $ \psi(a,\mathcal{M}) $, satisfying $ g(a,b)=(a,g_{a}(b)) $. Recall that $ f^{\mathcal{M}}(p,(p,q),r) = (p,(q-p)+r) $. So for any $ x \in \mathbb{Q} $, $$\begin{aligned} (a,g_{a}(x)) &= g(a,x) \\ &= g(a,(0-a)+(x+a)) \\ &= g(f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,(a,0),x+a)) \\ &= f^{\mathcal{M}}(g(a),g(a,0),g(x+a)) \\ &= f^{\mathcal{M}}(a,(a,g_{a}(0)),x+a) \text{ (since } g \upharpoonright \psi(\mathcal{M}) = \operatorname{id} ) \\ &= (a,(g_{a}(0) - a ) + (x+a)) \\ &= (a,x + g_{a}(0))\end{aligned}$$ and $ g_{a} $ is a translation by $ g_{a}(0) $. So every $ g \in \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ fixes $ \psi(\mathcal{M}) $ and restricts to a translation on each fiber, $ R(a,\mathcal{M}) $. In this way, it can be naturally identified with a point in $ \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{Q}} $ given by $ (g_{a}(0))_{a \in \mathbb{Q}} $. Conversely, suppose $ h \in \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{Q}} $. Let $ \widehat{h}: M \to M $ fix $ \psi(\mathcal{M}) $ and send $ (p,q) \mapsto (p,q + h(p)) $. Then $ \widehat{h} $ is easily seen to respect $ R,0,1 $, and the first, second, and fourth parts of the definition of $ f $, while for the third, $$\begin{aligned} \widehat{h}(f^{\mathcal{M}}(p,(p,q),r)) &= \widehat{h}(p,(q-p)+r) \\ &= (p,(q-p)+r+h(p)) \\ &= f^{\mathcal{M}}(p,(p,q+h(p)),r) \\ &= f^{\mathcal{M}}(\widehat{h}(p),\widehat{h}(p,q),\widehat{h}(r)),\end{aligned}$$ and $ \widehat{h} \in \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $. So $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ can be identified with $ \mathbb{Q}^{\mathbb{Q}} $, and as a basic open set in $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ is determined by its action on finitely-many points (i.e., fixes the values of $ h(a) $ for finitely-many $ a $), they are isomorphic as topological groups when the base $ \mathbb{Q} $ is given the discrete group topology. Therefore, $ \operatorname{Aut}(\mathcal{M}) $ is an infinite product of groups that are not (OB), and so is not locally (OB), by Lemma \[products\].

ArXiv

--- author: - 'O. Teşileanu' - 'A. Mignone' - 'S. Massaglia' date: 'Received $<date>$ / Accepted $<date>$' title: | Simulating radiative astrophysical flows with the PLUTO code:\ A non-equilibrium, multi-species cooling function --- Introduction ============ Astrophysical gases emit thermal radiation while undergoing dynamical transformations. There are cases where the gas is so diluted that the typical timescales for cooling greatly exceed the dynamical ones but, in many instances, cooling and the related ionization/recombination processes for the emitting species become comparable to, or faster than, the dynamical evolution of the system and should be considered. Classical examples of intensively radiating gases are regions, planetary nebulae, supernova remnants and star forming regions. Thus, when studying gas flows in such environments, particular care must be taken to treat the interplay between dynamics and radiation in the correct way. This is particularly true and crucial whenever radiative shocks are involved. When cooling is strong, the ionization fraction of the emitting species is far from that at equilibrium, but evolves so rapidly with time that it must be treated in a time-dependent fashion. Under these conditions, the magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations, coupled with the equations describing the evolution of the emitting species and the radiative losses, must be solved by numerical means. The numerical problems posed by radiative cooling are particularly challenging whenever the advance time step of the integration is controlled by radiation/ionization rather than dynamics. This may happen in few grid points in the computational domain where the radiative losses are intense, e.g., right behind a shock front, where the cooling time becomes very small. Therefore, it is necessary to devise strategies able to deal with very different integration timescales: this is one of the points we address. Time dependent ionization calculations were previously performed for gaseous nebulae by Marten & Szczerba ([@MS97]) in hydrostatic conditions. Their approach is similar to our implementation of the ionization state treatment, however the ion species and implemented physical processes are in part different. Also, radiative cooling in optically-thin plasmas was previously investigated, and synthetic cooling functions were designed (e.g., Schmutzler & Tscharnutter [@ST93]). Among the radiative numerical codes employed in astrophysics, one can quote the hydrocode YGUAZÙ (Raga et al. [@RA00]), ASTROBEAR MHD code (Poludnenko et al. [@PA05], Berger & LeVeque [@BL98]) and Virginia Hydrodynamics - 1 (VH-1, Sutherland et al. [@SA03], Blondin & Lufkin [@BL93]). The MHD simulation code we use for our astrophysical applications – PLUTO – is a freely distributed application developed and maintained at the Turin University – Turin Astronomical Observatory (Mignone et al. [@MA07]). A previous numerical analysis about the evolution of radiative shocks in Young Stellar Object (YSO) jets (Massaglia et al. [@MA05]) was carried out with PLUTO, using a simplified model for the radiative cooling losses, which evolved in time only the ionization fraction of hydrogen (c.f., Rossi et al. [@RA97]). This model will be called from now on SNEq (Simplified Non-Equilibrium cooling). We illustrate a more general treatment of atomic cooling and evolution of the ionization fraction of the emitting species, embedded in the PLUTO code as well, for use within MHD simulations of astrophysical interest. We will call this new cooling function MINEq (Multi-Ion Non-Equilibrium cooling). The main advantage of our approach is the full ionization state computation during the MHD simulation, which allows for better predictions of emission line intensities. Section \[general\] contains a general overview of the adopted method and implementation of the treatment of radiative losses. Then, in Sect. \[cfdesc\], a description of the physics of the cooling model can be found, followed in Sect. \[testeq\] by the validations and tests in equilibrium conditions. The numerical implementation and testing are discussed in Sect. \[numerical\], while in Sect. \[testint\] we present some typical astrophysical applications. Technical details on ionization-recombination processes and numerical issues are presented in extended form in the Appendix. General overview {#general} ================ The general characteristics and application ranges of the new cooling function added to the PLUTO code are summarized below. The density limits are those typically encountered in clouds and YSO jets, while the temperature range is limited by the highest ionization stage considered (at the high end) and the lack of molecular cooling (at the low end): $$N \in (10^{-2}, 10^5) \ {\mathrm{cm^{-3}}} \,,\quad T \in (2 \cdot 10^3, 2 \cdot 10^5) \ {\mathrm{K}} \,.$$ However, the module is designed to permit later extension in terms of applicable parameter range (through adding more ion species, or a tabulated cooling function for higher temperatures) and physical processes taken into consideration. Flow variables such as density $\rho$, velocity $\vec{v}$, magnetic field $\vec{B}$, and total energy $E$ are evolved according to the standard MHD equations: $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}} + \nabla\cdot\left(\rho\vec{v}\right) & = & 0 \, \label{eq:CL1} \\ {\frac{\partial (\rho\vec{v})}{\partial t}} + \nabla\cdot\left(\rho\vec{v}\vec{v}^T - \vec{B}\vec{B}^T + \tens{I}p_t\right) &=& 0\, \label{eq:CL2} \\ {\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t}} - \nabla\times\left(\vec{v}\times\vec{B}\right) &=& 0 \, \label{eq:CL3} \\ {\frac{\partial E}{\partial t}} + \nabla\cdot\left[\left(E + p_t\right)\vec{v} - \left(\vec{v}\cdot\vec{B}\right)\vec{B}\right] & = &S_E \label{eq:CL4} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $S_E$ (described later) is a radiative loss term, and $p_{\mathrm{t}} \equiv p + |\vec{B}|^2/2$ denotes the total pressure (thermal + magnetic) of the fluid. We assume an ideal equation of state by which the total energy density becomes $$E = \frac{p}{\Gamma - 1} + \rho\frac{\left|\vec{v}\right|^2}{2} + \frac{\left|\vec{B}\right|^2}{2} \,,$$ with $\Gamma=5/3$ being the specific heats ratio. The cooling model accounts for the evolution of 29 ion species, namely: , , and , and the first five ionization stages of C, N, O, Ne and S. Sulphur, although not having an important contribution to cooling, is added for diagnostic purposes (line ratios). The ionization network employed is larger than in most other MHD codes. For each ion, we solve the additional equation $$\label{eq:species} {\frac{\partial (\rho X_{\kappa,i})}{\partial t}} + \nabla\cdot\left(\rho X_{\kappa,i}\vec{v}\right) = \rho S_{\kappa,i} \,$$ coupled to the original system of conservation laws (\[eq:CL1\])–(\[eq:CL4\]). In Eq. (\[eq:species\]) and throughout the following, the first index ($\kappa$) corresponds to the element, while the second index ($i$) corresponds to the ionization stage. Specifically, $X_{\kappa,i} \equiv N_{\kappa,i} / N_{\kappa}$ is the ion number fraction, $N_{\kappa,i}$ is the number density of the $i$-th ion of element $\kappa$, and $N_{\kappa}$ is the element number density. We denote the whole set of ions for all possible $\kappa$ and $i$ with $\vec{X}\equiv\{X_{\kappa,i}\}$. The source term $S_{\kappa,i}$ accounts for ionization and recombination and will be described in the following. The total line emission from these species enters in the source term $S_E$ in Eq. (\[eq:CL4\]) and should give a good approximation of radiative cooling for the above conditions (Raga et al. [@RM97]). The system of Eqs. (\[eq:CL1\])–(\[eq:CL4\]) together with (\[eq:species\]) is integrated using the PLUTO code for computational astrophysics (Mignone et al. [@MA07]). We take advantage of operator splitting techniques, where the homogeneous part of the equations (i.e., with $S_{\kappa,i}=S_E=0$) is solved separately from the source step. The order of the respective advection and source operators (${\cal H}^{\Delta t^n}$ and ${\cal S}^{\Delta t^n}$) is reversed every step by keeping the time step $\Delta t^n=\Delta t^{n+1}$ constant for two consecutive integrations to guarantee formal second order accuracy. Thus, if $\vec{U}=\{\rho, \rho\vec{v}, \vec{B}, E, \rho\vec{X}\}$ is the vector of conserved variables, the solution advances from $t^n$ to $t^n + \Delta t^n$ as $$\label{eq:split1} \vec{U}(t^n + \Delta t^n) = {\cal S}^{\Delta t^n}{\cal H}^{\Delta t^n}\, \vec{U}(t^n)\,,$$ and from $t^n + \Delta t^n$ to $t^n + 2\Delta t^n$ as $$\label{eq:split2} \vec{U}(t^n + 2\Delta t^n) = {\cal H}^{\Delta t^n}{\cal S}^{\Delta t^n} \, \vec{U}(t^n + \Delta t^n)\,.$$ A new time step, $\Delta t^{n+2}$, is then computed as shown in Sect. \[numerical\]. Cooling module description {#cfdesc} ========================== We will restrict our attention to the source step only and remind the interested reader of the original paper by Mignone et al. ([@MA07]) for implementation details on the solution of the homogeneous MHD equations. During the source step, in virtue of operator splitting, only internal energy $p/(\Gamma-1)$ and ion fractions $X_{\kappa,i}$ are affected. Density, velocity, and magnetic fields remain constant with the values provided by the most recent step. Thus Eqs. (\[eq:CL4\]) and (\[eq:species\]) are treated as a system of ordinary differential equations (ODE): $$\label{eq:source_ode} \frac{d}{dt}\left(\begin{array}{c} p \\ \noalign{\medskip} X_{\kappa,i} \end{array}\right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} (\Gamma - 1) S_E \\ \noalign{\medskip} S_{\kappa,i} \end{array}\right) \,,$$ where $\kappa = \rm{H, He, C,}...$ labels the element and $i=\rm{I,II, III,}...$ identifies the ionization stage. Equations (\[eq:source\_ode\]) must be solved for a time increment $\Delta t^n$ with initial condition provided by the output of the previous step (i.e., either an advection or source one). Pressure $p$ and temperature $T$ are related by the ideal gas equation: $$\label{eq:eos} p = Nk_B T \,\qquad {\rm with} \qquad N = \frac{\rho}{m_u\mu(\vec{X})} \,,$$ where $N$ is the total particle (atoms + electrons) number density, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $m_u$ is the atomic mass unit, and $\mu(\vec{X})$ is the mean molecular weight: $$\label{eq:mu} \mu ( \vec{X} ) = \frac{\sum_{\kappa} m_{\kappa} B_{\kappa}}{\sum_{\kappa}\sum_i X_{\kappa,i}\gamma_i B_{\kappa}} \,.$$ In Eq. (\[eq:mu\]) $m_{\kappa}$ is the atomic mass (in units of $m_u$) of element $\kappa$ and $\gamma_i$ denotes the number of the ionization stage in spectroscopic notation for each ion. $B_{\kappa}$ is the fractional abundance of the element. Radiative losses {#radloss} ---------------- Radiative losses are described by the source term $S_E$ in the energy Eq. (\[eq:CL4\]): $$\label{eq:en_source} S_E = -\Big(N_{\rm at}N_{\rm el}\Lambda\left(T,\vec{X}\right) + L_{\rm FF} + L_{\rm I-R}\Big)\,,$$ where $\Lambda(T, \vec{X}) $ is the radiative cooling function due to collisionally-excited line radiation, $L_{\rm FF}$ denotes the free-free (bremsstrahlung) losses from H$^{\mathrm{+}}$ and He$^{\mathrm{+}}$, while $L_{\rm I-R}$ accounts for the energy lost during ionization/recombination processes. The number densities $N_{\rm at}$ and $N_{\rm el}$ are, respectively, the total atom and electron number densities, readily determined from the mass density and the known chemical composition of the plasma (by default supposed solar, but customizable by the user): $$\label{eq:nat} N_{\mathrm{at}} = \sum_{\kappa} N_{\kappa} \,,$$ $$\label{eq:nel} N_{\mathrm{el}}(\vec{X}) = N \sum_{\kappa} \sum_i X_{\kappa,i} ( \gamma_i - 1) B_{\kappa} \,.$$ Note that $N_{\rm at}$ *does not* depend on the ionization state of the elements and it should not be confused with $N$, the total particle (atoms + electrons) number density used in the equation of state (\[eq:eos\]). Emission lines from , , and that exist in SNEq are added empirically to the energy losses of MINEq (without evolving the respective ion species) because of their importance at low temperatures. ### Energy loss by collisionally-excited line radiation The main contribution to radiative cooling comes from collisional excitation of low-lying energy levels of common ions, such as O and N. In spite of their low abundances, these ions make a significant contribution because they have energy levels with excitation potentials of the order of $kT$. The total radiative cooling function $\Lambda(T,\vec{X})$ used in the energy source term (Eq. (\[eq:en\_source\])) is: $$\label{eq:pp} \Lambda(T,\vec{X}) = \sum_{\kappa} \sum_i X_{\kappa,i} {\cal L}_{\kappa,i}(N_{\mathrm{el}}, T) B_{\kappa} \,,$$ where the sums are extended to all ion species and $B_{\kappa}$ is the fractional abundance of the element $\kappa$. Individual contributions to the different ${\cal L}$’s [^1] are given by $$\label{eq:Ljdefine} {\cal L} = \sum_j \hat{N}_j \sum_{l<j}A_{jl}h\nu_{jl} \,,$$ where $\hat{N}_j$ is the population of the $j$-th excitation level; $A_{jl}$ are the Einstein A coefficients; and $\nu_{jl}$ the emission line frequency for a transition between levels $j$ and $l$. We consider a 5-level atom model to compute the line radiation (Osterbrock & Ferland [@OF05]) by solving for the equilibrium populations in each of the excitation levels $j = 1\dots 5$: $$\sum_{l\neq j} \hat{N}_lN_{\mathrm{el}}q_{lj} + \sum_{l>j} \hat{N}_lA_{lj} = \sum_{l\neq j} \hat{N}_jN_{\mathrm{el}}q_{jl} + \sum_{l<j} \hat{N}_jA_{jl} \,,$$ which, together with the normalization condition for the total number density of the ion, $\sum_j \hat{N}_j = N_{\kappa,i}$, can be solved for the relative $\hat{N}_j$ populations in each level. The 5-level atom model provides the great majority of the emission lines for the considered range of temperatures and thus gives a reliable estimation of the total line cooling. For most of the ion species, the emission coefficients were taken from Pradhan & Zhang ([@PZ99]). The data for hydrogen was taken from Giovanardi et al. ([@GA87]) and their fit formula. The data comes from Blum & Pradhan ([@BP92]), while for and Chebyshev polynomial fits from Stafford et al. ([@SA94]) were used. ### Free-free radiation A minor contributor to the cooling rate at moderate temperatures is the bremsstrahlung (free-free) radiation, having a continuous spectrum. The rate of cooling in this process by ions of charge $Z$, integrated over frequency, is approximately (Osterbrock & Ferland [@OF05]) $$\label{eq:Lffdefine} L_{\rm FF} = 1.42 \times 10^{-27} Z^2 T^{1/2} N_{\rm el} N_+ \,,$$ in $\mathrm{ergs\,cm^{-3}\,s^{-1}}$. Because of its abundance, H$^+$ dominates the free-free cooling, and He$^+$ can be included along with it since both have the same charge: $N_+ \equiv N_{\rm HII} + N_{\rm HeII}$. ### Ionization-recombination losses Thermal energy is absorbed by the atom to pass to the next ionization stage. During the recombination, a free electron is captured and a part of its thermal energy is lost. The ionization/recombination losses are treated similarly in MINEq and SNEq, following the method described in Rossi et al. ([@RA97]): $$\begin{aligned} L_{\rm I-R} & = & L_{\rm I} + L_{\rm R} \nonumber \\ L_{\rm I} & = & 1.27 \cdot 10^{-23} \sqrt{T} N_{HI} e^{-\frac{157890}{T}} N_{\rm el} \\ L_{\rm R} & = & 2.39 \cdot 10^{-27} \sqrt{T} N_{HII} N_{\rm el} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ expressed in ${\rm ergs\,cm^{-3}\,s^{-1}}$. The complementary effects of these processes on the plasma (the creation/destruction of a free particle) are accounted through the mean molecular weight, which varies together with the total particle number density. Ionization network {#eqbal} ------------------ Our ionization network can be written in terms of the source-term $S_{\kappa,i}$ mentioned above (Eq. (\[eq:source\_ode\])): $$\label{eq:ion_bal} S_{\kappa,i} = N_{\mathrm{el}} \Big[ X_{\kappa,i+1} \alpha_{\kappa,i+1} - X_{\kappa,i} \left( \zeta_{\kappa,i} + \alpha_{\kappa,i} \right) + X_{\kappa,i-1} \zeta_{\kappa,i-1} \Big] \,,$$ where $\zeta_{\kappa,i}$ and $\alpha_{\kappa,i}$ are the ionization and recombination coefficients of the $i$-th ion specie of the element $\kappa$, defined as follows: $$\label{eq:coeffI} \zeta_{\kappa,i} = \zeta^{\rm coll}_{\kappa,i} (T) + \frac{N_{\rm HII}}{N_{\rm el}} \zeta^{\rm HII}_{\kappa,i} (T) \,,$$ $$\label{eq:coeffR} \alpha_{\kappa,i} = \alpha^{\rm el}_{\kappa,i}(T) + \frac{N_{\rm HI}}{N_{\rm el}} \alpha^{\rm HI}_{\kappa,i} (T) + \frac{N_{\rm HeI}}{N_{\rm el}} \alpha^{\rm HeI}_{\kappa,i} (T) \,,$$ where $N_{\rm HII} \equiv N_{\rm H} X_{\rm HII} = N_{\rm at}B_{\rm H}X_{\rm HII}$ is the number density of protons, $N_{\rm HI}$ and $N_{\rm HeI}$ are the number densities of neutral hydrogen and helium, respectively. The $\alpha_{\kappa,i}$ and $\zeta_{\kappa,i}$ coefficients are the transition rates corresponding to the reaction mechanisms defined in the Appendix A (note that $\alpha^{\rm el}_{\kappa,i}$ is the total electron-ion recombination coefficient, that is dielectronic *plus* radiative, $\alpha^{\rm el} = \alpha^{\rm DR} + \alpha^{\rm RR}$). Since we only consider part of the ions from each element (up to the fourth level of ionization, except for H and He), the ionization rate for the highest state will be set to zero. This will produce saturation of the ion population in this state at very high temperatures, and limit the applicability of the cooling function. The temperature range can however be extended by adding further ionization stages for the elements. For efficiency purposes, the ionization and recombination coefficients on the right-hand side of Eqs. (\[eq:coeffI\]) and (\[eq:coeffR\]) are sampled at discrete values of temperature at the beginning of integration and used as lookup tables. Comparison with equilibrium models {#testeq} ================================== We perform theoretical line ratios tests to verify the collision strengths in the radiative losses. Also, the total cooling function for an equilibrium ionization balance function of temperature (the effective cooling curve) was tested and found to be consistent with results obtained with more complex models. Equilibrium ionization balance ------------------------------ The equilibrium ionization balance may be used as an initial condition for numerical simulations, and also serves for testing the ionization/recombination coefficients employed in the ionization network. The ionization balance for each element at equilibrium is computed by setting $dX_{\kappa,i} / dt = 0$ (for all ions) in Eq. (\[eq:source\_ode\]). The equation for the highest ionization stage is replaced by the normalization condition, $$\label{eq:norm} \sum_{i=1}^{K} X_{\kappa,i} = 1 \,,$$ where $K$ is the highest ionization state taken in consideration for the element $\kappa$. Thus, for each element, we solve the following system of equations: $$\label{eq:ion_eq_system} X_{\kappa,i+1} \alpha_{\kappa,i+1} - X_{\kappa,i} \left( \zeta_{\kappa,i} + \alpha_{\kappa,i} \right) + X_{\kappa,i-1} \zeta_{\kappa,i-1} = 0 \,,$$ with $i=1,\cdots,K-1$ complemented by Eq. (\[eq:norm\]). Despite its aspect, the previous system of equations is not linear since the $\zeta$ and $\alpha$ coefficients depend on the concentrations themselves (see Eqs. (\[eq:coeffI\]) and (\[eq:coeffR\])), so an iterative procedure must be employed to converge to the correct solution. In the particular cases of hydrogen and helium, because of the charge-transfer reactions they are involved in, an exact treatment would also force $\zeta$ and $\alpha$ to depend on the number densities of all other ions that take part in these processes. Considering the very limited influence of these reactions on the hydrogen and helium ionization balance, we chose to neglect such influences. Given an initial guess on the ionization state of the plasma, the systems of equations for equilibrium are solved, providing new values of $N_{\mathrm{el}}$, $N_{\mathrm{HI}}$, and $N_{\mathrm{HeI}}$. The process is repeated until the differences between the old and the new solutions are below a certain threshold. The convergence is rapidly achieved, generally less than five iterations are needed for a $10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ relative threshold. This is acceptable, considering that this equilibrium computation is typically done on the whole computation grid only once, in the beginning of the simulation. In Fig. \[fig:eq\_bal\], we show the equilibrium ionization balance as a function of temperature for three selected elements. Our results favourably compare to those obtained by previous investigators–such as Sutherland & Dopita ([@SD93])–with the ionization fractions being within $5-10\%$ at the same temperature. \[!ht\] Line ratios tests ----------------- These tests are useful to verify the emission lines data and the level population computation routine (in our 5-level atom model). An example is presented here. A popular way of estimating the temperatures in gaseous nebulae is to use the ratio of spectral line intensities, such as the lines of : $$\frac{\epsilon(\lambda 5007)+\epsilon(\lambda 4959)}{\epsilon(\lambda 4363)} = \frac{\epsilon(^1D_2 \rightarrow {}^3P_2) + \epsilon(^1D_2 \rightarrow {}^3P_1)}{\epsilon(^1S_0 \rightarrow {}^1D_2)} \,.$$ Inserting numerical values of the collision strengths and transition probabilities (Osterbrock & Ferland [@OF05]), the ratio becomes: $$\label{eq:analytic_OIII} R = \frac{\epsilon(\lambda 5007)+\epsilon(\lambda 4959)}{\epsilon(\lambda 4363)} = \frac{8.32 \exp \left( \cfrac{3.29\times 10^4}{T} \right)}{1 + 4.5 \times 10^{-4}\cfrac{N_{\rm el}}{T^{1/2}}} \,,$$ for temperatures around 10000K. Line ratios computed with the previous formula and the results of the 5-level atom model were compared, the differences of less than $\approx 6\%$ being due to the fact that our code uses temperature-dependent collision strengths, while in the formula above they are assumed constant. Effective cooling {#effcool} ----------------- In Fig. \[fig:total\_cool\], we plot the effective cooling function (in $\mathrm{erg\,cm^3 \,s^{-1}}$) using the ionization fractions computed at equilibrium. For the sake of comparison, we also show the results obtained with the SNEq model described in Rossi et al. ([@RA97]) and the Cloudy atomic code, which has a large chemical network (see Ferland et al. [@FA98]), for similar plasma conditions. Solar abundances have been assumed for all cooling functions, except for the Cloudy $Z=0.3$ case (where the metallicity is only $0.3$ times the solar one). The SNEq model consists of the emission of 17 most important lines, plus the two-photon continuum and the radiative losses from ionization/recombination processes. In this model, however, only the ionization of H is evolved with the integration, the rest of the ions abundances being fixed or locked by charge-transfer processes to the ionization state of H. \[!ht\] The results show a good agreement between the newly-developed cooling model (MINEq) and the computations carried out with the Cloudy code. Chemical composition (more extended in Cloudy that is an atomic code) and physical processes considered account for the differences. The MINEq effective cooling, considering only few metals, generally lies in between the results obtained with the Cloudy code for $Z = 0.3 Z_{\sun}$ and $Z = Z_{\sun}$. The faster increase in the peak at 17000K due to hydrogen Ly$\alpha$ presented by MINEq is due to the different sources of the ionization/recombination and emission coefficients (collision strengths). It can be inferred that while MINEq accounts with good accuracy for the cooling losses up to $2\cdot 10^5$ K, SNEq cannot follow them above $3\cdot 10^4$ K because it lacks higher ionization stages for the atoms. Furthermore, the effective cooling obtained with the MINEq model closely reproduces the early work of Dalgarno & McCray ([@DM72]) in the temperature range considered. Numerical implementation {#numerical} ======================== In the source step, we advance the system of ordinary differential equations (ODE) given by Eq. (\[eq:source\_ode\]) in each computational zone. For ease of notations, we rewrite the system as $$\label{eq:ode} \frac{d\vec{y}}{dt} = \vec{f}(\vec{y}) \,,$$ where $\vec{y} \equiv \{p, X_{\kappa,i}\}$ and $\vec{f} \equiv \{(\Gamma-1)S_E, S_{\kappa,i}\}$ are, respectively, the vector of unknowns and right-hand sides for all possible values of $\kappa$ and $i$ in a given computational cell. According to the notations introduced in Eq. (\[eq:split1\]) and (\[eq:split2\]), we write the formal solution to (\[eq:ode\]) for a time increment $\Delta t^n$ as $\vec{y}^{*} = {\cal S}^{\Delta t^n}\vec{y}^0$, where the initial condition $\vec{y}^0$ is given by the output of the previous step. Integration Strategy -------------------- Accurate numerical integrations of Eq. (\[eq:ode\]) should be carried out consistently with the different timescales that may concurrently co-exist, according to the initial density, temperature and chemical concentrations. In addition, the system evolution dictated by the local ionization, recombination, and cooling rates may proceed considerably faster than the typical time scale imposed during the advection step. Under some circumstances, this contrast may lead to a stiff system of ODE. A common occurrence takes place, for instance, when a strong shock propagates in a cold neutral medium: as the front advances from one computational cell to the next, the ion populations will try to re-adjust to the sudden increase in temperature at a rate given by the ionization coefficients. At high temperatures ($T \gtrsim 2\times 10^4$), this process may proceed more and more rapidly. Nevertheless, these kinds of events are extremely localized in space since most regions ahead of and far behind the shock wave are either close to equilibrium or evolve on much slower recombination scales. This suggests some form of selective integration by which regions of the flow undergoing very rapid changes should be promptly detected and treated accordingly. We achieve this by 1) detecting potential “stiffness" due to large ionization and recombination coefficients given by Eqs. (\[eq:coeffI\])-(\[eq:coeffR\]) and 2) monitoring, in each computational cell, the accuracy through an estimate of the local truncation error. We now describe in detail the numerical implementation of a dynamically-adaptive integration strategy, also shown in Fig.\[fig:int\_diagram\]. At the beginning of integration, we tag a computational cell as “non-stiff" if the integration time step satisfies $$\label{eq:stiff_condition} \Delta t^n < \frac{1}{{\displaystyle}N_{\rm el} \max_{\kappa,i}\left(\left|\zeta_{\kappa,i} + \alpha_{\kappa,i}\right|\right)} \,$$ where $N_{\rm el}$ is computed in the considered cell. If the previous condition holds[^2], we solve Eq. (\[eq:ode\]) using an explicit method with adaptive stepsize control. Embedded Runge-Kutta (RK) pairs simultaneously giving solutions of order $m$ and $m-1$ are preferred, since they provide an efficient error estimate. The most simple (2,1) pair ($m=2$), for example, may be obtained using a simple combination of two right-hand side evaluations yielding, respectively, $1^{\rm st}$- and $2^{\rm nd}$-order accurate solutions $\vec{y}_1$ and $\vec{y}_2$: $$\begin{aligned} \vec{y}^1 &=& \vec{y}^0 + \Delta t^n\vec{f}\left(\vec{y}^0\right) \,, \label{eq:euler} \\ \vec{y}^2 &=& \vec{y}^0 + \Delta t^n\vec{f}\left(\vec{y}^0 + \frac{\Delta t^n}{2}\vec{f}^0\right) \label{eq:rk2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The difference between the two solutions, $\vec{y}^1$ and $\vec{y}^2$, estimates the truncation error of the lower order method, $O(\Delta t^2)$ for $m=2$. The solution given by $\vec{y}^2$ (RK2) is accepted only if the error falls below some predefined tolerance $\epsilon_{\rm tol}$ (typically $10^{-5}$): $$\label{eq:error} \max\left[\left|\frac{p^1}{p^2} - 1\right|, \; \max_{\kappa,i}\left(\left|X^1_{\kappa,i} - X^2_{\kappa,i}\right|\right)\right] < \epsilon_{\rm tol} \,,$$ where $(\kappa,i)$ extends to all ion species. A more accurate Runge-Kutta $(3,2)$ pair may be used instead. The condition (\[eq:error\]) is usually satisfied in regions close to equilibrium ionization balance. If Eq. (\[eq:error\]) is not fulfilled we switch to an explicit Runge-Kutta method of order $5$ with an embedded $4^{\rm th}$ order solution with coefficients given by Cash-Karp, see Press et al. ([@NR]), from now on CK45. The adaptive strategy provides a $5^{\rm th}$-order accurate solution and allows us to split (if required) the full time step $\Delta t^n$ into a number of smaller sub-steps until the condition (\[eq:error\]) is fulfilled in each one of them. On the other hand, if Eq. (\[eq:stiff\_condition\]) is not met, explicit time marching may potentially become unstable. In such situations, integration is carried using a $4^{\rm th}$ order semi-implicit Rosenbrock method with a $3^{\rm rd}$ order embedded error estimation (Ros34 henceforth). Rosenbrock schemes can be considered linearly implicit generalizations of Runge-Kutta methods, the prototype of which is the semi-implicit backward Euler method, $$\label{eq:semi-impl} \left(\tens{I} - \Delta t^n\tens{J}\right)\cdot \left(\vec{y}^{1} - \vec{y}^0\right) = \Delta t^n \vec{f}\left(\vec{y}^0\right) \,.$$ These methods retain stability for large time steps at the additional cost of computing the Jacobian matrix $\tens{J}=\partial\vec{f}/\partial\vec{y}$ of the system and performing matrix inversions by LU decomposition. Both features are notoriously time consuming for moderately large systems of equations, such as the one we deal with here. In Appendix (\[append\_impl\]) we show how the Jacobian can be computed using combined analytical and numerical differentiation. The full integration strategy is schematically illustrated in Fig.\[fig:int\_diagram\]. \[!ht\] Alternatively, we also found satisfactory results by dividing the whole step $\Delta t^n$ into smaller ones and by sub-cycling with the explicit CK45 scheme. The sub-time stepping strategy has proved to handle the moderate stiffness arising at high ($T > 10^5$) temperatures, when the reaction rates become large. This makes, in our experience and for the tests presented in this work, the explicit scheme competitive with the semi-implicit method, inasmuch stiffness is spatially confined to a small fraction of the computational domain. Once acceptable solutions $\vec{y}^*$ have been produced in every computational zone, we estimate the next time step according to the CFL stability restriction and the maximum fractional change produced during the radiation step: $$\label{eq:dt_n2} \Delta t^{n+2} = \min\left(\Delta t_{\rm adv}, \epsilon_{\max} \Delta t_{\rm rad}\right) \,,$$ where, consistently with Eqs. (\[eq:split1\]) and (\[eq:split2\]), the minimum is taken over two consecutive time steps and $\Delta t_{\rm adv}$ is computed from the CFL condition. The quantity $\epsilon_{\max}$ specifies the maximum fractional change tolerance (typically $0.01 \lesssim \epsilon_{\max} \lesssim 0.1 $) allowed during the source step. The radiative time step $\Delta t_{\rm rad}$ is computed as $$\Delta t_{\rm rad} = \frac{\Delta t^n} {{\displaystyle}\max_{\rm xyz}\left[\left|\frac{p^0}{p^*} - 1\right|, \max_{\kappa,i}\left(\left|X^*_{\kappa, i} - X^0_{\kappa,i}\right|\right)\right]} \,,$$ Note that small values of $\epsilon_{\rm max}$ will result in a better coupling between the advection and source steps, at the cost of reducing the overall time step. In terms of right-hand side evaluations, the computational overheads introduced by the selected algorithms (RK2:CK45:Ros34) are in the ratio $2:6:3$ in each cell for a given time step. The semi-implicit method Ros34 requires, however, $2$ additional right-hand side calls to form the Jacobian (see Appendix \[append\_impl\]) and the inversion of a matrix by LU decomposition. This makes Ros34 the most computational expensive scheme of integration. Nevertheless, extensive testing confirms that only a very small fraction of computational zones (usually $\lesssim 1\%$) does actually require this special, but nonetheless crucial, treatment. The remaining vast majority of cells can be accurately evolved using a second order method. On the other hand, unconditional use of the CK45 or Ros34 algorithms throughout the whole grid leads to a noticeable loss of computational efficiency with no gain on the overall accuracy. Accuracy comparison ------------------- In order to test the accuracy and efficiency of the selected time marching schemes adopted during the source step, we consider the evolution of a single parcel of gas departing from initial conditions far from equilibrium. This situation is typically encountered, for example, when a strong shock propagates into a cold medium. Neutral atoms crossing the front will suddenly feel the sharp increase in temperature and will try to readjust to the new conditions. The ionization timescale will be, most likely, much shorter than the typical advection scale. One is interested in performing the simulations at the timestep given by Eq. (\[eq:dt\_n2\]), but this can violate the condition expressed by Eq. (\[eq:stiff\_condition\]). We consider two cases in which a single computational zone is being evolved in time. Initial parameters have been found by running a full shock simulation like the one presented in Sect. \[prop\_shocks\], and selecting the computational zone showing the most extreme stiff conditions, according to Eq. (\[eq:stiff\_condition\]). We perform a number of time integrations at constant step size using the Euler, RK2, CK45, and Ros34 algorithms previously described. Errors are computed with respect to a reference solution obtained with the CK45 integrator with a very stringent tolerance ($10^{-8}$) and a small timestep ($\sim 10^{-4}$ of the cooling timescale): $$\epsilon = \frac{\sum_{\kappa,i} \left| X_{\kappa,i} - X^{\mathrm{ref}}_{\kappa,i} \right| }{\sum_{\kappa,i} X^{\mathrm{ref}}_{\kappa,i}} \,.$$ The errors in temperature are lower in all cases because the equations of the chemical network can be, and usually are, more prone to very rapid variations (stiffness). \[!ht\] In the first case (top panel of Fig. \[fig:case1\]), the initial temperature is set to $T = 132\,000\,\rm{K}$, the initial neutral hydrogen fraction is $22\%$ and the rest of the elements are in the highest ionization stage. Under these conditions, the ionization/recombination timescale is $\tau \approx 2\cdot 10^3 \,{\rm s}$, typically much smaller than the scale on which hydrodynamical variables are transported, $\Delta t$. At a fixed timestep $\Delta t = 5\tau$ (see middle panel in Fig. \[fig:case1\]) RK2 is less accurate than Euler, this being a typical sign of stiffness (Ekeland et al. [@EOO98]). The integrator Ros34 yields the best accuracy, immediately followed by CK45. As the time step is further increased ($\Delta t = 50\tau$, see bottom panel in Fig. \[fig:case1\]), CK45 progressively loses accuracy, whereas Ros34 keeps the smallest errors. In this case, the use of a semi-implicit method clearly reveal its advantages. In the second test, we consider a fully-ionized gas (except for hydrogen, $X_{\rm HI} \approx 69 \%$) at low temperature $T = 10^4 \,{\rm K}$. For this choice of parameters, the recombination timescale is even smaller than before, $\tau \approx 10^3 \, {\rm s}$. Figure \[fig:case2\] shows the errors computed with selected integration algorithms when $\Delta t = 100\tau$. The resulting accuracies confirm the trend found for the previous case: low-order, non-adaptive time marching schemes are *not* suitable in conditions far from equilibrium. On the contrary, Ros34 being an adaptive semi-implicit scheme, does not suffer from this loss in accuracy and turns out to be the best integration method. Explicit adaptive algorithms such as CK45, still exhibits somewhat better results than the lower order methods. It should also be mentioned that the accuracy of explicit schemes may be further improved if step sub-cycling is used. \[!ht\] We conclude that, for the slow varying regions of the MHD simulation, RK2 (or RK3) can be a good choice, while for very fast varying regions a higher-order integrator with time step adaptivity (as CK45) or even an implicit one (Ros34) become necessary. Also, large temperatures are not a necessary condition for the system of equations to become stiff, since this can also happen at relatively low temperatures when the ionization/recombination rates are high. Astrophysical applications {#testint} ========================== We now apply the newly-developed cooling function to problems of astrophysical interest. First, we consider a single, one-dimensional radiative shock propagating in a stratified medium with decreasing density. Then, an example of application of the first setup for the computation of emission line ratios is shown. Finally, a study of the dynamical evolution of a jet with varying ejection velocity in two-dimensional axial symmetry is presented. Propagating shocks {#prop_shocks} ------------------ It is interesting to see the difference radiative losses make in the dynamical evolution of a propagating shock. A first series of tests were made in 1D, with an initial perturbation in pressure, density, and velocity that propagates in a stratified medium of $T_{\rm pre} = 1\,000 K$ and becomes a shock. The pre-shock density in the external medium is $$\rho_0(x) = \rho_0 \frac{x_0^2}{x_0^2 + x^2} \,,$$ where $x$ is the spatial coordinate and the departure density $\rho_0$ corresponds to a particle number density $N_0 = 10^5 {\rm cm^{-3}}$. This density distribution should approximate well the density in an expanding jet. The initial perturbation is set in such a way that only one shock forms instead of the usual pair of forward/reverse shocks. The setup is described in detail in Massaglia et al. ([@MA05]). The 1D simulation was run on a domain of length $L = 4\times 10^{15}\,{\rm cm}$, with a resolution of $1.4\times 10^{11}\,{\rm cm}$, and the initial velocity perturbation had an amplitude $\Delta v = 30\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. In Fig. \[fig:evol\_1d\], a comparison is made between the evolution of the formed shock in the absence of cooling, with SNEq and the evolution with MINEq. Plots of density and temperature are presented at three evolutionary instants in the propagation. As it results from the plots in Fig. \[fig:evol\_1d\], the shock dynamics are heavily influenced by radiative cooling. The shock propagation velocity decreases almost twice in the simulations with cooling with respect to the adiabatic ones. The smooth decrease in temperature after the shock front in the adiabatic simulation is replaced by a much sharper one in the simulations with cooling. \[!ht\] The differences between the density plots obtained with the two cooling models are quantitatively moderate, while the shapes are similar. The maximum temperatures attained are very close in the two cooling models. Overall, the dynamical differences that appear between the use of the two cooling models are small, but the line intensity ratios are very sensitive to density/temperature conditions so the differences may result in moderate amplitudes. The test in equivalent configuration was also performed in a 2D slab. The results were, as expected, very similar to the ones from the 1D simulations, with somewhat smoother curves due to the lower resolution employed. It results that for simulations of propagating shocks like the one described it is very important to include the radiative cooling losses, which heavily influence the dynamics. A simplified treatment of these losses can be sufficient for studies on the dynamics, while for the computation of emission line maps the detailed (MINEq) approach is more suitable. An example is presented in the following section. Emission lines -------------- The computation of emission line ratios from numerical simulations is of great importance for the field to compare to observations and to discriminate between theoretical astrophysical models. In a simple 1D setup, one of the ways to model a YSO jet and to estimate the emission is the following. Supposing that the emission comes from shocks inside the jet, the propagation of a shock resulting from a velocity fluctuation is simulated in the frame of reference of the jet material. The emission in the chosen lines is computed and averaged over a space region corresponding to the resolution of the observational data (in our example $10^{15} cm$) for each evolutionary step. Then, the resulting averaged line ratios are plotted at space points corresponding to the transport speed of the jet material, set to $150 km\cdot s^{-1}$. The computation was done for the setup presented in Sect. \[prop\_shocks\]. The resulting plot, presented in Fig. \[fig:lines\_1d\], has also the x axis converted in arcseconds (for a distance $D=140pc$) and represents the emission of a jet in the assumption that the emission comes from internal shocks formed due to initial jet velocity variability. We present ratios between the forbidden emission lines of $\lambda\lambda 6300\mathrm{\AA}+6364\mathrm{\AA}$, $\lambda\lambda 6548\mathrm{\AA}+6583\mathrm{\AA}$ and $\lambda\lambda 6716\mathrm{\AA}+6731\mathrm{\AA}$. Such synthetic emission line ratios can be directly compared with observations of YSO jets. \[!ht\] The main advantage in using MINEq for creating synthetic emission maps is that non-equilibrium ionization balance for the elements are provided. The computation of the emission in selected lines is done in post-processing, with routines distributed together with the code. Jet propagation --------------- Observations of YSO jets that show series of emission knots along their length pointed out that simple steady-state models cannot explain their morphology. These knots have been interpreted in the literature as due either to the nonlinear evolution of Kelvin-Helmholtz instabilities set at the jet-ambient interface (Micono et al. [@MA00]) or to velocity variabilities of the beam (Internal Working Surfaces, see for example Raga et al. [@RA02]) that, during their propagation, steepen into shocks. The latter scenario has been chosen as a possible astrophysical application of the cooling module. In the present case, we consider a variable jet in 2D cylindrical geometry propagating into a uniform ambient medium with particle number density $n_{\rm a} = 200 \ \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ and temperature $T_{\rm a} = 2\,500 \ {\rm K}$. The beam is injected at the $z=0$, $r<R_j$ ($R_{\rm j} = 2.5 \times 10^{15} \ \mathrm{cm}$) boundary with higher density ($n_{\rm j} = 5 \ n_{\rm a}$) than the background. The mean jet velocity is $v_{\rm j}=110 \ \mathrm{km \ s^{-1}}$ with sinusoidal oscillations of amplitude $\Delta v = 25 \ \mathrm{km \ s^{-1}}$ and a period of $\tau = 50 \ \mathrm{yrs}$ A purely toroidal magnetic field is injected at $z=0$ along with the beam, following the simple configuration described in Lind & al. ([@LA89]): $$\label{eq: B_toroidal} B_\phi(r) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll} {\displaystyle}B_{\rm m} \frac{r}{a} & \quad{\rm for} \quad 0 \leq r < a \,, \\ \noalign{\medskip} {\displaystyle}B_{\rm m} \frac{a}{r} & \quad{\rm for} \quad a\leq r < R_{\rm j} \,, \\ \noalign{\medskip} {\displaystyle}0 & \quad{\rm otherwise} \,, \end{array}\right.$$ where $B_{\rm m}$ and $a$ are the magnetization strength and radius. Demanding pressure equilibrium at the jet inlet, $d(p + B_\phi^2)/dr = - B_\phi^2/r$, one recovers the pressure profile inside the beam ($r\le R_{\rm j}$), $$p(r) = p_0 - B_m^2\min\left(1, \frac{r^2}{a^2}\right)$$ where $p_0$ is corresponds to a central temperature $T_0 = 10\,000 \ {\rm K}$. Finally, the magnetization strength, $B_{\rm m}$ is prescribed from the plasma $\beta$ parameter, defined in terms of the averaged beam pressure: $$\beta \equiv \frac{2}{B_{\rm m}^2}\, \frac{\int_0^{R_j} p(r) r\, dr}{\int_0^{R_j} rdr} = \frac{a^2}{R_{\rm j}^2} + 2\frac{p_0}{B_m^2} - 2$$ from which one can easily recover $B_{\rm m}$. For the present computation, we set $a = 0.6 R_{\rm j}$ and $\beta = 1$. This choice of parameters is similar to the ones found by Masciardi & Raga ([@MR01]) in their attempt to model the curved HH 505 jet. Numerical integration is carried out with the PPM method and the HLLC Riemann solver of Li ([@Li05]). We use $30$ zones on the jet radius and the domain extends, in beam radii, from $0$ to $10$ in the radial direction and from $0$ to $60$ in the longitudinal direction. Free outflow is assumed across the outer boundaries, whereas reflecting boundary conditions hold at the axis ($R=0$) and outside the jet inlet ($z = 0, r > R_{\rm j}$). A smoothing function is introduced for all variables at the transition between the jet material and the external medium to avoid the formation of an unphysical high temperature low-density layer around the jet. \[!ht\] We perform a set of three simulations, by adopting i) a tabulated cooling function, ii) simplified treatment of radiative cooling losses (SNEq), and iii) the detailed cooling treatment. The tabulated cooling function simply consists in adding a source term to the energy equation, given by the Cloudy Z=1 cooling curve (presented in Sect. \[effcool\]) as a tabulated function of temperature. This cooling implementation does not follow the ionization balance of any element, but as a standard procedure for this kind of approach, the effective cooling function is multiplied by the particle density squared to obtain energy losses per unit volume. Results at $t\approx 500 \mathrm{yrs}$ are shown in Fig. (\[fig:2djet\]). The pulsed initial jet velocity produces, as expected, a number of intermediate shocks propagating along the jet with typical post-shock temperatures in the range $15\,000 \div 25\,000$ K. The morphology is similar between the SNEq and MINEq runs, since at these temperatures the two cooling losses are comparable. Larger deviations are observed close to the head of the jet, where temperatures are higher and the two cooling functions exhibit larger differences. Overall, while SNEq and MINEq give similar results, radiated losses are higher for the tabulated Cloudy cooling, as can be inferred by the reduced lateral expansion of the cocoon (this can be expected considering the effective cooling curves in Fig. \[fig:total\_cool\]). Nevertheless, temperatures at the jet head are highest for the tabulated cooling case. In order to understand this apparently unexpected result, we have performed a systematic comparison between the Tabulated and SNEq cooling functions by means of supplementary simulations (not shown here). Our results demonstrate that at high temperatures ($\gtrsim 4\cdot 10^4$ K) and low ionization, the SNEq line emission becomes larger than the equilibrium Cloudy one. In this case, it is crucial that the SNEq line emissions depend on the electron number density and that this density is dynamically computed from the non-equilibrium ionization of H. In the tabulated case, an equilibrium ionization balance is implicitly assumed. This confirms that the maximum temperatures can be an indication of the maximum cooling losses attained locally, but not on the overall cooling losses. It must also be noticed that the resolution of these simulations is still low to resolve the post-shock zone at the jet head, so the maximum temperatures observed may be subject to large uncertainties. We conclude that even a simple cooling like SNEq, evolving only the hydrogen fraction, is a much better approximation than using tabulated cooling losses. The ionization fractions computation is very important when it comes to producing synthetic emission maps in various emission lines to be compared with observations. In Fig. (\[fig:2djet\_NO\]), the fractions of and are presented, dynamically computed by MINEq and alternatively computed from SNEq considering them fixed by the hydrogen ionization through charge-transfer (see Osterbrock & Ferland [@OF05]). The differences are moderate and can result in variations of $20-30\%$ in the emission lines computation. \[!ht\] The steep gradients and transition regions forming immediately behind the shock front are crucial in determining the emission properties, e.g. line intensity ratios. For this reason they need to be accurately resolved (Massaglia et al. [@MA05]). However, at the resolution employed here ($300\times 1800$), only the general physical evolution can be captured. Considerably higher resolution is required and this can be efficiently achieved only through adaptive mesh refinement simulations. This issue will be the subject of forthcoming works. Conclusions =========== After a series of tests and validation, the detailed treatment of radiative losses MINEq is now implemented in the MHD code PLUTO. The choice of the integration technique and the optimizations are, as far as we know, unique at the time of this writing and provide a high degree of accuracy in ion species abundances and radiative losses computation. Both theoretical and technical aspects of the current implementation, as well as testing process and applications were discussed in the previous sections. A major advantage obtained by using MINEq, compared to previously employed SNEq, is that the line emission can be computed in conditions of non-equilibrium ionization for all species, more likely to be encountered in situations of rapid changes, as it is the case of shock waves. As shown by the tests presented, the choice of the cooling model between MINEq and SNEq, has an increasing effect on the structure formation whenever temperatures exceed $25\,000$ K, and has an important influence for the ionization fractions that reflects in the emission line computations. For a preliminary dynamical study, a tabulated cooling function that does not integrate any ion specie can be employed, but the relatively low computational cost of a cooling that evolves the hydrogen ionization in a time-dependent fashion makes the latter advisable in most cases. Whenever the purpose is the computation of emission line ratios, employing a detailed cooling like MINEq produces more reliable results as the ionization fractions are followed in non-equilibrium conditions, twhich are likely to be encountered in the real astrophysical objects. An important feature of the cooling model implementation is that it is upgradeable, more ion species and other processes can be added (increasing also the temperature range of application). Also, it can be used as starting point for the integration of atomic chemistry and cooling processes to other MHD codes. The newly-developed cooling function provides a powerful tool for investigating the stellar jets and gaseous nebulae. It is, in the current configuration, suited for the study of radiative shocks in stellar jets. High resolution, adaptive numerical simulations to predict line emission in YSO jets will be subject of forthcoming works. Ionization/recombination processes {#append_ionrec} ================================== The following processes are taken into consideration: collisional ionization, radiative, and dielectronic recombination, charge-transfer with H and He. These processes enter the ionization/recombination coefficients defined and used in Sect. \[cfdesc\]. Collisional ionization ---------------------- We use the Voronov ([@Vo97]) data to estimate the collisional ionization rates with the analytical formula: $$\zeta ^{\mathrm{coll}} = A \cdot \frac{ 1 + P \cdot U ^{1/2} }{ X + U } \cdot U^{\mathrm{K}} \cdot e^{\mathrm{-U}},$$ where $ U = \Delta E / T $ and $A$, $P$, $\Delta E$, $X$, and $K$ parameters are listed in Table 1 of the cited paper. $T$ and $\Delta E$ are expressed in eV, and $\zeta^{\mathrm{coll}}$ in $\mathrm{cm^3 s^{-1}}$. The actual number of ionizations in unit time and unit volume will be: $$\frac{dN}{dt} = N_i \cdot N_{\mathrm{el}} \cdot \zeta^{\mathrm{coll}}$$ where $N_{i}$ is the total number density of atoms in the lower-ionization state, and $N_{\mathrm{el}}$ the electron number density. Radiative recombination ----------------------- The total radiative recombination rates are taken from Pèquignot et al. ([@PA91]). The total recombination rate is fitted with the analytical formula: $$\alpha^{\mathrm{RR}} = 10^{-13} z \frac{a t^b}{1 + c t^d},$$ where $z$ is the ionic charge and $t = 10^{-4} T(K) / z^2$. The four parameters $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are given in Table 1 in the cited paper. The resulting $\alpha^{\mathrm{RR}}$ is expressed in units of $\mathrm{cm^3 s^{-1}}$. Dielectronic recombination -------------------------- The dielectronic recombination process proceeds as $$A_p^{\mathrm{+m+1}} + e^- \rightarrow A_a^{\mathrm{+m}} \rightarrow A_b^{\mathrm{+m}} + h \nu ,$$ where $p$ stands for a state of the $m+1$ times ionized element $A$, and $a$ and $b$ represent an auto-ionizing and a true bound state of the next ionization stage. From Nussbaumer & Storey ([@NS83]), the dielectronic recombination rates are fitted by the analytical formula: $$\alpha^{\mathrm{DR}} = 10^{-12} \left( \frac{a}{t} + b + ct + c t^2 \right) t^{-3/2} \exp{\left(\frac{-f}{t}\right)} ,$$ where $t = T(K) / 10^4K$ and $\alpha^{\mathrm{DR}}$ is expressed in $\mathrm{cm^3 s^{-1}}$. The coefficients are given in a table from the cited paper. We used the data from Nussbaumer & Storey ([@NS83]) for the C, N, and O ions. Total electron - ion recombination ---------------------------------- For the He, Ne, and S ions, data from Kato & Asano ([@KA99]) was used for the total recombination coefficient (radiative + dielectronic). These are tabulated values that we interpolate in our temperature range. Charge transfer with H ---------------------- The charge transfer (exchange) reactions with H are reactions of the form: $$A^{\mathrm{+n}} + H \rightleftarrows A^{\mathrm{+(n-1)}} + H^+ + \delta E$$ The direct reaction is called charge-transfer recombination and the inverse charge-transfer ionization ($\zeta^{\rm HII}$). We took the data for charge transfer with H from Kingdon & Ferland ([@KF96]). The recombination/ionization rate is fitted by the analytical formula $$\alpha^{\mathrm{HI}} , \zeta^{\rm HII} = a t_4^b [ 1 + c e^{d t_4} ],$$ where $t_4 = T(\mathrm{K}) / 10^4 \mathrm{K}$ and the parameters $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are listed in Tables 1 and 3 from the cited paper. Charge transfer with He ----------------------- The charge transfer (exchange) reactions with He are reactions of the form: $$A^{\mathrm{+n}} + He \rightarrow A^{\mathrm{+(n-1)}} + He^+ \,.$$ We took the data for charge transfer with He from Wang et al. ([@WA01]) and references herein. The recombination rate is fitted by the analytical formula $$\alpha^{\mathrm{HeI}} = a t_4^b [ 1 + c \exp{(d t_4)} ],$$ where $t_4 = T / 10^4 \mathrm{K}$ and the parameters $a$, $b$, $c$, and $d$ are listed in tables available on-line. Jacobian Matrix {#append_impl} =============== The solution of implicitly linearized equations such as Eq. (\[eq:semi-impl\]) or the Rosenbrock scheme requires the expression of the Jacobian matrix of the system of equations given by (\[eq:source\_ode\]). Using the definition, $$\tens{J} \equiv {\frac{\partial \vec{f}(\vec{y})}{\partial \vec{y}}} = \left( \begin{array}{cc} {\displaystyle}{\frac{\partial \vec{\dot{X}}}{\partial \vec{X}}} & {\displaystyle}{\frac{\partial \vec{\dot{X}}}{\partial p}} \\ \noalign{\medskip} {\displaystyle}{\frac{\partial \dot{p}}{\partial \vec{X}}} & {\displaystyle}{\frac{\partial \dot{p}}{\partial p}} {\displaystyle}\end{array} \right)$$ where $\vec{y} = \{p, \vec{X}\}$ and $\vec{f}(\vec{y}) \equiv \dot{\vec{y}}$. Partial derivatives are computed using combined analytical and numerical differentiation. We note in the first place that, for practical reasons, the right-hand side $\vec{f}(p,\vec{X})$ is better expressed in terms of temperature and ionization fractions, that is $$\vec{f}\Big(p, \vec{X}\Big) \equiv \vec{g}\Big(T, \vec{X}\Big) \,,$$ where $T$, $p$, and $\vec{X}$ are related through $$\label{eq:temperature} T = \frac{p}{\rho}\frac{m_u\mu(\vec{X})}{k_B} \,.$$ This allows us to compute partial derivatives with respect to the ion fractions using the chain rule, $$\label{eq:partial_X} \left.{\frac{\partial \vec{f}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}\right|_p = \left.{\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}\right|_T + \left.{\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial T}}\right|_{\vec{X}}{\frac{\partial T}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} \,,$$ where, using Eq. (\[eq:temperature\]) and the definitions of the mean molecular weight, Eq. (\[eq:mu\]), we can express the second term on the right as $$\label{eq:2ndterm} \left.{\frac{\partial \vec{g}}{\partial T}}\right|_{\vec{X}}{\frac{\partial T}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} = \left.{\frac{\partial \vec{f}}{\partial p}}\right|_{\vec{X}}\frac{p}{\mu} \left[\frac{1}{\mu_D}{\frac{\partial \mu_N}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} - \frac{\mu}{\mu_D}{\frac{\partial \mu_D}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}\right]\,.$$ where the term is square brackets is simply $\partial\mu(\vec{X})/\partial X_{\xi,m}$ whereas $\mu_N$ and $\mu_D$ are, respectively, the numerator and the denominator of the mean molecular weight. The explicit dependence on $T$ and $\vec{X}$ in our ionization network, Eq. (\[eq:ion\_bal\]), is made clear by rearranging terms as $$\begin{split} \dot{X}_{\kappa,i} = L_{\kappa,i}\left(T, \vec{X}\right) X_{\kappa,i-1} & - C_{\kappa,i}\left(T, \vec{X}\right) X_{\kappa,i} + \\ & + R_{\kappa,i}\left(T, \vec{X}\right) X_{\kappa,i+1} \,, \end{split}$$ for each element’s ions. The coefficients $L_{\kappa,i}, C_{\kappa,i}$, and $R_{\kappa,i}$ are expressed by sums of functions depending on either $T$ or $\vec{X}$: $$\begin{aligned} L_{\kappa,i} & = & L^a_{\kappa,i}N_{\rm el} + L^b_{\kappa,i}X_{\rm HI} + L^c_{\kappa,i} X_{\rm HeI} + L^d_{\kappa,i} \\ \noalign{\medskip} C_{\kappa,i} & = & C^a_{\kappa,i}N_{\rm el} + C^b_{\kappa,i}X_{\rm HI} + C^c_{\kappa,i} X_{\rm HeI} + C^d_{\kappa,i} \\ \noalign{\medskip} R_{\kappa,i} & = & R^a_{\kappa,i}N_{\rm el} + R^b_{\kappa,i}X_{\rm HI} + R^c_{\kappa,i} X_{\rm HeI} + R^d_{\kappa,i} \end{aligned}$$ where the $L^{\cdots}_{\kappa,i}$’s, $C^{\cdots}_{\kappa,i}$’s, and $R^{\cdots}_{\kappa,i}$’s depend on $T$ only whereas $N_{\rm el}$, given by Eq. (\[eq:nel\]), depends on $\vec{X}$ only. Focusing on the Jacobian sub-matrix $\partial\dot{\vec{X}}/\partial\vec{X}$, we evaluate the first term in Eq. (\[eq:partial\_X\]) as $$\begin{split} \left.{\frac{\partial \dot{X}_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}\right|_T = L_{\kappa,i}\delta_{i-1,m}\delta_{\kappa,\xi} & + {\frac{\partial L_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}X_{\kappa,i-1} - \\ - C_{\kappa,i}\delta_{i,m}\delta_{\kappa,\xi} & - {\frac{\partial C_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}X_{\kappa,i} + \\ + R_{\kappa,i}\delta_{i+1,m}\delta_{\kappa,\xi} + {\frac{\partial R_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}X_{\kappa,i+1}}} \end{split}$$ where $\delta_{i,m}$ is the Kronecker delta symbol and $$\begin{aligned} {\frac{\partial L_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} & = & L^a_{\kappa,i}(T) N\gamma_mA_{\xi} + L^b_{\kappa,i}(T) \delta_{HI,\xi m} + \nonumber \\ & & + L^c_{\kappa,i}(T)\delta_{HeI,\xi m}\\ \noalign{\medskip} {\frac{\partial C_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} &= &C^a_{\kappa,i}(T) N\gamma_mA_{\xi} + C^b_{\kappa,i}(T) \delta_{HI,\xi m} + \nonumber \\ & & + C^c_{\kappa,i}(T)\delta_{HeI,\xi m} \\ \noalign{\medskip} {\frac{\partial R_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} & = & R^a_{\kappa,i}(T) N\gamma_mA_{\xi} + R^b_{\kappa,i}(T) \delta_{HI,\xi m} + \nonumber \\ & & + R^c_{\kappa,i}(T)\delta_{HeI,\xi m} \end{aligned}$$ In the previous equations we made use of the fact that $\partial N_{\rm el}/\partial X_{\kappa,i} = N \left( \gamma_i - 1 \right) B_{\kappa}$. The last row of the Jacobian involves derivatives of the cooling function with respect to $\vec{X}$: $${\frac{\partial \dot{p}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} = - N_{\rm at}\gamma_m B_{\xi}\frac{\Lambda}{N_{\rm el}} - N_{\rm at}N_{\rm el} {\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} - {\frac{\partial L_{FF}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} - {\frac{\partial L_{I-R}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}$$ where $${\frac{\partial \Lambda}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}} = {\cal L}_{\xi,m}B_{\xi} + N\gamma_mB_{\xi}\sum_{\kappa,i} X_{\kappa,i} {\frac{\partial {\cal L}_{\kappa,i}}{\partial X_{\xi,m}}}B_{\beta} \,,$$ $\partial{\cal L}_{\kappa,i}/\partial{X_{\xi,m}}$ is found numerically and the remaining terms are found by straightforward differentiation of the energy losses due to ionization-recombination and bremsstrahlung. Finally, partial derivatives with respect to pressure needed in Eq. (\[eq:2ndterm\]) and in the last column of $\tens{J}$ are computed numerically using a centered approximation: $${\frac{\partial f}{\partial p}} \approx \frac{f\left(p(1+\epsilon),\vec{X}\right) - f\left(p(1-\epsilon),\vec{X}\right)} { \epsilon p}$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small parameter (typically $\epsilon = 10^{-4}$). This work has been supported by the EU contract MRTN-CT-2004-005592 within the Marie Curie RTN JETSET.\ The Cloudy curves were created by Michal Rozyczka and Guillermo Tenorio-Tagle and later updated by Tomek Plewa with the help of version 90.01. OT wishes to thank Dr. Tomek Plewa for comments on the Cloudy results. We thank the referee for valuable comments and observations useful in improving the paper. Bacciotti, F. 2004, , 293, 37 Blondin, J.M., Lufkin, E.A. 1993, , 88, 589 Blum, R.D., Pradhan, A.K. 1992 , 80, 425 Berger, M.J., & LeVeque, R.J. 1998, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 35, 6, pp 2298-2316 Dalgarno, A., & McCray, R.A. 1972, , 10, 375 Ekeland, K., Owren, B. and [Ø]{}ines E., 1998, [ACM]{} Transactions on Mathematical Software, 24, 368 Ferland, G.J., Korista, K.T., Verner, D.A., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 761 Giovanardi, C., Natta, A., Palla, F. 1987, , 70, 269 Kato T., Asano E. 1999, National Institute for Fusion Science - Japan, NIFS-DATA-54 Kingdon J.B., Ferland G.J. 1996, , 106, 205 Lavalley-Fouquet, C., Cabrit, S., & Dougados, C. 2000, , 356, L41 Leahy, J.P., & Williams, A.G. 1984, , 210, 929 Li, Shengtai 2005, Journal of Computational Physics, 203, 344 Lind, H., Payne, D., Meier, D., & Blandford, R. 1989, , 344, 89 Marten, H., Szczerba, R. 1997, , 325, 1132 Masciadri, E., & Raga, A.C., 2001, , 121, 408 Massaglia, S., Mignone, A., & Bodo, G. 2005, , 442, 549 Micono, M., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., et al. 2000, , 360, 795 Mignone, A., Massaglia, S., Bodo, G., et al. 2007, , 170, 228 Nussbaumer H., Storey P.J. 1983, , 125, 75 Osterbrock D.E., & Ferland G.J. 2005, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, University Science Books Pèquignot D., Petitjean, P.; Boisson, C. 1991, , 251, 680 Poludnenko, A., Varnière, P., Cunningham, A., Frank, A., Mitran, S. 2005, Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering 41, pp 331-340, Springer Pradhan, A.K., & Zhang, H.L. 1999, Landolt-Boernstein Volume 17: Photon and Electron Interactions with Atoms, Molecules, Ions , Springer-Verlag, I.17.B, pp 1-102 Press W.H., Flannery B.P., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T. 1992 Numerical Recipes in C, Cambridge University Press Raga A.C., Mellema G., Lundqvist P. 1997, , 109, 517 Raga, A.C., Navarro-Gonzàlez, R., Villagràn-Muniz, M. 2000, , 36, 67 Raga, A.C., Velàzquez, P.F., Cantó, J., Masciadri, E. 2000, , 395, 647 Raymond J.C. 1992, Private communication Rossi, P., Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., Ferrari, A. 1997, , 321, 672 Schmutzler, T., & Tscharnutter, W.M. 1993, , 273, 318 Stafford, R.P., Bell, K.L., Hibbert, A., Wijesundera, W.P. 1994, , 268, 816 Sutherland, R.S., Dopita, M.A. 1993, , 88, 253 Sutherland, R.S., Bicknell, G.V., Dopita, M.A. 2003, , 591, 238 Voronov G.S. 1997, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 65, 1-35 Wang et al. 2001, ORNL/UGA Charge Transfer Database for Astrophysics, http://cfadc.phy.ornl.gov/astro/ps/data/ [^1]: in this section only, $\kappa$ and $i$ will be omitted unless necessary to avoid cluttered notation [^2]: This is, in fact, half the stability limit for the $1^{\rm st}$ order explicit Euler method.

ArXiv

--- author: - Marco Trovato - 'Caterina Vernieri[^1]' title: 'A Novel Technique to Reconstruct the Z mass in WZ/ZZ Events with Lepton(s), Missing Transverse Energy and Three Jets at CDFII.' --- Motivations =========== The study of diboson production provides a test of the electroweak sector of the Standard Model (SM). In particular the predicted W$^{\pm}$, Z couplings (Trilinear Gauge Couplings) are sensitive to new physics.\ The study of associated WZ boson production in the final state $\ell \nu b\bar{b}$ is important since the event topology of this process is the same as expected for WH associated production ($M_{H} \lesssim$ 135 GeV) [@wh].\ Observing this process at Tevatron is difficult since the event rate is extremely low. NLO calculations predict WZ production cross section to be $\sim$3.22 pb [@crossWZ]. Thus, one expects a handful of events per fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity in the $\ell \nu q\bar{q}$ final state, after allowing for trigger and kinematical selection efficiency[^2]. Furthermore, the signal to background ratio is very poor, due primarily to the production of W and associated jets. Since the preferred me- thod used at CDF to disentangle the diboson signal from the backgrounds is a fit to the invariant mass of the two E$_T$-leading jets, an optimal resolution in jet systems mass is of utmost importance. Three jets ========== In diboson analyses at CDF the standard kinematical cut requires two high energy jets in the candidate sample (*two jets region*). In order to increase signal acceptance, we investigate the sample where three high-E$_T$ jets are found (*three-jets region*), which in simulations is predicted to contain about 33% of signal events.\ Additional jets may be initiated by gluons radiated from the interacting partons (Initial State Radiation, ISR) or from the Z-decay quarks (Final State Radiation, FSR)[^3].\ The experimental signature involves the presence of a char-ged lepton (electron or muon), a neutrino (identified through the missing transverse energy, $\slashed{E}_{T}$) and large-$E_T$ jets.\ The sample we investigate is selected by the following cuts: - exactly three jets[^4] with E$_T({J1,J2,J3}) >$ 25, 15, 15 GeV and $|\eta({J1,J2,J3})| < $2, 2, 3.6 - an isolated triggered electron or muon with $|\eta|<1.1$ and $E_{T}>$ 20 GeV - $\slashed{E}_{T}>$ 20 GeV - Multi-jet QCD veto: - $M^W_T>10\ (30)$ GeV if the triggered lepton is a muon (electron), $M^W_T$ being the $W$-invariant mass in the transverse plane. - $\slashed{E}_{T}$-significance$\footnote{$\slashed{E}_{T}$-significance~$=(-\log_{10}(\mathrm{P}(\slashed{E}_{T}^{fluct}>\slashed{E_{T}})))$, where P is the probability and $\slashed{E}_{T}^{fluct}$ is the expected missing transverse energy arisen from fluctuations in the energy measurements.}>$ 1.8 if the triggered lepton is an electron. In the sample where three jets are found MJ1J2 has a degraded resolution, and high mass and low mass tails due to wrong jet choices are present (see Fig. \[fig:wrong\], top). Our goal is to resolve the combinatorics problem present in this region for building the $Z$ mass and consequently improve the resolution of the invariant mass distribution. This work builds on the efforts of Ref. [@my]. \ Composition of the selected events ---------------------------------- The following processes would contribute to a data selected sample within our cuts: - **Electroweak and top (EW)**: $WW$, $WZ$, $ZZ$, $Z$+jets, $t\overline{t}$, single-$top$. Each of these processes can mimick the signal signature, with one detected lepton, large $\slashed{E}_{T}$ and jets. The contamination of these processes in the selected data sample is estimated by using their accurately predicted cross sections [@crossWZ]. The shapes (templates) of a number of observables are obtained from ALPGEN+Pythia [@ALPGEN], [@PYTHIA], Pythia MC [@PYTHIA] after the simulation of the CDF detector. - **W(**$\mathbf{\rightarrow l\nu}$**)+jets, $l=e,\mu,\tau$**. Due to the presence of real leptons and neutrinos, the $W+jets$ background is the hardest to be reduced. Templates are obtained from ALPGEN+Pythia MC, while the rate normalization is obtained from data. - **QCD**: multi-jet production with a jet faking the lepton and fake $\slashed{E}_{T}$. Since the mechanism for a jet faking a lepton or for fake missing transverse energy is not expected to be well modeled in MC events, both rate normalization and templates are obtained from data. In Table \[tab:numbers\] we show the estimated number of events for each process contributing for the MJ1J2 distribution. \[tab:ExpectedPretagEvents\] [lll]{} Process & Rate (Electrons) & Rate (Muons)\ Signal & 66.2 $\pm$ 0.9 & 69.5 $\pm$ 0.9\ $WW$ & 386.2 $\pm$ 3.0 & 311.1 $\pm$ 3.1\ $t\bar{t}$ & 333.0 $\pm$ 1.4 & 288.5 $\pm$ 1.2\ single-top & 68.9 $\pm$ 0.4 & 57.8 $\pm$ 0.3\ $Z$+jets & 350.0 $\pm$ 3.2 & 1167.8 $\pm$ 4.5\ $W$+jets & 10304.2 $\pm$ 29.6 & 8275 $\pm$ 22.8\ QCD & 1600.4 $\pm$ 60.0 & 352.3 $\pm$ 5.4\ Total Observed & 13109.0 $\pm$ 114.5 & 10522.0 $\pm$ 102.6\ Adopted strategy {#StrategyAdopted} ================ We started from studying the three jets sample in WZ MC in which jets are matched in direction to quarks from Z decay. Then, we investigate at generator level the origin of the not-matched jet (**NMJ**) in order to find the Right Jet Combination (**RJC**) which would give the Z mass.\ In terms of the RJC frequency the selected sample is composed as follows: 1. NMJ = J3 is from ISR $\mapsto$ RJC = J1J2 - 35% of events 2. NMJ = J2 is from ISR $\mapsto$ RJC = J1J3 - 21% of events 3. NMJ = J1 is from ISR $\mapsto$ RJC = J2J3 - 10% of events 4. NMJ is from FSR $\mapsto$ RJC = J1J2J3 - 19% of events 15% of events cannot be allocated to any of these categories. This problem is a subject of further studies.\ Four different Neural Networks (NNs) have been trained with the MLP method [@TMVA], (NN$_{12}$, NN$_{13}$, NN$_{23}$ and NN$_{123}$) in order to decide event by event which RJC should be used. Inputs to NNs are: 1. Kinematical variables:\ d$\eta_{j_{i}j_{k}}$, dR$_{j_{i}j_{k}}$, dR$_{j_{i}\ell}$, dR$_{j_{k}j_{l},j_{p}}$, dR$_{j_{1}j_{2}j_{3},j_{k}}$[^5] 2. Variables related to the jet systems:\ - $m_{j_{i}j_{k}}/m_{j_{1}j_{2}j_{3}}$\ - $\gamma_{j_{i}j_{k}} = (E_{j_{i}}+E_{j_{k}})/m_{j_{i}j_{k}}$\ - $\gamma_{jjj} = (E_{j_{1}}+E_{j_{2}}+E_{j_{3}})/m_{j_{1}j_{2}j_{3}}$\ - ‘pt-imbalance’ $={P_{T}}_{J1} + {P_{T}}_{J2} - {P_{T}}_{\ell}$- $\slashed{E}_T$\ - $\eta(j_{i}+j_{k})/\eta(j_{p})$, $p_{T}(j_{i}+j_{k})/p_{T}(j_{p})$ 3. Some tools developed by CDF Collaboration for distinguishing gluon-like and $b$-like jets from light-flavored jets [@bness] [@qgluon]. In Fig. \[fig:input\] some inputs are shown.\ \ Combining by a set of subsequent optimal cuts[^6] the information provided by the outputs of the four NNs, we build a “MJJ$_{COMB}$" Z-mass. Using MJJ$_{COMB}$ rather than MJ1J2, resolution improves by a factor $\sim$2, see Fig. \[fig:wrong\] and Table \[preresul\].\ We apply the method also to the major sources of background of a typical diboson analysis at CDF (W+jets, Z+ jets, $t\bar{t}$ and single top) and compare the result to WZ events. In Fig. \[fig:prestack\] and in Table \[preresul\] can be noticed that MJJ$_{COMB}$ allows a better separation of the WZ/ZZ signal from background. [lll]{} & MJ1J2& MJJ$_{COMB}$\ $Acc$ &[100%]{} &[72%]{}\ $p$ &[35% ]{}&[ 64%]{}\ $\sigma/\mu$ & 0.27 & 0.13\ . \[preresul\] \ Tests of the method =================== To qualify the potential of the method we have studied an experimental data sample accepting events with an isolated large E$_T$ (p$_T$) lepton, large missing E$_T$ and three large transverse momentum jets. The selection cuts accept jets of all flavors (*pretag* sample), and all diboson events including WW besides WZ, ZZ may pass the cuts. We estimate the probability at three standard deviations level to extract an inclusive diboson signal. After our procedure for building the Z mass is applied, P$_{3\sigma}$ is about 4 times greater than when building the Z mass “by default” with the two E$_{T}$ leading jets.\ This attempt represents just a check of our technique. Since diboson signal has been observed in CDF [@vivi], it would be an useful test to understand if using only the three-jets sample a diboson[^7] signal could be extracted.\ In order to discriminate WZ against the WW contribution we apply our technique considering only WZ/ZZ as the signal. We decide to treat separately the *notag* and *tag* three jets regions and then combine the results in order to reach a greater sensitivity. The sensitivity increases when MJJ$_{COMB}$ rather than the standard MJ1J2 is used: the expected $p$-value is about 30% greater in the former case.\ In conclusion, our technique allows including the three jets sample in the WZ/ZZ search in order to increase acceptance and sensitivity in the search for the hadronically decaying Z-boson.\ Improvements to this technique and other possible applications are being investigated. [lll]{} &${P_{2\sigma}}$&${P_{3\sigma}}$\ Fit signal $WZ/ZZ/WW$ (pretag) &&\ - MJ1J2 &51.2%&6.4%\ - MJJ$_{COMB}$ &66.7%&25.9%\ &$p$-value&\ Fit signal $WZ/ZZ$ (notag+tag)&&\ - MJ1J2 &0.35 $\sigma$&\ - MJJ$_{COMB}$ &0.45 $\sigma$&\ We are grateful to Prof. Giorgio Bellettini, Dr. Giuseppe Latino and Dr. Vadim Rusu for many fruitful discussions and suggestions. CDF Collaboration \[arXiv:1112.4358v1\] (2011) J. M. Campbell and R. K. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 113007 (2002). M. Trovato, C. Vernieri, J Phys. Conf. Series **323**, 012014 (2011) M. Mangano, M. Moretti M, F. Piccinini, R. Pittau and A. Polosa, [J. High Energy Phys.]{} **07**, 001 (2001) T. Sjöstrand, P. Edén, C. Friberg, L. Lönnblad, G. Miu, S. Mrenna and E. Norrbin [Computer Phys. Commun.]{} **135**, 238 (2001). J. Freeman, W. Ketchum, J.D. Lewis, S. Poprocki, A. Pronko, V. Rusu, P. Wittich, [Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physic Research Sec. A]{} **663**, 37 (2012) A. Hoecker et al. *TMVAUsersGuide* ([http: tmva. sourceforge.net]{}, 2009) W. Ketchum, CDF Public Note **10643** (2011) T. Aaltonen et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 101801 (2010) [^1]: [^2]: This statement remains valid even if the few accepted ZZ events with leptonic decay of one $Z$, where one lepton is not detected, are included. [^3]: Extra-activity produced by spectator partons or by pile-up of events is negligible in our studies. [^4]: Events with a fourth jet with $E_{T} >$ 10 GeV are excluded. [^5]: i, k, p $={1;2;3}$. $\ell=$ highest E$_{T}$ lepton [^6]: Cuts have been optimized against the sensitivity of the measurement. [^7]: we expect the $ZZ$ contribution to be negligible due to the requirement on $\slashed{E_{T}}$

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this paper we prove various results on contact structures obtained by contact surgery on a single Legendrian knot in the standard contact three–sphere. Our main tool are the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants.' address: - | Dipartimento di Matematica\ Università di Pisa\ I-56127 Pisa, ITALY - | Rényi Institute of Mathematics\ Hungarian Academy of Sciences\ H-1053 Budapest\ Reáltanoda utca 13–15, Hungary and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ author: - Paolo Lisca - 'András I. Stipsicz' title: 'Notes on the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants' --- [^1] Introduction {#s:intro} ============ According to a recent result of Ding and Geiges [@DG2] any closed contact 3–manifold is obtained by contact surgery along a Legendrian link ${\mathbb {L}}$ in the standard contact 3–sphere $(S^3, \xi_{st})$, where the surgery coefficients on the individual components of ${\mathbb {L}}$ can be chosen to be $\pm 1$ relative to the contact framing. (For additional discussion on this theorem see [@DGS].) It is an intriguing question how to establish interesting properties of a contact structure from one of its surgery presentations. More precisely, we would like to find a way to determine whether the result of a certain contact surgery is tight or fillable. Recall that contact $(-1)$–surgery (also called *Legendrian surgery*) on a Legendrian link ${\mathbb {L}}$ produces a Stein fillable, hence tight contact 3–manifold. Given a Legendrian knot $K\subset (S^3, \xi_{st})$, we shall denote the result of contact $(+1)$–surgery along $K$ by $(Y_K, \xi_K)$. A first result, which has an elementary proof, is the following. \[t:ot\] Let $K$ be a Legendrian knot in the standard contact three–sphere. Assume that, for some orientation of $K$, a front projection of $K$ contains the configuration of Figure \[f:config\], with an odd number of cusps between the strands $U$ and $U'$. Then, $(Y_K,\xi_K)$ is overtwisted. \[c:negtorus\] Let $K$ be a Legendrian knot in the standard contact three–sphere. If $K$ is smoothly isotopic to a negative torus knot then $(Y_K, \xi_K)$ is overtwisted. Notice the contrast: when the Legendrian knot $K$ satisfies $\operatorname{tb}(K)= 2g_s(K)-1$ (where $g_s(K)$ denotes its slice genus) then $(Y_K, \xi_K)$ is tight [@LS4]. The tightness question for contact structures can be fruitfully attacked with the use of the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants [@OSz6]. In fact, the nonvanishing of these invariants implies tightness, while their computation can sometimes be performed (see e.g. [@LS4; @LS5]) using a contact surgery presentation in conjunction with the surgery exact triangle established in Heegaard Floer theory by Peter Ozsváth and Zoltán Szabó [@OSzabs]. Such ideas can be used to prove the following. \[t:ntb\] Let $K\subset S^3$ be a smooth knot. Suppose that, for some integer $n>0$, the 3–manifold $S^3_n(K)$ is a lens space. Let $L\subset (S^3,\xi_{st})$ be a Legendrian knot smoothly isotopic to $K$. Then, $L$ has Thurston–Bennequin invariant not greater than $n$. In the proof of Theorem \[t:ntb\] we will only assume that $S^3_n (K)$ is an $L$–space, a weaker condition specified in Section \[s:prelim\] and known to be satisfied by lens spaces. In our investigations we prove tightness by establishing the nonvanishing of the appropriate contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariant. Therefore, we are interested in cases when this invariant vanishes, although overtwistedness does not obviously hold. \[p:vanish1\] Let $L_1, L_2\subset (S^3,\xi_{st})$ be two smoothly isotopic Legendrian knots whose Thurston–Bennequin invariants satisfy $$\operatorname{tb}(L_1)<\operatorname{tb}(L_2).$$ Then, the result of contact $(+1)$–surgery along $L_1$ has vanishing contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariant. If $\operatorname{tb}(L)\leq -2$ then the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariant $c^+(Y_L, \xi _L)$ vanishes. The hypotheses of Proposition \[p:vanish1\] do not imply that either $L_1$ or $L_2$ be stabilizations of other Legendrian knots. In fact, examples of Legendrian knots $L_1$ and $L_2$ satisfying the assumptions of Proposition \[p:vanish1\] without being stabilizations were found by Etnyre and Honda [@EHLA]. In many cases the contact invariants can be explicitly computed. We will perform such computations for a subfamily of Legendrian knots called Chekanov–Eliashberg knots, cf. [@EFM]. These knots are of particular interest because they have equal “classical invariants” (i.e., knot type, Thurston–Bennequin invariant and rotation number) but are not Legendrian isotopic. Our computation shows that, at least when combined with the particular surgery approach we adopt here, the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariant is not strong enough to distinguish these knots up to Legendrian isotopy. For the precise formulation of this fact see Section \[s:checkanov\]. As a further application, we present examples where the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants distinguish contact structures defined on a fixed 3–manifold. In particular, by a simple calculation we recover the main result of [@LM]: \[lm\] The Brieskorn integral homology sphere $-\Sigma (2,3,6n-1)$ admits at least $(n-1)$ nonisotopic tight contact structures. The same result was obtained in a more general form by O. Plamenevskaya [@OP]. Section \[s:prelim\] is devoted to the necessary (and brief) recollection of background information about contact surgery and Ozsváth–Szabó invariants. Proofs of most of the statements announced in the Introduction are given in Section \[s:proofs\]. Section \[s:checkanov\] is devoted to the Legendrian Chekanov–Eliashberg knots. In Section \[s:dist\] we prove Theorem \[lm\]. Preliminaries {#s:prelim} ============= For the basics of contact geometry and topology we refer the reader to [@Et; @Ge]. Contact surgery {#contact-surgery .unnumbered} --------------- Let $(Y, \xi )$ be a closed, contact 3–manifold and $L\subset (Y,\xi )$ a Legendrian knot. The contact structure $\xi$ can be extended from the complement of a neighborhood of $L$ to the 3–manifold obtained by $(\pm 1)$–surgery along $L$ (with respect to the contact framing). In fact, by the classification of tight contact structures on the solid torus $S^1\times D^2$ [@H1], such an extension is uniquely specified by requiring that its restriction to the surgered solid torus be tight. The same uniqueness property holds for all surgery coefficients of the form $\frac{1}{k}$ with $k \in {\mathbb Z}$. For a general nonzero rational surgery coefficient, there is a finite number of choices for the extension. Consequently, a Legendrian knot $L\subset (S^3, \xi _{st})$ decorated with $+1$ or $-1$ gives rise to a well–defined contact 3–manifold, which we shall denote by $(Y_L, \xi _L)$ and $(Y^L, \xi ^L)$, respectively. For a more extensive discussion on contact surgery see [@DG2]. Heegaard Floer theory {#heegaard-floer-theory .unnumbered} --------------------- In this subsection we recall the basics of the Ozsváth–Szabó homology groups. For a more detailed treatment see [@OSzF1; @OSzF2; @OSzF4]. According  [@OSzF1], to a closed, oriented spin$^c$ 3–manifold $(Y, {\mathbf t})$ one can associate a finitely generated Abelian group ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y, {\mathbf t})$ and a finitely generated ${\mathbb Z}[U]$–module $HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})$. A spin$^c$ cobordism $(W, {\mathbf s})$ between $(Y_1,{\mathbf t}_1)$ and $(Y_2,{\mathbf t}_2)$ gives rise to homomorphisms $\hat F_{W, {\mathbf s}}\colon {{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y_1, {\mathbf t}_1)\to {{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y_2, {\mathbf t}_2)$ and $F^+_{W, {\mathbf s}}\colon HF^+(Y_1, {\mathbf t}_1)\to HF^+(Y_2, {\mathbf t}_2)$, with $F^+_{W,{\mathbf s}}$ $U$–equivariant. Let $Y$ be a closed, oriented 3–manifold and $K\subset Y$ a framed knot with framing $f$. Let $Y(K)$ denote the 3–manifold given by surgery along $K\subset Y$ with respect to the framing $f$. The surgery can be viewed at the 4–manifold level as a 2–handle addition. The resulting cobordism $X$ induces a homomorphism $$\hat F_X:=\sum_{{\mathbf s}\in Spin^c(X)} \hat F_{X,{\mathbf s}}{\colon\thinspace}{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y)\to{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y(K)),$$ where ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y):=\oplus_{{\mathbf t}\in Spin^c (Y)} {{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y,{\mathbf t})$. Similarly, there is a cobordism $Z$ defined by adding a 2–handle to $Y(K)$ along a normal circle $N$ to $K$ with framing $-1$ with respect to a normal disk to $K$. The boundary components of $Z$ are $Y(K)$ and the 3–manifold $Y'(K)$ obtained from $Y$ by a surgery along $K$ with framing $f+1$. As before, $Z$ induces a homomorphism $$\hat F_Z{\colon\thinspace}{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y(K))\to{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y'(K)).$$ The above construction can be repeated starting with $Y(K)$ and $N\subset Y(K)$ equipped with the framing specified above: we get $Z$ (playing the role previously played by $X$) and a new cobordism $W$ starting from $Y'(K)$, given by attaching a 4–dimensional 2–handle along a normal circle $C$ to $N$ with framing $-1$ with respect to a normal disk. It is easy to check that this last operation yields $Y$ at the 3–manifold level. \[[@OSzF2], Theorem 9.16\]\[t:triangle\] The homomorphisms $\hat F_{X}, \hat F_Z$ and $\hat F_W$ fit into an exact triangle $$\begin{graph}(6,2) \graphlinecolour{1}\grapharrowtype{2} \textnode {A}(1,1.5){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y)$} \textnode {B}(5, 1.5){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y(K))$} \textnode {C}(3, 0){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y'(K))$} \diredge {A}{B}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \diredge {B}{C}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \diredge {C}{A}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \freetext (3,1.8){$\hat F_X$} \freetext (4.6,0.6){$\hat F_Z$} \freetext (1.4,0.6){$\hat F_W$} \end{graph}$$ For a torsion spin$^c$ structure (i.e. a spin$^c$ structure whose first Chern class is torsion) the homology theories ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}$ and $HF^+$ come with a relative ${\mathbb Z}$–grading which admits a lift to an absolute ${\mathbb Q}$–grading [@OSzabs]. The action of $U$ shifts this degree by $-2$. For $a\in {\mathbb Q}$, define ${{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a:=\oplus_b ({{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a)_b$ as the graded ${\mathbb Z}[U]$–module such that, for every $b\in{\mathbb Q}$, $$({{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a)_b= \begin{cases} {\mathbb Z}\quad\text{for}\quad b\geq a\quad\text{and}\quad b-a\in 2{\mathbb Z},\\ 0\quad\text{otherwise}, \end{cases}$$ and the $U$–action $({{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a)_b \to ({{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a)_{b-2}$ is an isomorphism for every $b\neq a$. The following proposition can be extracted from [@OSzF2 Theorem 10.1] and [@OSzabs Propositions 4.2 and 4.10]. \[p:struct\] Let $Y$ be a rational homology sphere. Then, for each ${\mathbf t}\in Spin^c (Y)$ $$HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t}) = {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a \oplus A(Y),$$ where $a\in {\mathbb Q}$ and $A(Y)=\oplus_d A_d(Y)$ is a graded, finitely generated Abelian group. Moreover, $$HF^+(-Y,{\mathbf t}) = {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{-a}\oplus A(-Y),$$ with $A_d(-Y)\cong A_{-d-1}(Y)$. If $b_1 (Y)=1$ and ${\mathbf t}\in Spin^c (Y)$ is torsion then $$HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})={{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a \oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{a'} \oplus A'(Y),$$ where $a-a'$ is an odd integer and $A'(Y)=\oplus_d A'_d(Y)$ is a graded, finitely generated Abelian group. Moreover, $$HF^+(-Y, {\mathbf t})={{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{-a} \oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{-a'} \oplus A'(Y),$$ with $A'_d(-Y)\cong A'_{-d-1}(Y)$. The two theories ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}$ and $HF^+$ are related by a long exact sequence, which takes the following form for a torsion spin$^c$ structure ${\mathbf t}$ $$\label{e:exseq} \ldots \to {{{\widehat {HF}}}}_a(Y, {\mathbf t}) \stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} HF^+_a(Y, {\mathbf t}) \stackrel{U}{\longrightarrow} HF^+_{a-2}(Y, {\mathbf t}) \to {{{\widehat {HF}}}}_{a-1}(Y, {\mathbf t}) \to \ldots$$ where $U$ denotes “multiplication by $U$”. All the gradings appearing in the sequence can be worked out from the definitions and the construction of the exact sequence (cf. [@OSzabs Section 2]). \[c:bgr\] Let $Y$ be a rational homology 3–sphere. Then, $HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a$ if and only if ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{\mathbb Z}$. If $b_1(Y)=1$ and ${\mathbf t}$ is a torsion spin$^c$ structure, then $HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{a_1}\oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{a_2}$ if and only if ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{\mathbb Z}^2$. We sketch the proof of the statement for $b_1(Y)=0$, the other case can be proved by similar arguments. Clearly, if $HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a$ then it follows immediately from Exact Sequence  that ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y, {\mathbf t}) = {{{\widehat {HF}}}}_a(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{\mathbb Z}$. Conversely, if ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{\mathbb Z}$ then Exact Sequence  and Proposition \[p:struct\] imply $HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a$. Observe that, in view of Corollary \[c:bgr\], if $Y$ is a rational homology 3–sphere, the following two conditions are equivalent: 1. For each spin$^c$ structure ${\mathbf t}\in Spin ^c(Y)$, $HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a$ for some $a$; 2. For each spin$^c$ structure ${\mathbf t}\in Spin ^c(Y)$, ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(Y, {\mathbf t})\cong{\mathbb Z}$. A rational homology 3–sphere satisfying any of the above equivalent conditions is called an *$L$–space*. It follows from Proposition \[p:struct\] that an oriented rational homology 3–sphere $Y$ is an $L$–space if and only if $-Y$ is an $L$–space. Moreover, lens spaces are $L$–spaces [@OSzF2 Section 3]. We will use the following fact regarding the maps connecting the Ozsváth–Szabó homology groups. Suppose that $W$ is a cobordism defined by a single 2–handle attachment. \[p:adjunction\] Let $W$ be a cobordism containing a smooth, closed, oriented surface $\Sigma$ of genus $g$, with $\Sigma\cdot\Sigma > 2g-2$. Then, the induced maps $\hat F_{W, {\mathbf s}}$ and $F^+_{W, {\mathbf s}}$ vanish for every spin$^c$ structures ${\mathbf s}$ on $W$. Contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants {#contact-ozsváthszabó-invariants .unnumbered} -------------------------------- Let $(Y,\xi)$ be a closed, contact 3–manifold. Then, the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants $${{\hat {c}}}(Y, \xi ) \in {{{\widehat {HF}}}}(-Y, {\mathbf t}_{\xi })/\langle \pm 1\rangle\quad\text{and}\quad c^+(Y, \xi ) \in HF^+(-Y, {\mathbf t}_{\xi })/\langle \pm 1\rangle$$ are defined [@OSz6], with $f({{\hat {c}}}(Y, \xi ))=c^+(Y, \xi )$, where $f$ is the homomorphism appearing in Exact Sequence  and ${\mathbf t}_{\xi}$ is the spin$^c$ structure induced by the contact structure $\xi$. To simplify notation, throughout the paper we ignore the sign ambiguity in the definition of the contact invariants, and treat them as honest elements of the appropriate homology groups rather than equivalence classes. The reader should have no problem checking that there is no loss in making this abuse of notation. Alternatively, one could work with ${\mathbb Z}/2{\mathbb Z}$ coefficients to make the sign ambiguity disappear altogether. The properties of ${{\hat {c}}}$ and $c^+$ which will be relevant for us can be summarized as follows. \[t:item\] Let $(Y,\xi)$ be a closed, contact 3–manifold, and denote by $c(Y,\xi)$ either one of the contact invariants ${{\hat {c}}}(Y,\xi)$ and $c^+(Y,\xi)$. Then, 1. The class $c(Y, \xi )$ is an invariant of the isotopy class of the contact structure $\xi $ on $Y$. 2. If $(Y, \xi )$ is overtwisted then $c(Y, \xi )=0$, while if $(Y, \xi )$ is Stein fillable then $c(Y, \xi )\neq 0$. 3. Suppose that $(Y_2,\xi_2)$ is obtained from $(Y_1,\xi _1)$ by a contact $(+1)$–surgery. Then we have $$F_{-X} (c(Y_1, \xi_1))= c(Y_2,\xi_2),$$ where $-X$ is the cobordism induced by the surgery with orientation reversed and $F_{-X}$ is the sum of $F_{-X,{\mathbf s}}$ over all spin$^c$ structures ${\mathbf s}$ extending the spin$^c$ structures induced on $-Y_i$ by $\xi_i$, $i=1,2$. In particular, if $c(Y_2, \xi_2)\neq 0$ then $(Y_1, \xi_1)$ is tight. 4. Suppose that ${\mathbf t}_{\xi }$ is torsion. Then $c(Y, \xi )$ is a homogeneous element of degree $-h(\xi )\in {\mathbb Q}$, where $h(\xi )$ is the Hopf–invariant of the 2–plane field defined by the contact structure $\xi $. The Hopf–invariant can be easily determined for a contact structure defined by a contact $(\pm 1)$–surgery diagram along the Legendrian link ${\mathbb {L}}\subset (S^3, \xi _{st})$ [@DGS]. In fact, fix an orientation of ${\mathbb {L}}$ and consider the 4–manifold $X$ defined by the Kirby diagram specified by the surgery [@GS]. Let $c\in H^2 (X; {{\mathbb {Z}}})$ denote the cohomology class which evaluates as rot$(L)$ on the homology class determined by a component $L$ of the link ${\mathbb {L}}$. If ${\mathbf t}_{\xi }$ is torsion, then $c^2\in {\mathbb Q}$ is defined, and $h(\xi)$ is equal to $\frac{1}{4}(c^2 -3\sigma (X) - 2\chi (X)+2)+q$, where $q$ is the number of $(+1)$–surgeries made along ${\mathbb {L}}$ to get $(Y, \xi )$. Proofs {#s:proofs} ====== Now we can turn to the proofs of the statements announced in Section \[s:intro\]. Consider the Legendrian push–off $K'$ of $K$ drawn as a dotted line in the left–hand side of Figure \[f:modification2\]. ![The modification of the push–off[]{data-label="f:modification2"}](f4.eps){width="15cm"} The obvious annulus between $K$ and $K'$ induces framing $\operatorname{tb}(K)$ on both $K$ and $K'$. Consider the modification $K''$ of $K'$ illustrated in the right–hand side of Figure \[f:modification2\]. The obvious surface $S$ between $K''$ and $K$ is oriented because of the hypotheses on the cusps of the front projection, it has genus $1$ and it induces framing $\operatorname{tb}(K)+1$ on $K$. In particular, $S$ extends to a meridian disk $D$ inside the surgered solid torus. Since $S$ induces framing $\operatorname{tb}(K)+1$ on $K''$, while $\operatorname{tb}(K'')=\operatorname{tb}(K')+3=\operatorname{tb}(K)+3$, we have $\operatorname{tb}_{S\cup D}(K'')=2$, i.e. the Legendrian knot $K''={\partial}(S\cup D)$ violates the Bennequin–Eliashberg inequality with respect to $S\cup D$. We conclude that $(Y_K, \xi _K)$ is overtwisted. To prove Theorem \[t:ntb\], Corollary \[c:negtorus\] and Proposition \[p:vanish1\] we shall need the following lemma (for a different proof of a more general result see [@Oz]). \[l:+1ot\] Let $K$ be a Legendrian knot in the standard contact three–sphere. If $K$ is the stabilization of another Legendrian knot then $(Y_K, \xi_K)$ is overtwisted. By assumption, $K$ admits a front projection containing one of the configurations of Figure \[f:zig-zags\]. Without loss, we may assume that we are in the situation of the left–hand side of Figure \[f:zig-zags\]. ![The two possible “zig–zags”[]{data-label="f:zig-zags"}](f2.eps){height="4cm"} Consider the Legendrian push–off $K'$ of $K$ drawn as a dotted line in the left–hand side of Figure \[f:modification1\]. The obvious annulus between $K$ and $K'$ induces framing $\operatorname{tb}(K)$ on both $K$ and $K'$. Consider the modification $K''$ of $K'$ illustrated in the right–hand side of Figure \[f:modification1\]. ![The modification of the Legendrian push–off[]{data-label="f:modification1"}](f3.eps){height="4cm"} There still is an obvious annulus $A$ between $K''$ and $K$, except that now it induces framing $\operatorname{tb}(K'')=\operatorname{tb}(K)+1$ on $K$ and $K''$. Since we perform contact $(+1)$–surgery on $K$, the annulus $A$ extends to a meridian disk $D$ inside the surgered solid torus. Therefore, $D\cup A$ is an overtwisted disk in $(Y_K, \xi _K)$. The proof of Lemma \[l:+1ot\] clearly applies to establish the following slight generalization: Suppose that the Legendrian link ${\mathbb {L}}\subset (S^3, \xi _{st})$ is obtained by stabilizing some components of another Legendrian link. Let $(Y_{{\mathbb {L}}}, \xi _{{\mathbb {L}}} )$ be the result of contact $(\pm 1)$–surgeries along the components of ${\mathbb {L}}$. If the surgery coefficient on one of the stabilized components is $(+1)$, then $(Y_{{\mathbb {L}}}, \xi _{{\mathbb {L}}})$ is overtwisted. Examining [@EH3 Figure 8], it is easy to check that any Legendrian negative torus knot $K$ with maximal Thurston–Bennequin invariant contains the configuration of Figure \[f:config\], with an odd number of cusps between the two strands $U$ and $U'$. Therefore, by Theorem \[t:ot\] $(Y_K,\xi_K)$ is overtwisted. On the other hand, according to the results of [@EH3], any Legendrian negative torus knot $K'$ with non–maximal Thurston–Bennequin invariant is isotopic to the stabilization of one with maximal Thurston–Bennequin invariant. Thus, by Lemma \[l:+1ot\] $(Y_{K'},\xi_{K'})$ is overtwisted. By contradiction, suppose that $S^3_n (K)$ is an $L$–space (recall that lens spaces are $L$–spaces) and $L_1\subset (S^3, \xi _{st})$ is a Legendrian knot smoothly isotopic to $K$ with $tb(L_1)>n$. Let $L$ be obtained by stabilizing $L_1$ $\operatorname{tb}(L_1)-n$ times, so that $\operatorname{tb}(L)=n$. Denote by $(Y_L, \xi _L)$ the result of contact $(+1)$–surgery along $L$. By Lemma \[l:+1ot\] $(Y_L, \xi _L)$ is overtwisted, hence $\hat c(Y_L, \xi _L)=0$. On the other hand, we can compute $\hat c(Y_L, \xi _L)$ using Theorem \[t:item\], getting $\hat c(Y_L, \xi _L)=\hat F_{-X}(c(S^3, \xi _{st}))$ where $X$ is the appropriate cobordism. The map $\hat F_{-X}$ fits into the exact triangle $$\begin{graph}(6,2) \graphlinecolour{1}\grapharrowtype{2} \textnode {A}(1,1.5){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3)$} \textnode {B}(5, 1.5){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3_{-n-1}({{\overline {K}}}))$} \textnode {C}(3, 0){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3 _{-n}({{\overline {K}}}))$} \diredge {A}{B}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \diredge {B}{C}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \diredge {C}{A}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \freetext (2.9,1.9){$\hat F_{-X}$} \freetext (1.4,0.6){$\hat F_W$} \end{graph}$$ where $\overline K$ is the mirror image of $K$ and $S^3_r(K)$ denotes the result of $r$–surgery along $K$. Since $S^3_{-n}({{\overline {K}}}) =-S^3_n (K)$ is an $L$–space, we have $$\operatorname{rk}{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3_{-n}(\overline K)) = |H_1(S^3_{-n}(\overline K))| = n,$$ while by Proposition \[p:struct\] $$\operatorname{rk}{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3 _{-n-1}({{\overline {K}}}))\geq |H_1(S^3 _{-n-1}({{\overline {K}}}))|=n+1.$$ Exactness of the triangle immediately implies $\hat F_W=0$, therefore $\hat F_{-X}$ must be injective. Since $\hat c (S^3, \xi _{st})\neq 0$, this shows $\hat c(Y_L, \xi _L)\neq 0$, which contradicts the fact that $(Y_L, \xi _L)$ is overtwisted. Consider a Legendrian knot $L'$ obtained by stabilizing $L_2$ until $tb (L_1)=tb (L')$. Since $L'$ and $L_1$ are smoothly isotopic and have the same contact framing, the cobordisms associated to the contact $(+1)$–surgeries along $L_1$ and $L'$ can be identified. Since $c(Y_{L_1}, \xi_{L_1})$ and $c(Y_{L'}, \xi _{L'})$ are images of $c(S^3, \xi _{st})$ under the same map, $c(Y_{L_1}, \xi_{L_1})=0$ if and only if $c(Y_{L'}, \xi_{L'})=0$. Lemma \[l:+1ot\] gives $c(Y_{L'}, \xi_{L'})=0$, and the first statement follows. For the second statement consider the exact triangle in the $HF^+$–theory provided by the surgery along $L$. (The Thurston–Bennequin invariant $\operatorname{tb}(L)$ is denoted by $t$.) After reversing orientation the triangle takes the shape $$\begin{graph}(6,2) \graphlinecolour{1}\grapharrowtype{2} \textnode {A}(1,1.5){$HF^+ (S^3)$} \textnode {B}(5, 1.5){$HF^+ (S^3_{-t-1}({{\overline {L}}}))$} \textnode {C}(3, 0){${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3 _{-t}({{\overline {L}}}))$} \diredge {A}{B}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \diredge {B}{C}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \diredge {C}{A}[\graphlinecolour{0}] \freetext (2.9,1.9){$F^+_{-W}$} \end{graph}$$ Now the assumption $t<-1$ implies that $-t-1>0$, hence the cobordism $-W$ inducing the first map is positive definite. It is known that the map $F^{\infty }_{-W}$ on the $HF^{\infty }$–theory vanishes if $b_2^+(-W)>0$ [@OSzF2]. Since for $S^3$ the natural map $HF ^{\infty }(S^3)\to HF^+(S^3)$ is onto, this implies that $F^+_{-W}=0$. Since $$c^+(Y_L, \xi _L)=F^{+}_{-W}(c^+(S^3, \xi _{st})),$$ the vanishing of the contact invariant $c^+(Y_L, \xi _L)$ follows. Examples {#s:checkanov} ======== Given a Legendrian knot $L\subset (S^3, \xi _{st})$, we shall denote by $(Y_L, \xi _L)$, respectively $(Y^L, \xi ^L)$, the contact 3–manifold obtained by contact $(+1)$–, respectively $(-1)$–surgery. Let $L_i=L_i (n)$, $i=1,\ldots,n-1$, be the Legendrian knot given by Figure \[f:twist\](b). The knots $L_i(n)$ ($n$ fixed and $\geq 2$) were considered in [@EFM]. They are all smoothly isotopic to the $n$-twist knot of Figure \[f:twist\](a) (having $n$ negative half–twists). The knots $L_i$ were the first examples of smoothly isotopic Legendrian knots having equal classical invariants (i.e. Thurston–Bennequin invariants and rotation numbers) but not Legendrian isotopic [@Check; @EFM]. The reader should be aware that our convention for representing a Legendrian knot via its front projection differs from the one used in [@EFM]. In fact, we use the contact structure given by the $1$–form $dz+xdy$ rather than the $1$–form $-dz+ydx$, used in [@EFM]. However, the contactomorphism between the two contact structures given by sending $(x,y,z)$ to $(y,-x,z)$ induces a one–to–one correspondence between the corresponding front projections, and under this correspondence Figure 1 from [@EFM] is sent to our Figure \[f:twist\](b). \[p:check1\] For every $1\leq i, j \leq n-1$ we have $$\hat c(Y_{L_i}, \xi _{L_i}) = \hat c(Y_{L_j}, \xi _{L_j}).$$ The statement follows easily from basic properties of the contact invariant: by the surgery formula for contact $(+1)$–surgeries, we have $\hat c(Y_{L_i}, \xi _{L_i})= F_{-X}(\hat c(S^3,\xi _{st}))$, where $X$ is the cobordism induced by the 4–dimensional handle attachment dictated by the surgery. Since $X$ depends only on the smooth isotopy class of the Legendrian knot and its Thurston–Bennequin invariant, and is therefore independent of $i$, the claim trivially follows. According to the main result of this section, Theorem \[t:check2\], the same equality holds if we perform Legendrian surgeries along $L_i(n)$, that is, the contact Ozsváth–Szabó invariants of the results of contact $(\pm 1)$–surgeries do not distinguish the Chekanov–Eliashberg knots. \[t:check2\] Let $n\geq 2$ be an even integer, and let $1\leq i,j\leq n-1$ be both odd. Then, $$\hat c(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i}) = \hat c(Y^{L_j}, \xi ^{L_j}).$$ The proof of Theorem \[t:check2\] rests on the following two lemmas. \[l:alt\] Let $n\geq 2$ be an even integer, and denote by $\overline L(n)$ the mirror image of $L(n)$. Then, $$HF^+(S_0^3({\overline {L}}(n)))\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{\frac{1}{2}}\oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{\frac{3}{2}} \oplus {\mathbb Z}^{\frac n2 - 1}_{(\frac{1}{2})}.$$ Let $k=\frac n2$. Choosing a suitable oriented basis for an obvious Seifert surface for $L(n)$ one can easily compute the Seifert matrix $$\begin{pmatrix} -k & k-1\\ k & -k \end{pmatrix},$$ with eigenvalues $-1$ and $1-4k$. This immediately gives signature $\sigma (L(n))=-2$ and Alexander polynomial $$\Delta _{L(n)}(t) = k t^{-1}-(2k-1) + k t.$$ Since $L(n)$ is an alternating knot with genus $g(L(n))=1$, applying [@OSzalt Theorem 1.4] we get $$\begin{cases} HF^+(S^3 _0 (L(n)), {\mathbf s})\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{-\frac{1}{2}} \oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{-\frac{3}{2}}\oplus {\mathbb Z}^{\frac n2 - 1}_{(-\frac{3}{2})} \quad\text{if}\quad c_1({\mathbf s})=0,\\ HF^+(S^3 _0 (L(n)), {\mathbf s})=0\quad\text{if}\quad c_1({\mathbf s})\neq 0. \end{cases}$$ By Proposition \[p:struct\] this implies the result. \[l:comp\] Let $k\geq 0$ be an integer, and let $V(k)$ be the oriented 3–manifold defined by the surgery diagram of Figure \[f:kirby\]. Then, $${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k)) \cong {\mathbb Z}^{2k+2}\quad\text{and}\quad HF^+(V(k))=\oplus _{i=1}^{2k+2} {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{a_i}\quad \text{for some $a_i \in {\mathbb Q}$}.$$ In order to compute ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k))$ we will use the exact triangle defined by the $(k+1)$–framed unknot of Figure \[f:kirby\]. It is easy to see that the unknot of Figure \[f:kirby\] bounds a punctured torus smoothly embedded in the complement of the knot $K$. Thus, the cobordism we get by attaching this last 2–handle contains a torus with self–intersection $(k+1)$, and the induced map in the surgery triangle vanishes by Proposition \[p:adjunction\]. Consequently, the surgery triangle is actually a short exact sequence. Notice that $K$ is the (left–handed) trefoil knot, hence ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(S^3_0(K))={\mathbb Z}^2$ [@OSzalt Theorem 1.4]. Arguing by induction we get $${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k+1))\cong{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k))\oplus {\mathbb Z}^2$$ for every $k\geq 0$. On the other hand, for $k=0$ the unknot can be blown down, showing that $V(0)\cong S^1\times S^2$. This fact immediately implies $$\label{e:hhatvn} {{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k))\cong{\mathbb Z}^{2k+2}$$ for every $k\geq 0$. Using the surgery presentation of Figure \[f:kirby\] it is easy to check that $$H_1(V(k); {\mathbb Z})\cong {\mathbb Z}\oplus {\mathbb Z}/(k+1){\mathbb Z},$$ therefore $V(k)$ admits $(k+1)$ different torsion spin$^c$ structures. By Proposition \[p:struct\] and Exact Sequence  we have $$\operatorname{rk}{{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k),{\mathbf t})\geq 2$$ if ${\mathbf t}$ is a torsion spin$^c$ structure. Therefore, using , we see that ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k), {\mathbf t})\cong{\mathbb Z}^2$ for each torsion spin$^c$ structure ${\mathbf t}$ and $${{{\widehat {HF}}}}(V(k),{\mathbf t})=0$$ if ${\mathbf t}$ is not torsion. The statement now follows from Proposition \[p:struct\] and Corollary \[c:bgr\]. The idea of the proof is the following: First we will find a contact 3–manifold $(Y, \xi )$ such that contact $(+1)$–surgery along some Legendrian knot $K\subset (Y, \xi )$ gives $(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i})$ and $A(Y)\subset HF^+(Y, {\mathbf t}_{\xi })$ (as it is defined in Proposition \[p:struct\]) vanishes. Therefore $c^+(Y, \xi )$ is an element of some ${{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a$. The $U$–equivariance of the map induced by the surgery will then show that $c^+(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i}) \in {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_a \subset HF^+(Y^{L_i}, {\mathbf t}_{\xi ^{L_i}})$, from which the conclusion will easily follow. To this end, consider the contact structure $\eta _i (n)$ defined by Legendrian surgery along the 2–component link of Figure \[f:link\]. Notice that one of the knots in Figure \[f:link\] is topologically the unknot, while the other one is $L_i(n)$. According to the Kirby moves indicated in Figure \[f:moves\], it follows that this contact structure lives on the 3–manifold $Y(n):=-V(\frac n2)$, where $V(k)$ is defined by Figure \[f:kirby\]. According to [@DG1], the effect of a contact $(\pm 1)$–surgery along a Legendrian knot can be cancelled by contact $(\mp 1)$–surgery along a Legendrian push–off of the knot. Therefore, doing contact $(+1)$–surgery along the push–off of the unknot in Figure \[f:link\] we get $(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i})$. On the other hand, denoting by $X_n$ the cobordism induced by the contact $(+1)$-surgery, we have $$\hat F_{-X_n}(\hat c(Y(n),\eta _i(n)))=\hat c(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i}).$$ A simple computation shows that $h(\xi^{L_i})=-\frac{1}{2}$, therefore by Theorem \[t:item\](4) we have $$\hat c(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i})\in{{{\widehat {HF}}}}_{\frac{1}{2}}( -Y^{L_i}).$$ Moreover, $\hat c(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i})$ is primitive [@OP]. Thus, to prove the statement it will be enough to verify that there is a rank–$1$ subgroup of ${{{\widehat {HF}}}}_{\frac{1}{2}}( -Y^{L_i})$ containing $\hat F_{-X_n}(\hat c(Y(n),\eta _i(n)))$ for every $i$. An easy computation shows that (since we assumed $n$ to be even) the Thurston–Bennequin numbers of the knots $L_i(n)$ are all equal to 1, cf. [@EFM], hence each of the 3–manifolds $Y^{L_i}$ is diffeomorphic to $S^3_0(L(n))$. By Lemma \[l:alt\] $$HF^+(-S_0 ^3 (L (n)))\cong{{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{\frac{1}{2}} \oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{\frac{3}{2}} \oplus A,$$ where $A$ is a finitely generated abelian group, while by Lemma \[l:comp\] we have $$HF^+(-Y(n))=\oplus_{i=1}^{n+2} {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{a_i}$$ for some $a_i\in {\mathbb Q}$. Since $F^+_{-X_n}$ is $U$–equivariant and for sufficiently large $h$ the action of $U^h$ vanishes on $A$, we have $${\rm Im} (F^+_{-X_n}) \subseteq {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{\frac{1}{2}} \oplus {{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{\frac{3}{2}} \subseteq HF^+(-S_0 ^3 (L(n))).$$ Therefore, up to sign, there is a unique primitive element in ${\rm Im}(F^+_{-X_n})$ of degree $\frac{1}{2}$, implying that $c^+(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i})=c^+ (Y^{L_j}, \xi ^{L_j})$ for $i,j$ as in the statement. Since $$HF^+_{-\frac{1}{2}}(-S_0^3(L(n)))=0,$$ it follows that the homomorphism $$f{\colon\thinspace}{{{\widehat {HF}}}}_{\frac{1}{2}}(-S_0^3(L(n)))\to HF^+_{\frac{1}{2}}(-S_0^3(L(n)))$$ from Exact Sequence  is injective. Since $$f(\hat c(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i}))=c^+(Y^{L_i}, \xi ^{L_i})\in {\rm Im}(F^+_{-X_n})$$ for every $i$, this concludes the proof. Distinguishing tight contact structures {#s:dist} ======================================= Let $\xi_i$, for $i=1,\ldots, n-1$, denote the contact structure on the Brieskorn sphere $-\Sigma (2,3,6n-1)$ defined by the contact surgery specified by Figure \[f:structures\]. ![Contact structures on the 3–manifold $-\Sigma (2,3,6n-1)$[]{data-label="f:structures"}](f9.eps){height="7cm"} \[t:lm1\] The contact invariants $c^+(\xi_1), \ldots , c^+(\xi_{n-1})$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbb Z}$. Consider the Legendrian push-off ${\tilde {K}}_1$ of the Legendrian trefoil $K_1$ of Figure \[f:structures\]. Attach a 4–dimensional 2–handle along ${\tilde {K}}_1$ to $-\Sigma (2,3,6n-1)$ with framing equal to the contact framing $+1$. Since contact $(+1)$–surgery along a Legendrian push–off cancels contact $(-1)$–surgery, we get a cobordism $W$ such that $F_{-W}(c^+(\xi_i))= c^+(\eta _i)$, where $\eta_i $ is the contact structure on $L(n, 1)$ defined by Figure \[f:lens\]. ![The contact structure $\eta_i$ on $L(n,1)$[]{data-label="f:lens"}](f10.eps){height="8cm"} The contact invariants $c^+(\eta _i)$ are linearly independent because they belong to groups corresponding to different spin$^c$ structures on the same lens space $L(n,1)$. Therefore, the invariants $c^+(\xi_i)$ are also linearly independent, concluding the proof. \[c:lm1\] The contact structures $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_{n-1}$ are pairwise non–isotopic. Corollary \[c:lm1\] was first proved by Lisca and Matić [@LM] using Seiberg–Witten theory. For a different Heegaard Floer theoretic proof (of a more general statement) see [@OP]. It is known [@OSzabs] that $HF^+(-\Sigma (2,3,6n-1)) ={{\mathcal {T}}^+}_{-2} \oplus {\mathbb Z}_{(-2)} ^{n-1}$, therefore by Proposition \[p:struct\] $HF^+ (\Sigma (2,3,6n-1))={{\mathcal {T}}^+}_2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}_{(1)} ^{n-1}$. It follows from Theorem \[t:lm1\] that the elements $c^+(\xi _i)$ ($i=1, \ldots , n-1$) span $HF^+_1(\Sigma (2,3,6n-1))$. Notice that if the trefoil knot of Figure \[f:structures\] is replaced by any Legendrian knot $L$, the statement of Theorem \[t:lm1\] holds with the same proof. If tb$(L)=1$ and rot$(L)=0$, then the contact resulting structures $\xi_1, \ldots , \xi _{n-1}$ are all homotopic as 2–plane fields. [AAA]{} , [*Differential algebra of Legendrian links*]{}, Invent. Math. [**150**]{} (2002), 441–483. , [*Symplectic fillability of tight contact structures on torus bundles*]{}, Alg. and Geom. Topol. [**1**]{} (2001), 153–172. , [*A Legendrian surgery presentation of contact 3-manifolds*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**136**]{} (2004), 583–598. , [*Surgery diagrams for contact 3–manifolds*]{}, Turkish J. Math. [**28**]{} (2004), 41–74. , [*Chekanov–Eliashberg invariants and transverse approximation of Legendrian knots*]{}, Pacific J. Math. [**201**]{} (2001), 89–106. , [*Introductory Lectures on Contact Geometry*]{} Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. [**71**]{} (2003) 81-107. , [*Knots in contact geometry I.*]{}, J. Symplectic Geom. [**1**]{} (2001), 63–120. , [*Cabling and transverse simplicity*]{}, arXiv:math.SG/0306330. , [*Contact geometry*]{}, arXiv:math.SG/0307242. , [*4–manifolds and Kirby calculus*]{}, Graduate Studies in Mathematics [**20**]{} AMS (1999). , [*On the classification of tight contact structures, I.*]{}, Geom. Topol. [**4**]{} (2000), 309–368. , [*Tight contact structures and Seiberg-Witten invariants*]{}, Invent. Math. [**129**]{} (1997), 509–525. , [*Ozsváth–Szabó invariants and tight contact 3–manifolds, I*]{}, Geom. Topol. [**8**]{} (2004) 925–945. , [*Ozsváth-Szabó invariants and tight contact three-manifolds, II*]{}, arXiv:math.SG/0404136. , [*A note on contact surgery diagrams*]{}, Inter. Journal of Math. [**16**]{}, No. 1 (2005) 87–99. , [*Holomorphic disks and topological invariants for closed three–manifolds*]{}, to appear in Ann. of Math., arXiv:math.SG/0101206. , [*Holomorphic disks and three-manifold invariants: properties and applications*]{}, to appear in Ann. of Math., arXiv:math.SG/0105202 , [*Holomorphic triangles and invariants of smooth 4–manifolds*]{}, arXiv:math. SG/0110169. , [*Absolutely graded Floer homologies and intersection forms for four-manifolds with boundary*]{}, Adv. Math. [**173**]{} (2003), 179–261. , [*Heegaard Floer homology and alternating knots*]{}, Geom. and Topol. [**7**]{} (2003), 225–254. , [*Heegaard Floer homologies and contact structures*]{}, arXiv:math.SG/0210127. , [*Contact structures with distinct Heegaard Floer invariants*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [**11**]{} (2004), 547–561. [^1]: The first author was partially supported by MURST, and he is a member of EDGE, Research Training Network HPRN-CT-2000-00101, supported by The European Human Potential Programme. The authors would like to thank Peter Ozsváth and Zoltán Szabó for many useful discussions regarding their joint work. The second author was partially supported OTKA T037735.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We introduce FatPaths: a simple, generic, and robust routing architecture for Ethernet stacks. FatPaths enables state-of-the-art low-diameter topologies such as Slim Fly to achieve unprecedented performance, targeting both HPC supercomputers as well as data centers and clusters used by cloud computing. FatPaths exposes and exploits the rich (“fat”) diversity of both minimal and non-minimal paths for high-performance multi-pathing. Moreover, FatPaths features a redesigned “purified” transport layer, based on recent advances in data center networking, that removes virtually all TCP performance issues (e.g., the slow start). FatPaths also uses flowlet switching, a technique used to prevent packet reordering in TCP networks, to enable very simple and effective load balancing. Our design enables recent low-diameter topologies to outperform powerful Clos designs, achieving 15% higher net throughput at 2$\times$ lower latency for comparable cost. FatPaths will significantly accelerate Ethernet clusters that form more than 50% of the Top500 list and it may become a standard routing scheme for modern topologies.' author: - 'Maciej Besta$^1$, Marcel Schneider$^1$, Karolina Cynk$^2$, Marek Konieczny$^2$,Erik Henriksson$^1$, Salvatore Di Girolamo$^1$, Ankit Singla$^1$, Torsten Hoefler$^1$' bibliography: - 'bibl\_conf.bib' title: | FatPaths: Routing in Supercomputers, Data Centers, and Clouds\ with Low-Diameter Networks when Shortest Paths Fall Short --- &lt;ccs2012&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010521.10010537.10003100&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Cloud computing&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003034&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Network architectures&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003039&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Network protocols&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003039.10003044&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Link-layer protocols&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003039.10003045.10003046&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Routing protocols&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003079&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Network performance evaluation&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003083.10003090&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Network structure&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003083.10003090.10003091&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Topology analysis and generation&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003083.10003090.10003092&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Physical topologies&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003039.10003048&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Transport protocols&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;100&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003083.10003090.10011643&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Network topology types&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;300&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10003033.10003106.10003110&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Networks Data center networks&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;concept&gt; &lt;concept\_id&gt;10010520.10010521.10010528.10010530&lt;/concept\_id&gt; &lt;concept\_desc&gt;Computer systems organization Interconnection architectures&lt;/concept\_desc&gt; &lt;concept\_significance&gt;500&lt;/concept\_significance&gt; &lt;/concept&gt; &lt;/ccs2012&gt; [\ <https://spcl.inf.ethz.ch/Research/Scalable_Networking/FatPaths>]{} Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Ethernet continues to be important in the HPC landscape. While the most powerful Top500 systems use vendor-specific or Infiniband (IB) interconnects, more than half of the Top500 (the November 2018 issue) machines [@dongarra1997top500] are based on Ethernet, see Figure \[fig:motivation\] (the left plot). We observe similar numbers for the Green500 list. The importance of Ethernet is increased by the *“convergence of HPC and Big Data”*, with cloud providers and data center operators aggressively aiming for high-bandwidth and low-latency fabric [@valadarsky2015; @handley2017re; @vanini2017letflow]. Another example is Mellanox, with its Ethernet sales for the 3rd quarter of 2017 being higher than those for Infiniband [@mellanox-sales]. Yet, Ethernet systems are scarce in the highest 100 positions of Top500. For example, in November 2018, only *four* such systems were among the highest 100. Ethernet systems are also less efficient than Infiniband, custom, OmniPath, and proprietary systems, see Figure \[fig:motivation\] (on the right). This is also the case for systems with similar sizes, injection bandwidth, and topologies, indicating overheads *caused by routing*. Thus, enhancing routing in HPC Ethernet clusters would improve the overall performance of $\approx$50% of Top500 systems. As Ethernet is prevalent in cloud systems [@zhang2010cloud; @azodolmolky2013cloud], it would similarly accelerate cloud infrastructure. ![[]{data-label="fig:motivation"}](top500.pdf "fig:"){width="21.60000%"} ![[]{data-label="fig:motivation"}](top500-interconnect_4.pdf "fig:"){width="25.00000%"} Clos is the most commonly deployed topology in data centers and supercomputers today, and it dominates the landscape of Ethernet clusters [@niranjan2009portland; @handley2017re; @valadarsky2015]. Yet, many low-diameter topologies have recently been proposed which claim to improve the cost-performance tradeoff compared to Clos networks. For instance, Slim Fly is $\approx$$2\times$ more cost- and power-efficient than fat trees and Clos [@alfares2008scalable] while offering $\approx$25% lower latency. Similar numbers have been reported for Jellyfish [@singla2012jellyfish] and Xpander [@valadarsky2015]. *These topologies could significantly enhance the compute capabilities of Ethernet clusters.* However, the above comparisons (low-diameter topologies vs. Clos) assume hard-to-deploy routing, for example in the case of Jellyfish [@singla2012jellyfish]. Moreover, *the bar for comparison with Clos interconnects has been raised substantially*. Clos was traditionally deployed using ECMP, which tries to approximate an equal split of a fluid flow across shortest paths. Bleeding-edge Clos proposals based on per-packet load balancing[^1] and novel transport mechanisms *achieve $3$-$4\times$ smaller tail flow completion time (FCT) than ECMP* [@handley2017re; @ghorbani17drill]. The above two research threads raise two questions we have not seen addressed so far. **First, what is a high-performance routing architecture for low-diameter networks, assuming an Ethernet stack?** The key issue here is that traditional routing schemes such as ECMP cannot be directly used in networks such as Slim Fly, because (as we will show) **shortest paths fall short** in these topologies: there is almost always *only one* shortest path between endpoint pairs. Restricting traffic to these paths does not utilize such topologies’ path diversity, and it remains unclear how to split traffic across non-shortest paths of *unequal* lengths. **Second, can low-diameter networks continue to claim an improvement in the cost-performance tradeoff against the new, superior Clos baselines?** The key issue here is that the recent progress on Clos and fat trees also does *not* directly translate to topologies like Slim Fly, because the optimality of splitting traffic equally for Clos does *not* extend to recent low-diameter topologies. In this work, we answer both questions affirmatively. We first analyze in detail path diversity in five low-diameter topologies and we discover that, even though **low-diameter topologies fall short of shortest paths, they have enough path diversity when using “almost” shortest paths**. We then present ****, a high-performance, simple, and robust ** for Ethernet low-diameter networks**, aiming to accelerate both HPC systems and cloud infrastructure. FatPaths encodes the rich diversity of non-minimal paths in low-diameter networks in commodity hardware using *layered routing*. It also uses a redesigned (“purified”) transport layer (based on recent data center designs for fat trees [@handley2017re]) with lossless metadata exchange (packet headers always reach their destinations), almost no dropped packet payload, fast start (senders start transmitting at line rate), shallow buffers, and priority queues for retransmitted packets to avoid head-of-line congestion [@handley2017re], ultimately ensuring low latency and high bandwidth. Finally, FatPaths uses flowlet switching [@kandula2007dynamic], a scheme proposed for Clos to prevent packet reordering, to enable very simple but powerful load balancing in non-Clos low-diameter networks. [lllllllll]{} & &\ (lr)[3-9]{} & & **SP** & **NP** & **SM** & **MP** & **DP** & **ALB** & **AT**\ \ Valiant load balancing (VLB) [@valiant1982scheme] & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ & L2 & $^S$ & $^S$ & & & & &\ & L2, L3 & & & & & & &\ ECMP [@hopps2000analysis], OSPF-OMP [@villamizar1999ospf] & L3 & & & & & & &\ UGAL [@kim2008technology] & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ Simple Packet Spraying (PR) [@dixit2013impact; @sen2013localflow] & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ \ DCell [@guo2008dcell] & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ Monsoon [@greenberg2008towards] & L2, L3 & & & & & & &\ PortLand [@niranjan2009portland] & L2 & & & & & & &\ DRILL [@ghorbani2017drill] & L2 & & & & & & &\ LocalFlow [@sen2013localflow], DRB [@cao2013per] & L2 & & & & & & &\ VL2 [@greenberg2009vl2] & L3 & & & & & & &\ Architecture by Al-Fares et al. [@alfares2008scalable] & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ BCube [@guo2009bcube] & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ SEATTLE [@kim2008floodless], others$^*$ [@lui2002star; @rodeheffer2000smartbridge; @perlman2004rbridges; @garcia2003lsom] & L2 & & & & & & &\ VIRO [@jain2011viro] & L2–L3 & $^S$ & $^S$ & & & & &\ Ethernet on Air [@sampath2010ethernet] & L2 & $^S$ & $^S$ & & $^R$ & & &\ PAST [@stephens2012past] & L2 & $^S$ & $^S$ & & & & &\ & L2 & & & & $^R$ & & &\ MOOSE [@scott2009addressing] & L2 & & & & & & &\ MPA [@narvaez1999efficient] & L3 & & & & & & &\ AMP [@gojmerac2003adaptive] & L3 & & & & & & &\ MSTP [@de2006improving], GOE [@iwata2004global], Viking [@sharma2004viking] & L2 & $^S$ & $^S$ & & & & &\ & L2 & & $^R$ & & & & &\ SPAIN [@mudigonda2010spain] & L2 & $^S$ & $^S$ & $^S$ & & & &\ \ XPath [@hu2016explicit] & L3 & & & & & & &\ Source routing for flexible DC fabric [@jyothi2015towards] & L3 & & $^R$ & $^R$ & & & & $^{\text{\textdagger}}$\ **(3) FatPaths \[This work\]** & L2–L3 & & & & & & &\ \[tab:intro\] We extensively compare FatPaths to other routing schemes in Table \[tab:intro\]. FatPaths is *the only scheme* that simultaneously (1) enables multi-pathing using both (2) shortest and (3) non-shortest paths, (4) explicitly considers disjoint paths for highest performance, (5) offers adaptive load balancing, and (6) is generic, being applicable across topologies. Table \[tab:intro\] focuses on various aspects of path diversity, because as topologies lower their diameter and reduce link count, path diversity, which is key to high performance of routing, *becomes a scarce resource demanding careful examination and use*. Even if FatPaths primarily targets Ethernet networks, most its schemes are generic. We briefly discuss the feasibility of **implementing Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA)** [@fompi-paper] technologies such as RDMA over Converged Ethernet (RoCE) [@infiniband2014rocev2] and Internet Wide Area RDMA Protocol (iWARP) [@iwarp] on top of FatPaths. For wide applicability in data centers and cloud systems, we integrate FatPaths with TCP protocols such as Data Center TCP (DCTCP) [@alizadeh2011data] and MPTCP [@raiciu2011improving]. We also summarize advantages of FatPaths over flow control schemes such as Priority Flow Control (PFC) [@ieee802.1bb; @pfc_paper]. Finally, we discuss how FatPaths **could enhance Infiniband**, possibly starting a line of future work on more powerful lossless routing on low-diameter topologies. We conduct extensive, large-scale packet-level simulations, and a comprehensive theoretical analysis. ***We simulate topologies with up to $\approx$1 million endpoints*** (to the best of our knowledge, these are the largest shared-memory simulations so far). We motivate FatPaths in Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_motiv\]. Slim Fly and Xpander equipped with FatPaths ensure $\approx$15% higher throughput and $\approx$2 lower latency than similar-cost fat trees, for various flow sizes[^2] and for heavily-skewed traffic. {width="48.00000%"} \[fig:ndp\_results\_motiv\] Towards the above goals, we contribute: - A **simple and resilient routing architecture, FatPaths**, that successfully combines existing techniques from the HPC and datacenter communities, requires simple network hardware, and supports both shortest and non-minimal paths (\[sec:overview\], \[sec:routing\]). - The identification of diversity of non-minimal paths as **a key resource** and the first **detailed analysis of the potential for multipath routing** in five low-diameter network topologies, considering several metrics for their path diversity (\[sec:paths\]). - A **novel path diversity metric** (Path Interference) that captures bandwidth loss between specific pairs of routers (\[sec:paths\]) and enhaces the path diversity analysis. - A comprehensive analysis of existing routing schemes in terms of their support for path diversity (Table \[tab:intro\]). - A **theoretical analysis** illustrating the advantages coming from FatPaths (\[sec:theory\]). Extending the Topobench tool [@jyothi2016measuring] for analyzing network throughput with the Linear Programming formulation of layered routing schemes (\[sec:theory\]). - Extensive, large-scale packet-level simulations (reaching around **one million endpoints**) to demonstrate the advantages of low-diameter network topologies equipped with FatPaths over very recent Clos designs, achieving 15% higher net throughput at 2$\times$ lower latency for comparable cost (\[sec:eval\]). Notation, Background, Concepts {#sec:back} ============================== We first introduce the notation and basic concepts. The most important used symbols are summarized in Table \[tab:symbols\]. -- --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- $V, E$ Sets of vertices/edges (routers/links, $V=\{0,\dots,N_r-1\}$). $N, N_r$ \#endpoints and \#routers in the network ($N_r = |V|$). $p$ \#endpoints attached to a router (*concentration*). $k'$ \#channels to other routers (*network radix*). $k$ *Router radix* ($k = k' + p$). $D, d$ Network diameter and the average path length. $x \in V$ Different routers used in \[sec:paths\] ($x \in \{s,t,a,b,c,d\}$). $X \subset V$ Different router sets used in \[sec:paths\] ($X \in \{A,B\}$). $c_l(A,B)$ *Count of (at most $l$-hop) disjoint paths* between router sets $A$, $B$. $c_\text{min}(s,t)$ *Diversity of minimal paths* between routers $s$ and $t$. $l_\text{min}(s,t)$ *Lengths of minimal paths* between routers $s$ and $t$. $I_{ac,bd}$ *Path interference* between pairs of routers $a,b$ and $c,d$. $n$ The total number of layers in FatPaths routing. $\sigma_i$ A layer, defined by its forwarding function, $i\in \{1,\dots,n\}$. $\rho$ Fraction of edges used in routing. -- --------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \[tab:symbols\] Network Model ------------- We model an interconnection network as an undirected graph $G = (V,E)$; $V$ and $E$ are sets of [routers[^3]]{} ($|V| = N_r$) and full-duplex inter-router physical links. Endpoints are *not* modeled explicitly. There are $N$ endpoints in total, $p$ endpoints are attached to each router (*concentration*) and $k'$ channels from each router to other routers (*network radix*). The total router *radix* is $k = p+k'$. The diameter is $D$ while the average path length is $d$. Network Topologies ------------------ We summarize the considered topologies in Table \[tab:parameters\]. We consider [Slim Fly]{} (SF) [@besta2014slim] (a variant with $D=2$), [Dragonfly]{} (DF) [@kim2008technology] (the “balanced” variant with $D=3$), [Jellyfish]{} (JF) [@singla2012jellyfish] (with $D=3$), [Xpander]{} (XP) [@valadarsky2015] (with $D \le 3$), [HyperX]{} (Hamming graph) (HX) [@ahn2009hyperx] that generalizes [Flattened Butterflies]{} (FBF) [@kim2007flattened] with $D=3$. We also use established three-stage [fat trees]{} (FT3) [@leiserson1996cm5] that are a variant of the [Clos network]{} [@clos1953study]. ### Topology Types   Some selected networks are *flexible* (parameters determining their structure can have arbitrary values) while most are *fixed* (parameters must follow well-defined closed-form expressions). Next, networks can be *group hierarchical* (routers form *groups* connected with the same pattern of intra-group *local* cables and then groups are connected with *global* inter-group links), *semi-hierarchical* (there is some structure but no such groups), or *flat* (no distinctive hierarchical structure at all). Finally, topologies can be *random* (based on randomized constructions) or *deterministic*. **Topology** **Structure remarks** $D$ **Variant** **Deployed?** -------------- ----------------------- -------- ------------- --------------- 2 unknown 2 unknown 3 3 unknown $\le$3 randomized unknown $\le$3 unknown 4 \[tab:parameters\] ### Fair Selection of Topology Parameters   We use four classes of sizes $N$: small ($N \approx 1,000$), medium ($N \approx 10,000$), large ($N \approx 100,000$), and huge ($N \approx 1,000,000$). We set concentration to $p = \frac{k'}d$ (in the technical report, we show that, assuming random uniform traffic, $p = \frac{k'}{d}$ maximizes throughput while minimizing congestion and network cost). We set concentration to $p = \frac{k'}d$; it maximizes throughput while minimizing congestion and network cost (we analyze this later in \[sec:eval\]). Third, we select network radix $k'$ and router count $N_r$ so that, for a fixed $N$, the compared topologies use similar amounts of networking hardware and thus have similar construction costs. ### Special Case: Jellyfish   The considered topologies cannot use arbitrary values of $N_r$ and $k'$. An exception is Jellyfish, which is “fully flexible”: There is a JF instance for each combination of $N_r$ and $k'$. Thus, to fully evaluate JF, *for every other network* X, *we consider an equivalent* JF (denoted as X-JF) with identical values of $N_r, k'$. {width="100.00000%"} \[fig:functional\] Flow Model ---------- We use a Poisson-distributed [flow arrival rate]{} and a [matrix]{} defined on endpoint pairs to model [flow sizes]{} and traffic. Considered Traffic Patterns --------------------------- We analyze recent works in high-performance and datacenter networking [@besta2014slim; @prisacari2013fast; @yuan2014lfti; @yuan2013new; @prisacari2014efficient; @prisacari2014randomizing; @kathareios2015cost; @prisacari2015performance; @chen2016evaluation; @prisacari2013bandwidth; @karacali2018assessing; @sehery2017flow; @kassing2017beyond] to select traffic patterns that represent important HPC workloads and cloud or datacenter traffic. Denote a set of endpoint IDs $\{1, ..., N\}$ as $V_e$. Formally, a traffic pattern is a mapping from source endpoint IDs $s \in V_e$ to destination endpoints $t(s) \in V_e$. ### Random Patterns   First, we select **random uniform** $$t(s) \in V_e \text{\ u.a.r.,}$$ and **random permutation** $$t(s) = \pi_N(s) \in V_e,\quad \pi_N\ \text{is a permutation selected u.a.r..}$$ These patterns represent **irregular workloads** such as graph computations, sparse linear algebra solvers, and adaptive mesh refinement methods [@Yuan:2013:NRS:2503210.2503229]. They are used in both HPC studies [@besta2014slim] and data center and cloud infrastructure analyses [@karacali2018assessing; @sehery2017flow; @lebiednik2016survey]. ### Off-Diagonal Patterns   We also use **off-diagonals**: $$t(s) = (s+c) \mod N,\quad \text{for fixed } c.$$ These patterns are often used in workloads such as nearest neighbor data exchanges [@Yuan:2013:NRS:2503210.2503229], used in HPC and data centers [@jyothi2016measuring]. ### Bit Permutation Patterns   Next, we pick **shuffle**, a traffic pattern that represents bit permutation pattern: $$t(s) = \operatorname{rotl}_i(s) \mod N,\quad 2^i < N < 2^{i+1}$$ where the bitwise left rotation on $i$ bits is denoted as $\operatorname{rotl}_i$. They represent **collective operations** such as MPI-all-to-all or MPI-all-gather [@besta2014slim; @Yuan:2013:NRS:2503210.2503229], used in HPC. They are also used for the evaluation of data center networks [@sehery2017flow; @lebiednik2016survey; @kassing2017beyond]. ### Stencils   We also use **stencils, realistic traffic patterns often used in HPC**. We model 2D stencils as four off-diagonals at fixed offsets $c \in \{\pm 1,$ $\pm 1, \pm 42,$ $\pm 42\}$. For large simulations ($N > 10,000$) we also use offsets $c \in \{\pm 1,$ $\pm 1, \pm 1337,$ $\pm 1337\}$ to reduce counts of communicating endpoint pairs that sit on the same switches. ### All-To-One In this pattern, traffic from all endpoints is directed towards a single random endpoint in the network. ### Adversarial Pattern   We use a skewed off-diagonal with large offsets (we make sure it has a very high amount of colliding paths). ### Worst-Case Pattern   Finally, we use **worst-case** traffic patterns. We focus on a recently proposed pattern, developed specifically to maximize stress on the interconnect while hampering effective routing [@jyothi2016measuring]. This pattern **is generated individually for each topology**. It uses maximum weighted matching algorithms to find a pairing of endpoints that maximizes average flow path length, using both elephant and small flows. As the generation process is individual for each network, our worst-case pattern stresses the interconnect in any setting, including HPC systems, data centers, or any other cloud infrastructure. FatPaths Architecture: Overview {#sec:overview} =============================== We first outline the FatPaths architecture. **A design summary is in Figure \[fig:functional\].** FatPaths stands on four key design ideas that, combined, effectively use the “fat” diversity of minimal and non-minimal paths. These ideas are layered non-minimal routing, flowlet load balancing, “purified” transport, and randomized workload mapping. Layered Routing --------------- To encode the diversity of minimal *and non-minimal* paths with commodity hardware, FatPaths divides all the links into (not necessarily disjoint) subsets called *layers*. Routing within each layer uses shortest paths; these paths are usually *not* shortest when considering all network links. Different layers encode different paths between each endpoint pair. This enables taking advantage of the diversity of non-minimal paths in low-diameter topologies. The number of layers is minimized to reduce hardware resources needed to deploy layers. Layers can easily be implemented with commodity schemes, e.g., VLANs or a simple partitioning of the address space. We provide two schemes for the construction of layers: a simple randomized approach and an augmentation that minimizes the number of overlapping paths between communicating endpoints. Moreover, we encode existing routing schemes that enable multi-pathing, such as SPAIN [@mudigonda2010spain], PAST [@stephens2012past], and $k$-shortest paths [@singla2012jellyfish], using FatPaths layers. We analyze which scheme is most advantageous for which topology. Load Balancing -------------- To achieve very simple but powerful load balancing, we use flowlet switching [@sinha2004burstiness; @kandula2007dynamic], a technique used in the past to alleviate packet reordering in TCP. A flowlet is a sequence (also referred to as a burst) of packets within one flow, separated from other flowlets by sufficient time gaps. Now, flowlet switching can also be used for a *very* simple load balancing: a router simply picks a random path for each flowlet, without *any* probing for congestion. This scheme was used for Clos networks [@vanini2017letflow]. The power of such load balancing lies in the fact that flowlets are *elastic*: their size changes *automatically* based on conditions in the network. On paths that have higher latency or lower bandwidth, flowlets are usually smaller in size because time gaps large enough to separate two flowlets are more frequent. Contrarily, paths with lower latency and more bandwidth feature longer flowlets because such time gaps appear less often. We propose to use flowlets in low-diameter non-Clos networks, as a load balancing part of FatPaths. Here, we combine flowlets with layered routing: *each flow is divided into flowlets that are sent using different layers*. The key observation is that elasticity of flowlets *automatically* ensures that such load balancing takes into account both static network properties (e.g., longer vs. shorter paths) and dynamic network properties (e.g., more vs. less congestion). Consider a pair of communicating routers. As we will show later (\[sec:paths\]), virtually all router pairs are connected with exactly one shortest part but multiple non-minimal paths, possibly of different lengths. In many workload scenarios, a shortest path experiences smallest congestion. Contrarily, longer paths are more likely to be congested. Here, the elasticity of flowlet load balancing ensures that larger flowlets are sent over shorter and less congested paths. Shorter flowlets are then transmitted over longer and usually more congested paths. Purified Transport with NDP [@handley2017re] -------------------------------------------- Transport layer in FatPaths is inspired by recent Clos transport designs, namely NDP [@handley2017re], in that it removes virtually all TCP and Ethernet issues that hamper latency and throughput. First, if router queues fill up, *only packet payload is dropped*. As packet headers with all the metadata are preserved, the receiver has full information on the congestion in the network and can pull the data from the sender at a rate dictated by the evolving network conditions. Specifically, the receiver can request to change a layer $i$, when packets within flowlets transmitted over paths belonging to $i$ arrive without payload, indicating congestion. Second, routers enable prioritization of (1) headers of packets that lost their payload, and (2) retransmitted packets. This ensures that congested flows finish quickly and it reduces head-of-line-blocking. Third, senders transmit the first RTT at line rate, without probing for available bandwidth. Finally, router queues are shallow. All these elements result in a low-latency and high-throughput transport layer that meets demands of various traffic patterns and can be implemented with existing network technology. Randomized Workload Mapping --------------------------- We [optionally]{} use random assignments, where communicating endpoints are located at routers chosen u.a.r (uniformly at random). First, one often cannot rely on locality due to schedulers or virtualization. For example, Cray machines often host processes from one job in different machine parts to increase utilization. Second, many workloads, such as distributed graph processing, have little or no locality [@lumsdaine2007challenges]. Finally, perhaps most importantly, the low diameter of used topologies, especially the ones with $D=2$, mostly eliminates the need for locality-aware software. We predict that this will be a future trend as *reducing cost and power consumption with simultaneous increase in scale [is inherently associated with reducing diameter]{}* [@besta2014slim]. However, to cover applications tuned for locality, **we also evaluate non-randomized workloads** and show that FatPaths ensures the highest performance in such cases as well. Path Diversity in Modern Topologies {#sec:paths} =================================== FatPaths *enables* using the diversity of paths in low-diameter topologies for high-performance routing. To develop FatPaths, we first need to understand the “nature” of this path diversity. We also justify and motivate using multi-pathing in low-diameter networks. Namely, we show that [low-diameter topologies exhibit congestion due to conflicting flows even in mild traffic scenarios]{} and we derive the minimum number of disjoint paths that would eliminate flow conflicts (\[sec:collisions\]). We then formalize the notion of “path diversity” (\[sec:measuring-diversity\]) and we use our formal measures to show that *all low-diameter topologies have few shortest but enough non-minimal paths to accommodate flow collisions, an important type of flow conflicts* (\[sec:collisions-details\]). In evaluation (\[sec:eval\]), we show that another type of flow conflicts, flow overlaps, is also alleviated by FatPaths. *To the best of our knowledge, compared to recent works in low-diameter networks [@valadarsky2015; @kathareios2015cost; @jyothi2016measuring; @singla2012jellyfish; @kassing2017beyond; @besta2018slim; @li2018exascale; @kawano2018k; @harsh2018expander; @kawano2016loren; @truong2016layout; @flajslik2018megafly; @kawano2017layout; @azizi2016hhs; @truong2016distributed; @al2017new]*, **we provide the most extensive analysis of path diversity in low-diameter networks so far (with respect to the number of path diversity metrics and topologies).** We summarize various findings; all the data is in the technical report. {width="1.4\columnwidth"} How Much Path Diversity Do We Need? {#sec:collisions} ----------------------------------- FatPaths uses path diversity [to avoid congestion]{} due to *conflicting flows*. Consider two communicating pairs of endpoints. Generated flows *conflict* when their paths **collide** (i.e., flows use an identical path) [or]{} **overlap** (i.e., flows share some links), see Figure \[fig:paths-problems\]. Collisions only depend on how communicating endpoints are attached to routers (i.e., on $p$, $N_r$, and thus also indirectly $D$). Intuitively, collisions measure *workload [demand]{} for path diversity* (multi-pathing). Contrarily, overlaps depend on the topology details (i.e., how routers are connected to other routers). Intuitively, overlaps capture *how well a topology can sustain a workload*. {width="1\columnwidth"} \[fig:paths-problems\] To understand how much path diversity is needed to alleviate flow conflicts, we analyze the impact of topology properties (diameter $D$, concentration $p$, size $N$) and a traffic pattern on the number of colliding paths, see Figure \[fig:path\_collisions\]. For $D > 1$, the number of collisions is at most three in most cases, especially when lowering $D$ (while increasing $p$). Importantly, this holds for the adversarial 4$\times$ oversubscribed patterns that stress the interconnect. For $D=1$, at least nine collisions occur for more than 1% of router pairs, even in mild traffic patterns. While we do not consider $D=1$ in practical applications, we indicate that global DF links form a complete graph, demanding high path diversity at least with respect to the global links. We consider five traffic patterns: a random permutation, a randomly-mapped off-diagonal, a randomly mapped shuffle, four random permutations in parallel, and a randomly mapped 4-point stencil composed of four off-diagonals. The last two patterns are 4$\times$ oversubscribed and thus *expected to generate even more collisions*. Takeaway  We need at least three disjoint paths per router pair to handle colliding paths in any considered workloads, assuming random mapping. As the number of colliding paths lower bounds the number of overlapping paths, the same holds for overlaps. How Should We Measure Path Diversity? {#sec:measuring-diversity} ------------------------------------- To analyze whether low-diameter topologies provide at least three disjoint paths per router pair, we need to first *formalize* the notion of “disjoint paths” and ”path diversity” in general. For example, we must be able to distinguish between *partially or fully disjoint* paths that may have *different lengths*. Thus, we first define *the count of disjoint paths* (CDP), minimal and non-minimal, between routers (\[sec:ec\]). This measures address path **collisions**. Moreover, to analyze path **overlaps**, we define two further measures: *path interference* ([PI]{}, \[sec:pi\]) and *total network load* ([TNL]{}, \[sec:tnl\]). We summarize each measure and we provide all formal details for reproducibility; these details can be omitted by readers only interested in intuition. We use several measures because any single measure that we tested cannot fully capture the rich concept of path diversity. ### **Count of Disjoint Paths (CDP)** {#sec:ec}   We define the count of *disjoint* paths (CDP) between router sets $A, B \subseteq V$ at length $l$ as the *smallest* number $c_l(A,B)$ of edges that must be removed so that *no path of length at most $l$ exists from any router in $A$ to any router in $B$*. To compute $c_l(A,B)$, first define the $l$-step neighborhood $h^l(A)$ of a router set $A$ as “a set of routers at $l$ hops away from $A$”: $$\begin{aligned} h(A) &= \{t \in V: \exists_{s \in A}\ \{s,t\} \in E\}\quad \text{(``routers attached to $A$'')} \nonumber\\ h^l(A) &= \underbrace{h(\cdots h(}_{l \text{\ times}} A)\cdots)\quad \text{(``$l$-step neighborhood of $A$'')}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Now, the condition that no path of length at most $l$ exists between any router in $A$ to any router in $B$ is $h^l(A) \cap B = \emptyset$. To derive the values of $c_l(A,B)$, we use a variant of the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm [@ford1956maximal] (with various pruning heuristics) that removes edges in paths between designated routers in $A$ and $B$ (at various distances $l$) and verifies whether $h^l(A) \cap B = \emptyset$. We are most often interested in pairs of designated routers $s$ and $t$, and we use $A = \{s\}, B = \{t\}$. **Minimal paths** are vital in routing and congestion reduction as they use fewest resources for each flow. We derive the *distribution* of minimal path *distances* $l_\text{min}$ and *diversities* $c_\text{min}$. Intuitively, $l_\text{min}$ describes (statistically) distances between any router pairs while $c_\text{min}$ provides their respective counts. We have: $$\begin{aligned} l_\text{min}(s,t) &= \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{i\in \mathbb{N}}\{t \in h^i(\{s\})\}\quad \text{(``minimal path distances'')}\nonumber\\ c_\text{min}(s,t) &= c_{l}(\{s\},\{t\}) \text{ with } l=l_\text{min}(s,t)\quad \text{(``counts of minimal paths'')}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that the diameter $D$ equals $\max_{s,t}\ l_\text{min}(s,t)$. For **non-minimal paths**, we consider the CDP $c_{l}(A,B)$ of random router pairs $s \in A, t \in B$, with path lengths $l > l_\text{min}(s,t)$. ### **Path Interference (PI)** {#sec:pi}  We define Path Interference (PI) which is – to the best of our knowledge – the first metric that measures path overlap while considering the local topology structure. Here, paths between two router pairs $a,b$ and $c,d$ ($a$ communicates with $b$; $c$ communicates with $d$) *interfere* if their total count of disjoint paths at length $l$ $c_{l}(\{a,c\},\{b,d\})$ is lower than the sum of individual counts of disjoint paths (at $l$) $c_{l}(\{a\},\{b\}) + c_{l}(\{c\},\{d\})$. We denote path interference with $I^l_{ac,bd}$ and define it as $$I^l_{ac,bd} = c_{l}(\{a\},\{b\}) + c_{l}(\{c\},\{d\}) - c_{l}(\{a,c\},\{b,d\})$$ ***Path interference captures the fact that, if $a$ and $b$ communicate, the available bandwidth between $c$ and $d$ is reduced***. ### **Total Network Load (TNL)** {#sec:tnl}  TNL is a simple *upper bound on the number of flows that a network can maintain without congestion*. Intuitively, it constitutes the maximum *supply of path diversity* offered by a topology. It uses the notion that a flow occupying a path of length $l$ “consumes” $l$ links. TNL is defined as $\frac{k' N_r}{d}$.   Due to the rich nature of path diversity, we suggest to use several measures, for example count of minimal as well as non-minimal disjoint paths (measuring collisions) and path interference as well as total network load (measuring overlaps). ![[]{data-label="fig:shortest_path_length"}](shortest_path_length_edited___mac_noHX2.pdf "fig:"){width="1.01\columnwidth"}\ ![[]{data-label="fig:shortest_path_length"}](shortest_path_multiplicity_edited___mac_noHX2.pdf "fig:"){width="1.01\columnwidth"} \[fig:shortest\_path\_multiplicity\] {width="1.65\columnwidth"} Do We Have Enough Path Diversity? {#sec:collisions-details} --------------------------------- We now use our measures to analyze path diversity in low-diameter networks. First, selected results on **minimum paths** are in Figure \[fig:shortest\_path\_length\]. In DF and SF, most routers are connected with one minimal path. In XP, more than 30% of routers are connected with one minimal path only. In the corresponding JF networks, the results are more leveled out, but pairs of routers with one shortest part in-between still form large fractions. FT3 and HX show the highest diversity, with very few unique minimal paths, while the matching JFs have lower diversities. The results match the structure of each topology (e.g., one can distinguish intra- and inter-pod paths in FT3).  . For **non-minimal paths**, we first summarize the results in Table \[tab:measures\]. We report counts of disjoint paths as *fractions of router radix $k'$* to make these counts radix-invariant. For example, the mean CDP of 89% in SF means that 89% of router links host disjoint paths. In general, all deterministic topologies provide higher disjoint path diversity than their corresponding JFs, but there are specific router pairs with lower diversity that lead to undesired tail behavior. JFs have more predictable tail behavior due to the Gaussian distribution of $c_{l}(A,B)$. A closer analysis of this distribution (Figure \[fig:edge\_disjoint\_paths\]) reveals details about each topology. For example, for HX, router pairs can clearly be separated into classes sharing zero, one, or two coordinate values, corresponding to the HX array structure. Another example is SF, where lower $c_{l}(A,B)$ are related to pairs connected with an edge while higher $c_{l}(A,B)$ in DF are related to pairs in the same group or pairs connected with specific sequences of local and global links. We describe all remaining data in the report.   In general, *[considered topologies provide three disjoint “almost”-minimal (one hop longer) paths per router pair]{}*. ***Considered topologies provide three disjoint “almost”-minimal (one hop longer) paths per router pair***. Next, we sample router pairs u.a.r. and derive full **path interference** distributions; they all follow the Gaussian distribution. Selected results are in Figure \[fig:interference-dist\] (we omit XP and XP-JF; both are nearly identical to SF-JF). As the combination space is large, most samples fall into a common case, where PI is small (c.f. small fractions). We thus focus on the extreme tail of the distribution (we show both mean and tail), see Table \[tab:measures\]. We use radix-invariant PI values (as for CDP) at a distance $d'$ selected to ensure that the 99.9% tail of collisions $c_{d'}(A,B) \ge 3$. Thus, we analyze PI in cases where demand from a workload is larger than the “supply of path diversity” from a network (three disjoint paths per router pair). All topologies except for DF achieve negligible PI for $d'=4$, but the diameter-2 topologies do experience PI at $d'=3$. SF shows the lowest PI in general, but has (few) high-interference outliers. *In general, random* JFs *have higher average PI but less PI in tails, while deterministic topologies tend to perform better on average with worse tails*. {width="1.75\columnwidth"} \[fig:interference-dist\] [lccrrr|rrrr|rrrr]{} & &\ & & & & & & & & &\ & $D$ & $d'$ &$k'$ & $N_r$ & $N$ & mean & & mean & & mean & & mean &\ clique & 1 & 2 & 100 & 101 & 10100 & 100% & 100% & 2% & 2% & – & – & – & –\ SF & 2 & 3 & 29 & 722 & 10108 & 89% & 10% & 26% & 79% & 56% & 38% & 23% & 45%\ XP & 3 & 3 & 32 & 1056 & 16896 & 49% & 34% & 20% & 41% & 51% & 34% & 21% & 41%\ HX & 3 & 3 & 30 & 1331 & 13310 & 25% & 10% & 9% & 67% & 50% & 23% & 17% & 37%\ DF & 3 & 4 & 23 & 2064 & 16512 & 25% & 13% & 8% & 74% & 87% & 78% & 13% & 26%\ FT3 & 4 & 4 & 18 & 1620 & 11664 & 100% & 100% & 0 & 0 & 96% & 90% & 5% & 14%\ \[tab:measures\] Final Takeaway on Path Diversity {#sec:paths-discussion} -------------------------------- We show a fundamental tradeoff between path length and diversity. High-diameter topologies, such as FT, provide high path diversity, even on minimal paths. Yet, due to longer paths, more links are needed for an equivalent $N$ and performance. Low-diameter topologies *fall short of shortest paths*, but *do provide enough path diversity on non-minimal paths, requiring non-minimal routing*. Yet, this may reduce the cost advantage of low-diameter networks *with adversarial workloads*, since many non-minimal paths need to be used, consuming additional links. *Workload randomization in FatPaths suffices to avoid this effect*. ***We conclude that low-diameter topologies host enough path diversity for alleviating flow conflicts. We now show how to effectively use this diversity in FatPaths.*** FatPaths: Design and Implementation {#sec:routing} =================================== *FatPaths is a high-performance, simple, and robust **routing architecture** that uses rich path diversity in low-diameter topologies* (analyzed in \[sec:paths\]) *to enhance Ethernet stacks in clusters, data centers, and supercomputers*. FatPaths aims to accelerate both cloud computing and HPC workloads. We now summarize key design ideas behind FatPaths. First, we develop the layered routing scheme that (1) is capable of encoding the rich diversity of both minimal and non-minimal paths, and (2) can be implemented with commodity Ethernet hardware. Second, we combine layered routing with flowlet switching and a “purified” transport layer based on very recent Clos designs [@handley2017re]. The former enables very simple but powerful load balancing. The latter ensures low-latency and high-throughput transport. The design of both load balancing and transport layer is straightforward and presented in \[sec:overview\] and Figure \[fig:functional\]. *Here, we focus on the **layered routing**, the key element of FatPaths that enables using the rich “fat” path diversity analyzed in \[sec:paths\]*. Routing Model ------------- We assume simple destination-based routing, compatible with any relevant technology, including source-based systems like NDP. To compute the output port $j \in \{1,\dots,k'\}$ in a router $s \in V$ for a packet addressed to a router $t \in V$, and simultaneously the ID of the next-hop router $s' \in V$, a routing function $(j,s') = \sigma(s,t)$ is evaluated. By iteratively applying $\sigma$ with fixed $t$ we eventually reach $s' = t$ and finish. The forwarding function $\sigma$ must be defined such that a path from any $s$ to any $t$ is *loop-free*. Layered Routing {#sec:routing-layers} --------------- We use $n$ routing functions $\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_n$ for $n$ layers, where each router uses function $\sigma_i$ for a packet with a *layer tag* $i$ attached. The layer tags are chosen on the endpoint by the adaptivity algorithm. We use $n$ layers associated with $n$ routing functions. Each router uses the $i$-th routing function, denoted as $\sigma_i$, for a packet with a *layer tag* $i$ attached. All layers but one accommodate a fraction of links, maintaining non-minimal paths. One layer (associated with $\sigma_1$) uses all links, maintaining minimal paths. A single layer constitutes a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). The fraction of links in one layer is controlled by a parameter $\rho \in [0;1]$. Now, the interplay between $\rho$ and $n$ is important. More layers (higher $n$) that are sparse (lower $\rho$) give more paths that are long, giving more path diversity, but also more wasted bandwidth (as paths are long). More layers that are dense reduce wasted bandwidth but also give fewer disjoint paths. Still, this may be enough as we need three paths per router pair. *One ideally needs more dense layers or fewer sparse layers*. Thus, an important part of deploying FatPaths is selecting the best $\rho$ and $n$ for a given network ($\rho =1$ can be used if there is high minimal-path diversity in the topology.) To facilitate implementation of FatPaths, we provide configurations of layers ($\rho, n$) that ensure high-performance routing for each used topology. Files with full specifications are in a dedicated repository (see link on page 1) while *performance analysis of different $\rho$ and $n$ is in \[sec:theory\] and \[sec:eval\]*. ### **Construction of Layers** Construction of Layers ---------------------- \[sec:routing\_computing\] We develop two schemes for constructing layers in FatPaths; we also adapt selected existing protocols. ### Random Permutations   An overview of layer construction is in Listing \[lst:layers\]. We start with one layer with all links for maintaining shortest paths. We use $n-1$ random permutations of vertices to generate $n-1$ random layers. Each such layer is a subset $E' \subset E$ with $\lfloor\rho\cdot |E|\rfloor$ edges sampled u.a.r.. The network may become disconnected with $E'$, but for the used values of $\rho$, this is unlikely and a small number of attempts delivers a connected network. $L$ = $\{E\}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Init a set of layers $L$; we start with $E$ that corresponds to $\sigma_1$.}| $P$ = $\{\pi_1(V), ..., \pi_{n-1}(V)\}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Generate $n-1$ random permutations of vertices.}| foreach $\pi \in P$ do: //|\textcolor{gray}{Iterate over each of the generated permutations...}| //|\textcolor{gray}{One iteration of the \underline{main loop} derives one layer associated with some $\sigma_i$.}| $E'$ = $\{\}$; foreach $(u,v) \in E$ do: //|\textcolor{gray}{Below, a condition "$\pi(u)$ <$ \pi(v)$" ensures layer's acyclicity.}| //|\textcolor{gray}{Below, a call to rnd(0,1) returns a random number $\in [0;1)$.}| if($\pi(u)$ < $\pi(v)$ and rnd(0,1) < $\rho$) then: //|\textcolor{gray}{$\rho \in [0;1]$ (see \cref{sec:routing-layers}) is a parameter that controls layer's sparsity.}| //|\textcolor{gray}{If we end up here, it means the edge $(u,v)$ was sampled.}| $E'$=$E' \cup (u,v)$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Add a sampled edge to the layer.}| $L$ = $L \cup \{E'\}$ ### Minimizing Path Overlap   We also use a variant in which, instead of randomized edge picking while creating paths within layers, we use a simple heuristic that minimizes path interference. For each router pair, we pick a set of paths with minimized overlap with paths already placed in other layers. Importantly, while computing paths, *we prefer paths that are one hop longer than minimal ones, using the insights from the path diversity analysis (\[sec:paths\])*. The algorithm is depicted in Listing \[lst:layersFp\]. In general, the algorithm iterates over pairs of vertices uses a priority queue $Q$ to determine which pair of vertices is picked next selects pairs of vertices $(u, v) \in V \times V$ with lowest priority, from the priority queue $Q$ (currently pairs with lowest priority have the least number of paths, that were already placed in the layers), searches for shortest simple directed path from $u$ to $v$ of length at least equal to $L_{min}$ (Listing \[lst:layersFp\], functionality provided by ${findPath}$) and adds the found path to the layer which is currently being created. At the moment of initialization, every layer generates $verticesPairs$ set containing all pairs of vertices $(u, v) \in V \times V$. This set is further used to supervise the process of vertices selection and to keep track of these pairs, that still can be sampled from $Q$ – the $Q.getPair(verticesPairs)$ function returns a pair of vertices still present in $verticesPairs$, which has the lowest priority in $Q$ (in case of equal priority, a random pair is chosen). After processing a pair of vertices $(u, v)$, chosen from $Q$, and adding to the layer a valid directed path $(v_1, v_2, \dots v_d)$, such that $v_1 = u$, $v_d = v$ and $d \geq L_{min} + 1$, pairs of vertices $(v_i, v_j)$, such that $j - i < L_{min}$ may be deleted from $verticesPairs$ set, as even if an additional path from $v_i$ to $v_j$ of length at least $L_{min}$ will be added, there will still exist this shorter path between these vertices (the one contained by the path $(v_1, v_2, \dots v_d)$). Thus, the new path will not be used to forward the traffic between these two vertices in this layer. Similarly, if the layer already includes a path $(v_1, v_2, \dots v_d)$, then adding an edge between any two not directly connected vertices $v_1, \dots v_d$, will force the traffic from $v_1$ to $v_d$ to be forwarded using shorter path, thereby through this added edge. This may not necessarily introduce a decline of overall achievable throughput, however it impedes the process of tracking pairs of vertices, that have already various paths between them provided. In order to avoid this, we exclude all edges $(v_i, v_j)$, such that $|i - j| > 1 $. This is achieved through the definition and usage of $incidence_G$ variable representing the incidence matrix of the graph $G$. As the ${findPath}$ function takes the given permutation $\pi$ into consideration, while searching for the path (the function considers only these edges $(v_i, v_j) \in E$, for which $\pi(v_i) < \pi(v_j)$), there is no need to verify whether adding the path to the graph will create any cycle. Additionally, the edges are being processed by the $findPath$ function in the order given by the $weights$ matrix, to use the least exploited edges. In order to enhance the efficiency of generating each of the layers a constant $M$ has been introduced, which helps to limit the number of pairs of vertices, for which paths can be added, per each layer. It also helps to distribute the paths evenly between the layers. $L$ = $\{E\}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Init a set of layers $L$; we start with $E$ that corresponds to $\sigma_1$}.| $\Pi$ = $\{\pi_1(V), ..., \pi_{n-1}(V)\}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Generate $n-1$ random permutations of vertices}.| //|\textcolor{gray}{Init a priority queue $Q$. One queue element is a pair of distinct vertices}.| $Q = \{(u,v)\ |\ (u,v) \in V \times V, u \neq v \}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Init a matrix $W$ containing weights of edges $(u,v) \in E$}| $W = \{ [w_{uv}] \quad | \quad \forall u, v \in V: w_{uv} = 0 \}$ foreach $\pi \in \Pi$ { //|\textcolor{gray}{One iteration of the \underline{main loop} derives one layer}| $E'$ = create_layer($\pi$, $Q$, $E$, $W$, $L_{min}$, $L_{max}$); //|\textcolor{gray}{Generate a layer.}| $L$ = $L \cup \{E'\}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Record the layer}| |\vspace{0.25em}|} //|\textcolor{gray}{End of the \underline{main loop}}| //|\textcolor{gray}{Derive a layer that corresponds to some $\sigma_i$}| create_layer($\pi$, $Q$, $E$, $W$, $L_{min}$, $L_{max}$) { //|\textcolor{gray}{A condition "$\pi(u) < \pi(v)$" ensures layer's acyclicity.}| $\mathcal{V} = \{ (u,v) \in V \times V : \pi(u) < \pi(v) \}$ $incidence_G = \textsc{incidenceMatrix}(G)$ $p_{cnt} = 0$ while ($\mathcal{V} \neq \emptyset$ and $p_{cnt} < M$) { $(u,v) = Q.pop(\mathcal{V})$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Get a pair of vertices with lowest priority}| $path = (v_1, v_2 \dots, v_d) \gets \textsc{findPath} (p, u, v, W, incidence_G, minLenght,$ $L_{max})$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Find path from $u$ to $v$, with path of $length \in [L_{min}, L_{max}]$, minimizing the sum of edge weights, such that for $i < j$: $\pi(v_i) < \pi(v_j)$ and the available edges are given by the $incidence_G$ matrix}| if ($path$ exists) { |\maciej{What is the condition for not existing?}| $p_{cnt} = p_{cnt} + 1$ foreach $link \in path$ $E' = E' \cup \{link\}$ //|\textcolor{gray}{Add each edge from $path$ to the current layer}| foreach $\{(v_i, v_j) \in path\ |\ |i - j| > 1\}$ { //|\maciej{?}| $incidence_G[v_i][v_j] = 0$ } //|\textcolor{gray}{Exclude all edges, which will force the traffic from $v_1$ to $v_d$ to use a different path than one that was found}| foreach $v_i, v_j \in path$ where $j - i < L_{min}$ { $\mathcal{V} = \mathcal{V} - (v_i, v_j)$ } //|\textcolor{gray}{ Even if an additional path from $v_i$ to $v_j$ of length at least $L_{min}$ will be added, there will still exist this shorter path between these vertices (the one contained by the path $(v_1, v_2, \dots v_d)$), therefore the pair $(v_i, v_j)$ should be further excluded from the $verticesPair$ set}| } } } The effectiveness of the routing depends strictly on the number and such a choice of the described layers parameters, that allow to exploit the redundancy in a given network topology - the parameter playing the key role in this process is the $L_{min}$ value. In most of the cases the best results were achieved after assigning it to be one hop longer than the shortest paths in the given topology graph. ### Adapting Existing Schemes In addition to our two schemes for generating layers, we also adapt existing approaches that provide multi-pathing. These are SPAIN [@mudigonda2010spain], PAST [@stephens2012past], and $k$-shortest paths [@singla2012jellyfish], three recent schemes that support (1) multi-pathing and (2) disjoint paths (as identified in Table \[tab:intro\]). Populating Forwarding Entries ----------------------------- The $\sigma_i$ functions are deployed with forwarding tables. The process is shown in Listing \[lst:layersEntries\]. To derive these tables, we compute minimum paths between every two routers $s$, $t$ [within layer $\sigma_i$]{}. Then, for each router $s$, we populate the entry for $s$, $t$ in $\sigma_i$ with a port that corresponds to the router $s_i$ that is the first step on a path from $s$ to $t$. We compute all such paths and choose a random first step port, if there are multiple options. For any hypothetical network size, constructing layers is not a computational bottleneck, given the $\mathcal{O}(|V|^2 \log |V|)$ complexity of Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm for $|V|$ vertices [@dijkstra1959note]. Implementation Details {#sec:implementation-dets} ---------------------- We briefly discuss the most important implementation details. ### Implementation of Layers   We propose two schemes to deploy layers. First, a simple way to achieve separation is **partitioning of the address space**. This requires no hardware support, except for sufficiently long addresses. One inserts the layer tag anywhere in the address, the resulting forwarding tables are then simply concatenated. The software stack must support multiple addresses per interface (deployed in Linux since v2.6.12, 2005). Next, similarly to schemes like SPAIN [@mudigonda2010spain] or PAST [@stephens2012past], one can use **VLANs** [@frantz1999vlan] that are a part of the L2 forwarding tuple and provide full separation. Still, the number of available VLANs is hardware limited, and FatPaths does not require separated queues per layer. ### Implementation of Forwarding Functions   Forwarding functions can be implemented with well-known static schemes such as simple lookup tables, either flat **Ethernet exact matching** or hierarchical **TCAM longest prefix matching** tables. In the former, one entry maps a single input tuple to a single next hop. The latter are usually much smaller but more powerful: one entry can provide the next hop information for many input tuples. As not all the considered topologies are hierarchical, we cannot use all the properties of longest match tables. Still, we observe that all endpoints on one router share the routes towards that router. We can thus use prefix-match tables to *reduce the required number of entries from $\mathcal{O}(N)$ to $\mathcal{O}(N_r)$*. This only requires exact matching on a fixed address part. As we mainly target low-diameter topologies, space savings due to moving from $\mathcal{O}(N)$ to $\mathcal{O}(N_r)$ *can be significant*. For example, an SF with $N = 10,830$ has $N_r = 722$. Such semi-hierarchical forwarding was proposed in, for example, PortLand [@niranjan2009portland] and shadow MACs [@agarwal2014shadow]. Since we use a simple, static forwarding function, it can also be implemented on the endpoints themselves, using source routing [@jyothi2015towards]. ### Addressing   To integrate FatPaths with , one can use exact match tables; they should only support masking out a fixed field in the address before lookup, which could be achieved with, for example, P4 [@bosshart2014p4]. Alternatively, one could also use a simple scheme. First, every endpoint has an IP address of the form $10.i.s.h$ for each layer ($s$, $h$, and $i$ identify a router, an endpoint within the router, and the layer ID). Second, for the inter-router links, addresses from a disjoint range are used, e.g,. $192.168.*.*$, with one $/30$ subnet per link. Finally, each router $s$ has one forwarding rule for each other router, of the form $10.i.t.*/24 \textit{ via } 192.168.x.y$, where the inter-router link address is chosen from the router’s ports according to the forwarding function $\sigma_i(s, t)$. ### **Fault-Tolerance**   Fault-tolerance in FatPaths is based on preprovisioning multiple paths within different layers. For major (infrequent) topology updates, we recompute layers [@mudigonda2010spain]. Contrarily, when a failure in some layer is detected, FatPaths redirects the affected flows to a different layer. We rely on established fault tolerance schemes [@mudigonda2010spain; @jain2011viro; @hu2016explicit; @vanini2017letflow; @handley2017re] for the exact mechanisms of failure detection. Traffic redirection is based on flowlets [@vanini2017letflow]. Failures are treated similarly to congestion: the elasticity of flowlets automatically ensures that no data is sent over an unavailable path. Besides flowlet elasticity, the layered FatPaths design enables other fault-tolerance schemes. Assuming L2/Ethernet forwarding and addressing, we propose to adapt a scheme from SPAIN [@mudigonda2010spain] or PAST [@stephens2012past], both of which use the concept of layered routing similar to that in FatPaths. We first identify the layer with a failed element and then reroute the affected flows to a new randomly selected layer. This is done only for endpoints directly affected by the failure; thus, the affected layer continues to operate for endpoints where no failure was detected. The utilization of the affected layer is reestablished upon a receipt of any packet from this layer. Moreover, FatPaths could limit each layer to be a spanning tree and use mechanisms such as Cisco’s proprietary Per-VLAN Spanning Tree (PVST) or IEEE 802.1s MST to fall back to the secondary backup ports offered by these schemes. Finally, assuming L3/IP forwarding and addressing, one could rely on resilience schemes such as VIRO’s [@jain2011viro]. Theoretical Analysis ==================== \[sec:theory\] We now conduct a theoretical analysis. {width="75.00000%"} \[fig:theory\] Comparison Targets ------------------ We first discuss all compared schemes. ### SPAIN   SPAIN [@mudigonda2010spain] uses a set of spanning trees to introduce multi-pathing; one tree is one layer. Paths between endpoints are mapped to the trees, maximizing path disjointness. The tree count is minimized with greedy coloring. The implementation of SPAIN consists of two main stages: pre-computation of paths exploiting redundancy in a given network topology and mapping the path sets to VLANs. The complexity of path computation and path layout algorithm is equal to $O(V^2(V+E))$. The first stage of the algorithm, is based upon a per-destination VLAN computation algorithm. At first, for every destination node all paths connecting it with other nodes are computed. A good path set should meet two basic requirements – it should exploit the available topological redundancy and simultaneously contain as few paths as possible. The algorithm for path computation, greedily searches for $k \in \mathbb{N}$ shortest paths between pairs of nodes, giving the preference to link-disjoint paths over alternative paths, which could be possibly shorter but share links with at least one already selected path. Even though link-disjoint paths have the advantage, that a single link failure will not take down multiple paths, in some circumstances it may be beneficial to consider a shorter than a fully disjoint path. The paths are computed to be pairwise disjoint only for a certain destination node. The next step in the per-destination VLAN computation algorithm uses graph colouring techniques to assign the least possible number of VLANs to path sets for a destination node. Afterwards, in order to minimize the number of VLANs, they are being merged together using a greedy algorithm, as any two generated subgraphs for different destinations can be combined into a single graph, if and only if the resulting graph will not contain any loops. The input of the algorithm is the set containing all computed subgraphs. For each graph the algorithm tries to merge it with as many other graphs as possible (checking them in a randomized order), using a breadth-first search on every combined graph to check whether it is acyclic or not. Unfortunately the current design of SPAIN lacks the flexibility to define an arbitrary number of layers. Moreover, the greedy merging algorithm may result in creating layers, that will be unbalanced in terms of size (number of edges per each graph). $L$ = $\{E\}$ //|Init a set of layers $L$; we start with $E$| foreach $u \in V $ do: \\|Compute VLANs per destination $u$| $P = \emptyset$ //|Init set of paths to $u$| foreach $v \in V$, $v \neq u$ do: \\|Compute $k$ paths from each vertex $v$ to $u$| $P_v = \emptyset$ //|Init set of paths from $v$ to $u$| $\forall e \in E$: $w(e) = 0$ //|Init matrix of edge weights| while $|P_v| < k$ do: \\|Add $k$ shortest paths to the set $P_v$| p = shortest(E, u, v, w) \\|Get shortest undirected path from $v$ to $u$| if $p \in P_v$ then break \\|End the loop if no other path can be found| $P_v = P_v \cup \{p\}$ \\|Add path to the path set| foreach $edge \in path$ do: $w(e) += |E|$ $P = P \cup P_v$ $V_{color} = {v_1, \dots, v_{|P|}}$ $E_{color} \neq \emptyset$ foreach $p_i, p_j \in P$ do: if not vlan-compatible($p_i$, $p_j$) then: $E_{color} = E_{color} \cup \{v_i, v_j\}$ //|Assign each vertex to a color - the assignment is given by mapping function| colors-number, mapping = greedy-vertex-coloring($V_{color}, E_{color}$) for $k = 1, 2, \dots $ colors-number do: $E' = \{ e \in p_i : p_i \in P, \text{mapping}(v_i) = k \}$ $L = L \cup E'$ //|Merge greedily the graphs in $L$ while processing them in random order| foreach $E_i, E_j \in L$, $E_i \neq E_j$: if acyclic($E_i \cup E_j$) then: $L = L \cup \{ E_i \cup E_j \} - {E_i} - {E_j}$ vlan-compatible($p_i= (u_1, u_2, \dots, u_l)$, $p_j= (v_1, v_2, \dots, v_m)$) foreach $u_i \in p_i$ do: if $u_i = v_j \in p_j$ then: if $u_{i+1} \neq v_{j+1}$ then: return false return true ### PAST PAST [@stephens2012past] uses one spanning tree per host, aiming at distributing the trees uniformly over available physical links. Any given switch uses only single path for forwarding the traffic to the endpoint. In contrast to SPAIN, which searches for link-disjoint paths to a given destination node, PAST creates spanning trees for every address in the network using one of three possible approaches: standard breadth-first search algorithm, with the destination node being the root of the tree, breadth-first search with random tie-breaking and breadth-first search, which weights its random selection by considering how many endpoints each switch has as children, summed across all trees built so far. The complexity of the bread-first search, which affects directly the complexity of PAST layers creation algorithm, may be expressed as $O (|V| + |E|)$. Additionally a non-minimal, inspired by Valiant load balancing, variant of PAST was designed. In this approach, before computing the spanning tree, the algorithm selects randomly a switch, which plays the role of the root of spanning tree, instead of the destination endpoint. $L$ = $\{\}$ //|Init a set of layers $L$| foreach host $h$ do: //|Create a spanning tree per each destination address| $s = \text{random}(V)$//|Select a random intermediate switch| $E' = BFS(s, E)$//|Create spanning tree rooted at $s$ using Breadth-first search algorithm| $L = L \cup \{E'\}$ ### $k$-Shortest Paths   $k$-shortest paths [@singla2012jellyfish] spreads traffic over multiple shortest paths (if available) between endpoints. For the purpose of evaluation we used Yen’s algorithm with Dijkstra’s algorithm to derive the $k$ shortest loopless paths. As complexity of Dijkstra’s algorithm may be expressed as $O(|E|+|V|\log |V|)$, the complexity of computing $k$ paths between a pair of endpoints using Yen’s algorithm is equal to $O(k |V| (|E|+|V|\log |V|))$. |\maciej{KAROLINA We need a listing for k-shortest paths, using a skeleton structure like the one in Listing 1 for FatPaths ---> ideally, we have identical skeleton structure with some separate functions for FP, SPAIN, PAST, etc...}| {width="65.00000%"} \[fig:theory\] Definitions and Formulations ---------------------------- We now present the associated mathematical concepts. Two important notions are that of the **maximum achievable throughput (MAT)** and the **multi-commodity flow (MCF) problem**. ### Maximum Achievable Throughput (MAT): Intuition   Intuitively, the maximum achievable throughput may be defined as (the common for all communicating endpoints in the network) the ratio of the flow that can be forwarded between each pair of network endpoints to the demanded amount of flow for this pair (for a given traffic pattern). ### Multi-Commodity Flow Problem (MCF): Intuition   Assume a network with predefined (1) demands of flow between various source and destination endpoints, and (2) constraints on the capacities of links. Now, the problem of assigning an amount of flow to be supplied between the endpoint pairs, which is feasible in the network (i.e. the sums of flows between endpoint pairs do not exceed the capacities of respective links) is called the Multi-Commodity Flow (MCF) problem [@mcf]. In our analysis, to derive MAT (for a given traffic matrix, a given topology, and a given routing ), we maximize the minimum flow across all flow demands, assuming each pair of endpoints is able to send and receive flows concurrently. The derivation is done using linear programming (LP). ### MCF Formulations for MAT   We now presented the MCF LP formulations, both for the general problem of maximizing throughput under general routing, and when a layered routing is assumed. MAT is defined as the maximum value $\mathcal{T}$ for which there exists a feasible multi-commodity flow that routes a flow $T(s, t) \cdot \mathcal{T}$ between all router pairs $s$ and $t$, satisfying link capacity and flow conservation constraints. $T(s,t)$ specifies traffic demand; it is the amount of requested flow from $s$ to $t$ (more details are in [@jyothi2016measuring]). Let us denote the directed graph representing the network topology by $G = (V, E)$, where $V$ is the set of vertices (*endpoints*) responsible for sending and receiving traffic flows and non-terminal nodes – *switches*) and $E$ is the set of edges. Each edge $(u,v) \in E$ represents a network link with non-negative capacity $c(u,v) = 1$ in case of switch-to-switch edges $(u,v)$ and $c(u,v) = +\infty$ in case of server-to-switch edges. Given a graph $G$ defined as above, let us denote $k$ different commodities by $K_1, K_2, \dots, K_k$ , where $K_i = (s_i, t_i, T(s_i,t_i))$. Here, $s_i$ is the source node of commodity $i$, $t_i$ is the destination node . The variable $f_{iuv}$ defines the fraction of flow of commodity $i$ from vertex $u$ to vertex $v$ . $f_i$ is a real-valued function satisfying the flow-conservation and capacity constraints, where $f_i \in [0, 1]$. The MCF problem may be formulated as the problem of finding an assignment of all flow variables satisfying the following constraints: $$\begin{aligned} &\sum_{i=1}^k f_{iuv} \leq c(u,v), \enskip u, v \in V \label{eq:general-capacity}\\ &\sum_{v \in V} f_{iuv} - \sum_{v \in V} f_{ivu} = 0, \enskip i = 1, \dots, k, \enskip u \in V \setminus \{s_i, t_i\} \label{eq:general-flow}\\ &\sum_{v \in V} f_{is_iv} - \sum_{v \in V} f_{ivs_i} = T(s_i,t_i), \enskip i = 1, \dots, k \label{eq:general-demands}\\ &f_{iuv} \geq 0, \enskip u, v \in V, \enskip i = 1, \dots, k \label{eq:general-nonzero}\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (\[eq:general-capacity\]) defines the capacity constraints. Eq. (\[eq:general-flow\]) defines the flow conservation constraints. Eq. (\[eq:general-demands\]) defines the flow demands. Finally, Eq. (\[eq:general-nonzero\]) defines the non-negativity constraints. In contrast to the original multi-commodity flow problem, whose aim was finding an assignment of all flow variables satisfying the constraint rules, the main goal of the linear program used for the purpose of our evaluation is maximizing the possible achieved throughput $\mathcal{T}$. Thus, new rules had to be defined for each of the layered routing schemes. The following rules were defined in order to formulate the LP programs, used further to benchmark the Fat Paths and SPAIN routing schemes, assuming $n$ defined layers and $k$ different commodities. The variable $f_{iuvl}$ defines the fraction of flow of commodity $i$, carried by the link from vertex $u$ to vertex $v$ in the layer $l$. $$\begin{aligned} & -\sum_{v \in V} \sum_{l = 1, \dots n} f_{is_{i}vl} + T(s_i,t_i) \cdot \mathcal{T} \leq 0, \enskip i = 1, 2, \dots, k \label{type0}\\ & \sum_{i =1, \dots k} \sum_{l = 1, \dots n} f_{iuvl} \leq c(u, v), \enskip \forall (u, v) \in E \label{type1}\\ & \sum_{v \in V} f_{iuvl} - \sum_{v \in V} f_{ivul} = 0, \enskip i = 1, \dots, k, \enskip l = 1, \dots, n, \forall u \in V \setminus \{s_i, t_i\} \label{type2}\\ & \sum_{v \in V} \sum_{l = 1, \dots n} f_{is_{i}vl} \leq \mathcal{T}_{upper bound} \cdot T(s_i,t_i), \enskip i = 1, \dots, k \label{type3}\\ & \sum_{v \in V} \sum_{l = 1, \dots n} f_{ivs_{i}l} = 0, \enskip i = 1, \dots, k \label{type4}\end{aligned}$$ The main goal of inequalities \[type0\] and \[type3\] is to ensure that all flow allocated for a certain commodity will exit the source node and that it will not exceed some defined upper bound (defined for optimization purposes). The equation \[type4\] was introduced in order to avoid the flow traversing back to the source node through any of the links. The aim of inequality \[type1\] is to assure that the total summed flow will not exceed the link capacity. We assume that the layers provide only a logical representation of graphs built upon existing physical network wiring. Thus, the summed flows from all layers should not exceed the capacity on the physical link. The equality \[type2\] is the most important constraint to enable benchmarking of the layered routing – its main goal is to ensure that the flow will not leak between the layers. In order to benchmark the PAST algorithm, two of the above mentioned rules, inequalities \[type0\] and \[type3\], had to to be redefined, as PAST allows to carry the traffic to each destination host using only predefined layers. Assuming that layer $i$ is allowed only to forward traffic to destination host $t_i$, we can formulate the following constraint rules: 1. $-\sum_{v \in V} f_{is_{i}vi} + T(s_i,t_i) \cdot \mathcal{T} \leq 0, \enskip i = 1, \dots, k, \enskip l = 1, 2, \dots n$ 2. $\sum_{v \in V} f_{is_{i}vi} \leq \mathcal{T}_{upper bound} \cdot T(s_i,t_i), \enskip i = 1, \dots, k$ Traffic Patterns ---------------- We focus on a recently proposed worst-case traffic pattern, developed specifically to maximize stress on the interconnect while hampering effective routing [@jyothi2016measuring]. This pattern **is generated individually for each topology**; it uses maximum weighted matching algorithms to find a pairing of endpoints that maximizes average flow path length, using both elephant and small flows. Additionally, the experiments involved the use of following traffic patterns: all to one model, based on the assumption that the traffic from all of the endpoints is directed towards a random endpoint in the network, traffic pattern of random permutation pairs of a randomly chosen endpoints fraction and a traffic pattern, which minimizes the average flow path length instead of maximizing it (it involves mostly communication between neighbouring nodes). Considered Schemes ------------------ We use both variants of layered routing proposed in this work. We also consider SPAIN, PAST, and $k$-shortest paths, adopted to the layered setting. Originally, SPAIN uses a set of spanning trees, using greedy coloring to minimize their number and maximize path disjointness; one tree is one layer. PAST uses one spanning tree per host, aiming at distributing the trees uniformly over available physical links. $k$-shortest paths [@singla2012jellyfish] spreads traffic over multiple shortest paths (if available) between endpoints. Number of Layers ---------------- SPAIN and PAST use trees as layers while FatPaths allows for arbitrary DAGs. This brings drawbacks, as each SPAIN layer can use at most $N_r-1$ links, while the topology contains $\frac{N_r k'}2$ links. Thus, at least $\mathcal{O}(k')$ layers are required to cover all minimal paths, and SPAIN may require even $\mathcal{O}(N_r)$. Moreover, PAST needs $O(N)$ trees by its design. By using layers that are arbitrary DAGs and contain a large, constant fraction of links, *FatPaths provides sufficient path diversity with a low, $O(1)$ number of layers*. Throughput ---------- We also analyze maximum achievable throughput (MAT) in various layered routing schemes. MAT is defined as the maximum value $\mathcal{T}$ for which there exists a feasible multicommodity flow (MCF) that routes a flow $T(s, t) \cdot \mathcal{T}$ between all router pairs $s$ and $t$, satisfying link capacity and flow conservation constraints. $T(s,t)$ specifies traffic demand; it is an amount of requested flow from $s$ to $t$ (more details are provided by Jyothi et al. [@jyothi2016measuring]). We test all layered routing schemes implemented in FatPaths (including SPAIN, PAST, and $k$-shortest paths) on *all considered topologies, topology sizes, traffic patterns, and traffic intensity (fraction of communicating endpoint pairs)*. We use TopoBench, a throughput evaluation tool [@jyothi2016measuring] that uses linear programming (LP) to derive $\mathcal{T}$. We extended TopoBench’s LP formulation of MCF so that it includes layered routing. Most importantly, instead of one network for accommodating MCF, we use $n$ networks (that represent layers) for allocating flows. We also introduce constraints that prevent one flow from being allocated over multiple layers. Selected results are in Figure \[fig:theory\]. As expected, SPAIN – a scheme developed specifically for Clos – delivers more performance on fat trees. However, it uses up to $O(N_r)$ layers. The layered routing scheme that minimizes path interference generally outperforms the SPAIN variant (that we tuned to perform well on low-diameter topologies) on other networks. Finally, also as expected, our heuristic that minimizes path overlap delivers more speedup than simple random edge picking (we only plot the former for more clarity). Details (Numbers of Layers) ---------------------------   ### Details (Counts of Forwarding Entries)   ### Detailed Investigation {width="49.00000%"} \[fig:theory\]   *FatPaths layered routing outperforms **competitive** routing schemes in both the used count of layers (and thus the amount of **needed hardware resources**) and **achieved throughput***. Simulations {#sec:eval} =========== We now analyze the performance of the FatPaths architecture, including layered routing but also adaptive load balancing, the transport protocol based on NDP [@handley2017re], and randomized mapping. We consider the combined performance advantages but we also investigate how each single element impacts the final performance. Specifically, we will illustrate how low-diameter topologies equipped with FatPaths outperform novel superior fat tree designs. We use two different simulation tools that reflect two considered environments: HPC systems and cloud infrastructure. Methodology, Parameters, Baselines {#sec:eval-m} ---------------------------------- We first discuss used parameters, methodology, and baselines. ### Topologies   We consider all the discussed topologies as specified in \[sec:back\]: SF, XP, JF, HX, DF, and FT. We use their most advantageous variants (e.g., the “balanced” Dragonfly [@kim2008technology]) while fixing the network size $N$ ($N$ varies by up to $\approx$10% as there are limited numbers of configurations of each network). Slim Fly represents a recent family of diameter-2 topologies such as Multi-Layer Full-Mesh [@kathareios2015cost] and Two-Level Orthogonal Fat-Trees [@valerio1994recursively; @valiant1982scheme]. Next, we use the established cost models from Flattened Butterfly, Dragonfly, and Slim Fly works to fix construction cost and equipment used to construct topologies [@besta2014slim; @kim2008technology; @kim2007flattened] (we describe how we use these well-known and popular models in the technical report). To achieve fixed cost and $N$ we use 2$\times$ oversubscribed fat trees. ### Topology Parameters   We now extend the discussion on the [selection of key topology parameters]{}. We select $N_r$ and $k'$ so that considered topologies use similar amounts of hardware. To analyze these amounts, we analyze the *edge density*: a ratio between the number of all the cables $\frac12 N_r k' + N_r p$ and endpoints $N = N_r p$. It turns out to be (asymptotically) constant for all topologies (the left plot in Figure \[fig:density\]) and *related to $D$*. Next, higher-diameter networks such as DF require more cables. As explained before [@besta2014slim]: Packets traverse more cables on the way to their destination. We also illustrate $k$ as a function of $N$ (the right plot in Figure \[fig:density\]). An interesting outlier is FT. It scales with $k$ similarly to networks with $D=2$, but with a much lower constant factor, at the cost of a higher $D$ and thus more routers and cables. This implies that FT is most attractive for small networks using routers with constrained $k$. We can also observe the unique SF properties: For a fixed (low) number of cables, the required $k$ is lower by a constant factor (than in, e.g., HX), resulting in better $N$ scaling. ![ []{data-label="fig:density"}](edge_density.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} ### Routing and Transport Schemes   We use flow-based non-adaptive ECMP as the [baseline]{} (routing performance lower bound). Low-diameter topologies use FatPaths while fat trees use NDP with all optimizations [@handley2017re], additionally enhanced with LetFlow [@vanini2017letflow], a recent scheme that uses flowlet switching for load balancing in fat trees. We also compare to a fat tree system using NDP with per-packet congestion-oblivious load balancing as introduced by Handley et al. [@handley2017re]. For FatPaths, we vary $\rho$ and $n$ to account for *different layer configurations*, including $\rho = 1$ (minimal paths only). Finally, we consider simple TCP, MPTCP, and DCTCP with ECN [@alizadeh2011data; @ramakrishnan2001addition; @floyd1994tcp]. We use these schemes to illustrate that FatPaths can accelerate not only bare Ethernet systems but also cloud computing environments that usually use full TCP stacks [@isobe2014tcp; @azodolmolky2013cloud]. ### Flows and Messages   We vary flow sizes (and thus message sizes as a flow is equivalent to a message) from 32 KiB to 2 MiB. ### Metrics   We use **flow completion time** (FCT), which also represents **throughput per flow** $\text{TPF} = \frac{\text{flow size}}{\text{FCT}}$. We also consider **total time to complete** a tested workload. ### Performance Validation   Our evaluation is influenced by a plethora of parameters and effects, many of which are not necessarily related to the core paper domain. Some of them may be related to the incorporated protocols (e.g., TCP), others to the used traffic patterns. Thus, we also establish baseline comparison targets and we fix various parameters to ensure fair comparisons. To characterize **TCP effects**, **one baseline is a star (ST) topology** that contains a single crossbar switch and attached endpoints. It should not exhibit any behavior that depends on the topology structure as it does not contain any inter-switch links. We use the same flow distribution and traffic pattern as in the large-scale simulation, as well as the same transport protocols. This serves as an upper bound on performance. Compared to measurements, we observe the lowest realistic latency and the maximum achievable link throughput, as well as flow control effects that we did not explicitly model, such as TCP slow start. There is no additional congestion compared to measured data since we use randomized workloads. Second, as a lower bound on **routing performance**, we show results for flow-based **ECMP** as an example of a non-adaptive routing scheme, and **LetFlow** as an example of an adaptive routing scheme. We also include results of unmodified **NDP** (with oblivious load balancing) on FTs. ### Simulation Infrastructure and Methodology   We use the OMNeT++ [@varga2001omnet++; @varga2008overview] parallel discrete event simulator with the INET model package [@inet] and the *htsim* packet-level simulator with the NDP reference implementation [@handley2017re]. We use OMNeT++ to enable detailed simulations of full networking stack based on Ethernet and TCP together with all overheads coming from protocols such as ARP. We use htsim as its simplified structure enables simulations of networks of much larger scales. We extend both simulators with any required schemes, such as flowlets, ECMP, layered routing, workload randomization. In LetFlow, we use precise timestamps to detect flowlets, with a low gap time of $50\si{\micro\second}$ to reflect the low-latency network. As INET does not model hardware or software latency, we add a $1\si{\micro\second}$ fixed delay to each link. All our code is available online. We extend the INET TCP stack with ECN (RFC 3168 [@rfc3168]), MPTCP (RFC 6824 [@rfc6824], RFC 6356 [@rfc6356]), and DCTCP. We extend the default router model with ECMP (Fowler-Noll-Vo hash [@kornblum2006identifying]) and LetFlow. In LetFlow, we use precise timestamps to detect flowlets, with a low gap time of $50\si{\micro\second}$ to reflect the low-latency network. As INET does not model hardware or software latency, we add a $1\si{\micro\second}$ fixed delay to each link. In htsim, we use similar parameters; they match those used by Handley et al.. We extend htsim to support arbitrary topologies, FatPaths routing and adaptivity, and our workload model. Routers use tail-dropping with a maximum queue size of 100 packets per port. ECN marks packets once a queue reaches more than 33 packets. Fast retransmissions use the default threshold of three segments. We also model a latency in the software stack (corresponding to interrupt throttling) to 100kHz rate. For FatPaths, we use 9KB jumbo frames, an 8-packet congestion window, and a queue length of 8 full-size packets. ### Scale of Simulations   We fix various scalability issues in INET and OMNeT++ to allow parallel simulation of large systems, *with up to $\approx$1 million endpoints*. To the best of our knowledge, *we conduct the largest shared-memory simulations (endpoint count) so far in the networking community* for the used precision and simulation setup. ### Gathering Results   We evaluate each combination of topology and routing method. As each such simulation contains thousands of flows with randomized source, destination, size, and start time, and we only record per-flow quantities, this suffices for statistical significance. We simulate a fixed number of flows starting in a fixed window of time, and drop the results from the first half of that window for warmup. We summarize the resulting distributions with arithmetic means or percentiles of distributions. ### Traffic Patterns   We use the traffic patterns discussed in \[sec:back\], in both and variants. We also vary the fraction of communicating endpoints. ### Shown Data   [When some variants or parameters are omitted (e.g., we only show SF-JF to cover Jellyfish), this indicates that *the shown data is representative*; the rest is in the technical report. ]{} ### Shown Data   [When some variants or parameters are omitted (e.g., we only show SF-JF to cover Jellyfish), this indicates that *the shown data is representative*. ]{} Performance Analysis: HPC Systems {#sec:eval-ndp} --------------------------------- First, we analyze FatPaths on networks based on Ethernet, *but without traditional TCP transport*. This setting represents HPC systems that use Ethernet for its low cost, but avoid TCP due to its performance overheads. We use *htsim* that can deliver such a setting.   We analyze both Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_motiv\] from page 2 (randomized workload) and Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\] (skewed non-randomized workload). In each case, low-diameter topologies outperform fat trees, with up to 2$\times$ and 4$\times$ *improvement* in throughput for non-randomized and randomized workload, respectively. Both fat tree and low-diameter networks use similar load balancing based on flowlet switching and purified transport. Thus, the advantage of low-diameter networks lies in their *low diameter* combined with the ability of FatPaths to *effectively use the diversity of “almost” minimal paths*. Answering one of two main questions from \[sec:intro\], we conclude that *[FatPaths enables low-diameter topologies to outperform state-of-the-art fat trees.]{}* {width="\columnwidth"} \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\]   We now focus on the performance of FatPaths with heavily skewed non-randomized workloads, see Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\]. Non-minimal routing with FatPaths, in each low-diameter topology, *leads to an up to $30\times$ FCT improvement* over minimal routing (i.e., “circles on topology X outperform triangles on X”). The exception is HyperX, due to its higher diversity of minimal paths (cf. Figure \[fig:shortest\_path\_multiplicity\]). Thus, *FatPaths effectively leverages the diversity of non-minimal paths*.   We also investigate the impact of the number ($n$) and the sparsity ($\rho$) of layers in FatPaths on performance and resolution of collisions; see Figure \[fig:ndp\_n\_rho\] (layers are computed with simple random edge sampling). Nine layers (one complete and eight sparsified) suffice to produce three disjoint paths per router pair, resolving most collisions for both SF and DF (other networks follow similar patterns). To understand what $n$ resolves collisions on global channels in DF, we also consider a clique. Here, more layers are required, since higher-multiplicity path collisions appear (visible in the 99% tail). We also observe that, when more layers *can* be used, it is better to use a higher $\rho$ (cf. FCT for $n=64$ and different $\rho$). This reduces the maximum achievable path diversity, but it also keeps more links available for alternative routes *within each layer*, increasing chances of choosing disjoint paths. It also increases the number of minimal paths in use across all entries, reducing total network load. ![[]{data-label="fig:ndp_n_rho"}](ndp_n_rho___mac_2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We also simulate large-scale SF, DF, and JF (we could not simulate several similar-size networks such as FT with high path diversity that leads to very excessive memory use in the simulator). We start with SF, SF-JF, and DF ($N \approx\num[group-separator={,}]{80000}$), see Figure \[fig:ndp\_big\]. A slight mean throughput decrease compared to the smaller instances is noticeable, but latency and tail FCTs remain tightly bounded. The comparatively bad tail performance of DF is due to path overlap on the global links, where the adaptivity mechanism needs to handle high multiplicities of overlapping flows. We also conduct runs with $N \approx 1,000,000$ endpoints. Here, we illustrate the distribution of the FCT of flows for SF and SF-JF. Our analysis indicates that flows on SF tend to finish later that on SF-JF. {width="0.525\columnwidth"}{width="0.475\columnwidth"}\ {width="1\columnwidth"} \[fig:ndp\_big\] Performance Analysis: Cloud Systems {#sec:clouds} ----------------------------------- We also analyze FatPaths on networks with Ethernet *and full TCP stack*. This setting represents TCP data centers and clusters often used as cloud infrastructure [@isobe2014tcp]. Here, we use OMNeT++/INET. We compare FatPaths to ECMP (traditional static load balancing) and LetFlow (recent adaptive load balancing), see Figure \[fig:tcp\_topo\]. The number of layers was limited to $n=4$ to keep routing tables small; as they are precomputed for all routers and loaded into the simulation in a configuration file (this turned out to be a major performance and memory concern). Most observations follow those from \[sec:eval-ndp\], we only summarize TCP-related insights. ![[]{data-label="fig:tcp_topo"}](layered_throughput_bars___mac_2.pdf){width="48.00000%"} LetFlow improves tail and short flow FCTs at the cost of long flow throughput, compared to ECMP. Both are ineffective on SF and DF, which do not provide minimal-path diversity. *Non-minimal routing in FatPaths and $\rho=0.6$ fixes it*, even with only $n=4$ layers. On the other topologies, even with minimal paths ($\rho=1$), *FatPaths adaptivity outperforms ECMP and LetFlow.* A detailed analysis into the FCT distributions in Figure \[fig:tcp\_histo\] shows that with minimal routing and low minimal-path diversity, there are many flows with low performance due to path collisions and overlap, although they do not vastly affect the mean throughput. *FatPaths can fully resolve this problem*. Short-flow FCTs are dominated by TCP flow control effects, which are not affected much by routing changes. ![[]{data-label="fig:tcp_histo"}](tcp_histo___mac_2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"} We also observe a cost in long flow throughput due to the higher total network load with non-minimal paths. To understand this effect better, Figure \[fig:tcp\_rho\] shows the impact of the fraction of remaining edges $\rho$ in each layer, and therefore the amount of non-minimal paths, on FCT for long flows. The optimum choice of $\rho$ matches the findings from the Ethernet simulations in \[sec:eval-ndp\] for SF and DF. ![[]{data-label="fig:tcp_rho"}](tcp_rho___mac_2.pdf){width="0.96\columnwidth"} Besides FCT means/tails, we also consider a full completion time of a stencil workload that is representative of an HPC application, in which processes conduct local computation, communicate, and synchronize with a barrier; see Figure \[fig:tcp\_topo\_ttc\]. Results follow the same performance patterns as others. An interesting outcome is JF: high values for LetFlow are caused by packet loss and do *not* affect the mean/99% tail (cf. Figure \[fig:tcp\_topo\]), only the total completion runtime. ![[]{data-label="fig:tcp_topo_ttc"}](time_to_completion_3.pdf){width="48.00000%"} Performance Analysis: Vertical Effects -------------------------------------- To facilitate analysis of the large amounts of included performance data, we now summarize analyzes of different FatPaths design choices (“vertical” analysis). First (1), different layer configurations ($\rho, n$) for various $D$ are investigated in Figure \[fig:ndp\_n\_rho\] and in \[sec:eval-ndp\] (bare Ethernet systems) as well as in Figure \[fig:tcp\_rho\] and in \[sec:clouds\] (TCP systems). Differences (in FCT) across layer configurations are up to 4$\times$; increasing both $n$ and $\rho$ maximizes performance. Second (2), the comparison of adaptive load balancing (“LetFlow”) based on flowlet switching vs. static load balancing (“ECMP”) is in Figure \[fig:tcp\_topo\] and in [sec:clouds]{}; adaptivity improves tail and short flow FCTs at the cost of long flow throughput. Third (3), the comparison of FatPaths with and without Purified Transport is omitted due to space constraints; performance with no Purified Transport is always significantly worse. (4) We also analyze performance with and without layered routing (Figure \[fig:tcp\_topo\], “ECMP” and “LetFlow” use no layers at all); not using layers is detrimental for performance on topologies that do not provide minimal-path diversity (e.g., SF or DF). Moreover (5), we also study the impact of using *only* the shortest paths in FatPaths (Figure \[fig:tcp\_topo\], baseline “$\rho=1$”); it is almost always disadvantageous. Finally (6), the effect from workload randomization is illustrated in Figures \[fig:ndp\_results\_motiv\] (randomization) and \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\] (no randomization); randomization increases throughput by $\approx$2$\times$. Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\] shows that fat trees with NDP outperform low-diameter networks that do *not* use non-minimal paths (the “NDP” baseline). *FatPaths, by accommodating non-minimal paths, enables low-diameter topologies to outperform fat trees, even for up to 2$\times$ for the **adversarial** traffic pattern.* Final Takeaway on Performance ----------------------------- We are now able to answer the main question from \[sec:intro\]. Most importantly, a high-performance routing architecture for low-diameter networks should expose and use diversity of *almost minimal* paths (because they are numerous, as opposed to minimal paths). **FatPaths is a routing architecture that enables this.** Moreover, it combines random workload mapping, purified transport, flowlet load balancing, and layered routing, achieving high performance on both bare Ethernet systems and full TCP stacks. Thus, *it enables speedups on HPC systems such as supercomputers or tightly coupled clusters, or cloud infrastructure such as data centers*. Discussion ========== For deeper understanding, we *intuitively* connect our path diversity measures to established network performance measures and bounds (e.g., bisection bandwidth (BB) or throughput proportionality [@kassing2017beyond]) in Figure \[fig:paths-discussion\]. The figure shows how various measures vary when increasing the network load expressed by count of communicating router pairs $x$. The values of measures are expressed with numbers of disjoint paths $P$. In this expression, bandwidth measures are numbers of disjoint paths between two router sets; these numbers must match corresponding counts in the original definitions of bandwidth measures. For example, path count associated with BB must equal the BB cut size. {width="0.99\columnwidth"} \[fig:paths-discussion\]   For applicability in data centers and cloud services, we integrate FatPaths with simple TCP, DCTCP [@alizadeh2011data], MPTCP [@raiciu2011improving], and ECN [@ramakrishnan2001addition] for congestion control. These are less interesting designs and we exclude their description. *Most importantly, all these designs require minor changes to the TCP stack.* As FatPaths fully preserves the semantics of TCP, one could seamlessly use iWARP [@iwarp] on top of FatPaths. FatPaths could also be used together with RoCE [@infiniband2014rocev2]. RoCE has traditionally relied on Ethernet with Priority Flow Control [@pfc_paper] (PFC) for lossless data transfer. However, numerous works illustrate that PFC introduces inherent issues such as head-of-line blocking [@mittal2018revisiting; @le2018rogue; @zhu2015congestion; @guo2016rdma]. Now, the design of FatPaths reduces counts of dropped packets to almost zero ($\le 0.01$%) due to flowlet load balancing. With its packet-oriented design and a thin protocol layer over simple Ethernet, *FatPaths could become the basis for RoCE.* Moreover, many modern RDMA schemes (e.g., work by Lu et al. [@lu2018multi]) are similar to NDP in that they, e.g., also use packet spraying. Thus, many of our results may be representative for such RDMA environments. For example, using RDMA on top of FatPaths could provide similar advantages on low-diameter topologies as presented in Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_motiv\] and \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\]. We leave this for future work. Although we focus on Ethernet, most of the schemes in FatPaths *do not assume anything Ethernet-specific* and they could be *straightforwardly used to enhance IB routing architecture*. For example, all the insights from path diversity analysis, layered routing for multi-pathing, or flowlet load balancing, *could also be used with IB.* We leave these directions for future work. **** To facilitate applicability of our work in real-world installations, we discuss FatPaths’ limitations. First, as FatPaths addresses low-diameter topologies, it is less advantageous on high-diameter older interconnects such as torus. This is mostly because such networks provide multiple (almost disjoint) shortest paths between most router pairs. Second, FatPaths inherits some of NDP’s limitations, namely interrupt throttling. However, similarly to NDP, we alleviate this by assuming that a single CPU core is dedicated to polling for incoming packets. Finally, even if FatPaths delivers decent performance for non-randomized workloads (as illustrated in \[sec:eval-ndp\] and in Figure \[fig:ndp\_results\_skewed\]), it ensures much higher performance with workload randomization. Yet, as discussed in \[sec:overview\], this is (1) a standard technique in HPC systems and (2) it is not detrimental for application performance on low-diameter networks that – by design – have very low latencies for all router pairs. Related Work ============ FatPaths touches on various areas. We now briefly discuss related works, excluding the ones covered in previous sections. FatPaths high-performance adaptive routing targets low-diameter networks: Slim Fly [@besta2014slim], Jellyfish [@singla2012jellyfish], Xpander [@valadarsky2015], HyperX [@ahn2009hyperx], and Dragonfly [@kim2008technology]. *FatPaths enables these topologies to achieve low latency and high throughput under various traffic patterns (uniform, skewed), and outperform similar-cost fat trees.* We survey routing schemes in detail in Table \[tab:intro\] and in \[sec:theory\]. *FatPaths is the first one to offer generic and adaptive multi-pathing using both shortest and non-shortest disjoint paths.* Adaptive load balancing can be implemented using flows [@curtis2011mahout; @rasley2014planck; @sen2013localflow; @tso2013longer; @benson2011microte; @zhou2014wcmp; @al2010hedera; @kabbani2014flowbender; @hopps2000analysis], flowcells (fixed-sized packet series) [@he2015presto], and packets [@zats2012detail; @handley2017re; @dixit2013impact; @cao2013per; @perry2015fastpass; @zats2012detail; @raiciu2011improving; @ghorbani2017drill]. We choose an intermediate level, flowlets (variable-size packet series) [@katta2016clove; @alizadeh2014conga; @vanini2017letflow; @katta2016hula; @kandula2007dynamic]. *FatPaths is the first architecture to use load balancing based on flowlets for low-diameter networks*. We do not compete with congestion or flow control schemes but instead use them for more performance. *FatPaths can use any such scheme in its design* [@mittal2015timely; @cardwell2016bbr; @alizadeh2011data; @he2016acdc; @zhuo2016rackcc; @handley2017re; @raiciu2011improving; @bai2014pias; @alizadeh2013pfabric; @vamanan2012deadline; @lu2016sed; @hwang2014deadline; @montazeri2018homa; @jiang2008explicit; @banavalikar2016credit; @alasmar2018polyraptor]. Many works on multi-pathing exist [@zhou2014wcmp; @benet2018mp; @cao2013per; @greenberg2009vl2; @sen2013localflow; @caesar2010dynamic; @kassing2017beyond; @mudigonda2010spain; @suchara2011network; @perry2015fastpass; @aggarwal2016performance; @suurballe1984quick; @huang2009performance; @sohn2006congestion; @li2013openflow; @bredel2014flow; @van2011revisiting; @benet2018mp; @caesar2010dynamic; @suchara2011network]. Our work differs from them all: *it focuses on path diversity in low-diameter topologies, it considers both minimal and non-minimal paths, and it shows a routing scheme using the explored path diversity.* Some works analyze various properties of low-diameter topologies, for example path length, throughput, and bandwidth [@valadarsky2015; @kathareios2015cost; @jyothi2016measuring; @singla2012jellyfish; @kassing2017beyond; @besta2018slim; @li2018exascale; @kawano2018k; @harsh2018expander; @kawano2016loren; @truong2016layout; @flajslik2018megafly; @kawano2017layout; @azizi2016hhs; @truong2016distributed; @al2017new]. *FatPaths offers the most extensive analysis on path diversity so far*. **** Some schemes complement FatPaths in their focus. For example, XPath [@hu2016explicit] and source routing [@jyothi2015towards] could be used together with FatPaths by providing effective means to encode the rich path diversity exposed by FatPaths. Conclusion ========== We introduce ***FatPaths: a simple, high-performance, and robust [routing architecture]{}***. FatPaths enables modern low-diameter topologies to achieve unprecedented performance on Ethernet networks by exposing the rich (“fat”) diversity of minimal *and non-minimal* paths. We formalize and extensively analyze this path diversity and show that, even though the considered topologies *fall short of shortest paths*, they can accommodate enough non-minimal disjoint paths to avoid congestion. Our path diversity metrics and methodology can be used to analyze other properties of networks. FatPaths routing stands on three core elements: purified transport, flowlet load balancing, and layered routing. Our theoretical analysis and simulations illustrate that all these elements contribute to the low-latency and high-bandwidth FatPaths design, outperforming very recent fat tree architectures. Even though we focus on Ethernet in this work, most of these schemes – for example adaptive flowlet load balancing and layers – are generic and they could enhance technologies such as RDMA and Infiniband. Simulations with up to *one million* endpoints show that low-diameter topologies equipped with FatPaths outperform novel superior fat trees [@handley2017re]. Our code is online and can be used to foster novel research on next-generation large-scale compute centers. FatPaths uses Ethernet for maximum versatility. We argue that it can accelerate both HPC clusters or supercomputers as well as data centers and other types of cloud infrastructure. FatPaths will help to bring the areas of HPC networks and cloud computing closer, fostering technology transfer and facilitating exchange of ideas. APPENDIX {#appendix .unnumbered} ======== We now provide full discussions, analyses, and results omitted in the main paper body to maintain its clarity. **Topology** **Hierarchy** **Flexibility** **Input** $N_r$ $N$ $k'$ $p$ $D$ **Remarks** **Deployed?** -- ---------------------------------- -------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------- --------------------------------------- ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- Slim Fly [@besta2014slim] group hierarchical fixed $q$ $2 q^2$ $pN_r$ $\left\lceil\frac{k'}{2}\right\rceil$ 2 “MMS” variant [@besta2014slim; @mckay1998note] unknown Dragonfly [@kim2008technology] group hierarchical fixed $p$ $4p^3+2p$ $pN_r$ $3p-1$ $p$ 3 “balanced” variant [@kim2008technology] (§3.1) HyperX [@ahn2009hyperx] semi-hierarchical fixed $S$ $S^2$ $pN_r$ $2(S-1)$ $\left\lceil\frac{k'}2\right\rceil$ 2 unknown HyperX [@ahn2009hyperx] semi-hierarchical fixed $S$ $S^3$ $pN_r$ $3(S-1)$ $\left\lceil\frac{k'}3\right\rceil$ 3 unknown Fat tree [@leiserson1996cm5] semi-hierarchical fixed $k$ $5\left\lfloor\frac{k^2}4\right\rfloor$ $p\left\lfloor\frac{k^2}2\right\rfloor$ $\frac{k}2$ $\left\lceil\frac{k}2\right\rceil$ 4 2-stage variant (3 router layers) Many installations Complete (clique) flat fixed $k'$ $k'+1$ $pN_r$ $k'$ $k'$ 1 $D=1$ HyperX, 2x-oversubscribed crossbar routers Jellyfish [@singla2012jellyfish] flat flexible $k'$, $N_r$, $p$ $N_r$ $pN_r$ $k'$ $p$ n/a “homogeneous” variant [@singla2012jellyfish] unknown Xpander [@valadarsky2015] flat semi-flexible $\ell$ $\ell(k'+1)$ $pN_r$ $\ell$ $\left\lceil\frac{k'}2\right\rceil$ n/a Restricted to $\ell=k'$, $D\approx 2$, $p=\left\lceil\frac{k'}2\right\rceil$ unknown \[tab:parameters-app\] Formal Description of Topologies {#sec:app-topos-details} ================================ We first extend the discussion of the considered topologies. Table \[tab:parameters-app\] provides details. Now, each topology uses certain *input parameters* that define the structure of this topology. These parameters are as follows: $q$ (SF), $a,h$ (DF), $\ell$ (XP), and $L,S,K$ (HX). Slim Fly -------- Slim Fly [@besta2014slim] is a state-of-the-art cost-effective topology for large computing centers that uses mathematical optimization to minimize diameter $D$ for a given radix $k$ while maximizing size $N$. SF’s low diameter ($D = 2$) ensures the lowest latency for many traffic patterns and it reduces the number of required network resources (packets traverse fewer routers and cables), lowering cost, static, and dynamic power consumption. SF is based on graphs approaching the Moore Bound (MB): The upper bound on the number of vertices in a graph with a given $D$ and $k'$. This ensures full global bandwidth and high resilience to link failures due to good expansion properties. Next, SF is group hierarchical. A group is not necessarily complete but all the groups are connected to one another (with the same number of global links) and form a complete network of groups. We select SF because it is a state-of-the-art design based on optimization that outperforms virtually all other targets in most metrics and represents topologies with $D = 2$. $N_r$ and $k'$ depend on a parameter $q$ that is a prime power with certain properties (detailed in the original work [@besta2014slim]). Some flexibility is ensured by allowing changes to $p$ and with a large number of suitable values of the parameter $q$. We use the suggested value of $p = \left\lceil {k'}/{2} \right\rceil$. Dragonfly --------- Dragonfly [@kim2008technology] is a group hierarchical network with $D = 3$ and a layout that reduces the number of global wires. Routers form complete [groups]{}; groups are connected to one another to form a complete network of groups with one link between any two groups. DF comes with an intuitive design and represents deployed networks with $D = 3$. Input is: the group size $a$, the number of channels from one router to routers in other groups $h$, and concentration $p$. We use the *maximum capacity* DF (with the number of groups $g = ah+1$) that is *balanced*, i.e., the load on global links is balanced to avoid bottlenecks ($a = 2p = 2h$). In such a DF, a single parameter $p$ determines all others. Jellyfish --------- Jellyfish [@singla2012jellyfish] networks are random regular graphs constructed by a simple greedy algorithm that adds randomly selected edges until no additions as possible. The resulting construction has good expansion properties [@bondy1976graph]. Yet, all guarantees are probabilistic and rare degenerate cases, although unlikely, do exist. Even if $D$ can be arbitrarily high in degenerate cases, usually $D < 4$ with much lower $d$. We select JF as it represents flexible topologies that use randomization and offer very good performance properties. JF is flexible. $N_r$ and $k'$ can be arbitrary; we use parameters matching less flexible topologies. To compensate for the different amounts of hardware used in different topologies, we include a Jellyfish network constructed from the same routers for each topology; the performance differences observed between those networks are due to the different hardware and need to be factored in when comparing the deterministic topologies. Xpander ------- Xpander [@valadarsky2015] networks resemble JF but have a deterministic variant. They are constructed by applying one or more so called $\ell$-*lifts* to a $k'$-clique $G$. The $\ell$-lift of $G$ consists of $\ell$ copies of $G$, where for each edge $e$ in $G$, the copies of $e$ that connect vertices $s_1, \dots, s_\ell$ to $t_1, \dots, t_\ell$, are replaced with a *random matching* (can be derandomized): $s_i$ is connected to $t_{\pi(i)}$ for a random $\ell$-permutation $\pi$. This construction yields a $k'$-regular graph with $N = \ell k'$ and good expansion properties. The randomized $\ell$-lifts ensure good properties in the expectation. We select XP as it offers the advantages of JF in a deterministically constructed topology. We create XP with a single lift of arbitrary $\ell$. Such XP is flexible although there are more constraints than in JF. Thus, we cannot create matching instances for each topology. We select $k' \in \{16, 32\}$ and $\ell = k'$, which is comparable to diameter-2 topologies. We also consider $\ell = 2$ with multiple lifts as this ensures good properties [@valadarsky2015], but we do not notice any additional speedup. We use $p = \frac{k'}2$, matching the diameter-2 topologies. HyperX ------ HyperX [@ahn2009hyperx] is formed by arranging vertices in an $L$-dimensional array and forming a clique along each 1-dimensional row. Several topologies are special cases of HX, including complete graphs, hypercubes (HCs) [@bondy1976graph], and Flattened Butterflies (FBF) [@kim2007flattened]. HX is a generic design that represents a wide range of networks. An HX is defined by a 4-tuple $(L, S, K, p)$. $L$ is the number of dimensions and $D=L$, $S$ and $K$ are $L$-dimensional vectors (they respectively denote the array size in each dimension and the relative capacity of links along each dimension). Networks with uniform $K$ and $S$ (for all dimensions) are called *regular*. We only use regular $(L, S, 1, \cdot)$ networks with $L \in \{2,3\}$. HX with $L=2$ is about a factor of two away from the MB ($k' \approx 2 \sqrt{N_r}$) resulting in more edges than other topologies. Thus, we include higher-diameter variants with $k'$ similar to that of other networks. Now, for full bisection bandwidth (BB), one should set $p = \frac{k'}{2D}$. Yet, since HX already has the highest $k'$ and $N_r$ (for a fixed $N$) among the considered topologies, we use a higher $p = \frac{k'}D$ as with the other topologies to reduce the amount of used hardware. As we do not consider worst-case bisections, we still expect HX to perform well. Fat Tree -------- Fat tree [@leiserson1996cm5] is based on the Clos network [@clos1953study] with disjoint inputs and outputs and unidirectional links. By “folding” inputs with outputs, a multistage fat tree that connects any two ports with bidirectional links is constructed. We use three-stage FTs with $D = 4$; fewer stages reduce scalability while more stages lead to high $D$. FT represents designs that are in widespread use and feature excellent performance properties such as full BB and non-blocking routing. A three-stage FT with full BB can be constructed from routers with uniform radix $k$: It connects ${k^3}/4$ endpoints using five groups of ${k^2}/4$ routers. Two of these groups, ${k^2}/2$ routers, form an *edge group* with ${k}/2$ endpoints. Another two groups form an *aggregation layer*: each of the edge groups forms a complete bipartite graph with one of the aggregation groups using the remaining ${k}/2$ ports, which are called *upstream*. Finally, the remaining group is called the *core*: each of the two aggregation groups forms a fully connected bipartite graph with the core, again using the remaining ${k}/2$ upstream ports. This also uses all $k$ ports of the core routers. Now, for FT, it is not always possible to construct a matching JF as $N/N_r$ can be fractional. In this case, we select $p$ and $k'$ such that $k = p+k'$ and ${k'}/p \approx 4$, which potentially changes $N$. Note also that for FT, $p$ is the number of endpoints per edge router, while in the other topologies, all routers are edge routers. Fully-Connected Graphs ---------------------- We also consider fully-connected graphs. They represent interesting corner-cases, offer lower bounds on various metrics such as minimal path length, and can be used for validation purposes. A clique is defined by a single parameter $k'$, leading to $N_r = k'+1$. We use $p=k'$ with the same rationale as for the HyperX topologies. Efficient Path Counting {#sec:app-path-counting} ======================= Some measures for path diversity are computationally hard to derive for large graphs. Algorithms for all-pairs shortest paths analysis based on adjacency matrices are well known, and we reintroduce one such method here for the purpose of reproducibility. For the disjoint-paths analysis however, all-pairs algorithms exist, but are not commonly known. We introduce a method by Cheung et. al [@cheung2013] and *we adapt for length-limited edge connectivity computation*. Matrix Multiplication for Path Counting {#sec:app-mmm} --------------------------------------- It is well known that for a graph represented as an adjacency matrix, matrix multiplication (MM) can be used to obtain information about paths in that graph. Variations of this include the Floyd-Warshall algorithm [@floyd1962algorithm] for transitive closure and all-pairs shortest paths [@seidel1995all], which use different semirings to aggregate the respective quantities. To recapitulate how these algorithms work, consider standard MM using $\cdot$ and $+$ operators on non-negative integers, which computes the number of paths $n_i(s,t)$ between each pair of vertices. If $A$ is the adjacency matrix of a directed graph $G = (V, E)$, $A_{i,j} = 1$ iff $(i,j) \in E$ and $ A_{i,j} = 0$ iff $(i,j) \not\in E$, then each cell $i \in V,j \in V$ of $Q = A^l = \underbrace{A\cdot \ldots \cdot A}_{l\ \text{times}}$ contains the number of paths from $i$ to $j$ with exactly $l$ steps in $G$. By induction on the path length $l$: For $l=1$, $A^l = A$ and the adjacency matrix contains a $1$ in cell $i, j$ iff $(i,j) \in E$, else $0$. Since length-1 paths consist of exactly one edge, this satisfies the theorem. Now consider matrices $A^p$, $A^q$ for $p+q = l$ for which the theorem holds since $p,q < l$. We now prove the theorem also holds for $A^l = A^p \cdot A^q$. Matrix multiplication is defined as $$(A^p \cdot A^q)_{i,j} = \sum_k A^p_{i,k} \cdot A^q_{k,j}\,.$$ According to the theorem, $A^p_{i,k}$ is the number of length-$p$ paths from $i$ to some vertex $k$, and $A^q_{k,j}$ is the number of length-$q$ paths from said vertex $k$ to $j$. To reach $j$ from $i$ via $k$, we can choose any path from $i$ to $k$ and any from $k$ to $j$, giving $ A^p_{i,k} \cdot A^q_{k,j}$ options. As we regard *all* paths from $i$ to $j$, we consider *all* intermediate vertices $k$ and count the total number (sum) of paths. This is exactly the count of length-$l$ paths demanded by the theorem, as each length-$l$ path can be uniquely split into a length-$p$ and a length-$q$ segment. In the proof we ignored a few details caused by the adjacency matrix representation: first, the adjacency matrix models a directed graph. We can also use the representation for undirected graphs by making sure $A$ is symmetrical (then also $A^l$ is symmetrical). Adjacency matrices contain the entry $A_{i,j} = 0$ to indicate $(i,j) \notin E$ and $A_{i,j} = 1$ for $(i,j) \in E$. By generalizing $A_{i,j}$ to be the number of length-1 paths ($=$ number of edges) from $i$ to $j$ as in the theorem, we can also represent multi-edges; the proof still holds. Finally, the diagonal entries $A_{i,i}$ represent self-loops in the graph, which need to be explicitly modeled. Note that also $i = j$ is allowed above and the intermediate vertex $k$ can be equal to $i$ and/or $j$. Usually self-loops should be avoided by setting $A_{i,i} = 0$. Then $A^l_{i,i}$ will be the number of cycles of length $l$ passing through $i$, and the paths counted in $A_{i,j}$ will include paths containing cycles. These cannot easily be avoided in this scheme[^4]. For most measures, e.g., shortest paths or disjoint paths, this is not a problem, since paths containing cycles will naturally never affect these metrics. On general graphs, the algorithms outlined here are not attractive since it might take up to the maximum shortest path length $D$ iterations to reach a fixed point, however since we are interested in low-diameter graphs, they are practical and easier to reason about than the Floyd-Warshall algorithms. ### Matrix Multiplication for Routing Tables As another example, we will later use a variation of this algorithm to compute next-hop tables that encode for each source $s$ and each destination $t$ which out-edge of $s$ should be used to reach $t$. In this algorithm, the matrix entries are sets of possible next hops. The initial adjacency matrix will contain for each edge in $G$ a set with the out edge index of this edge, otherwise empty sets. Instead of summing up path counts, we union the next-hop sets, and instead of multiplying with zero or one for each additional step, depending if there is an edge, we retain the set only if there is an edge for the next step. Since this procedure is not associative, it cannot be used to form longer paths from shorter segments, but it works as long as we always use the original adjacency matrix on the right side of the multiplication. The correctness proof is analogous to the path counting procedure. Counting Disjoint Paths ----------------------- The problem of counting all-pairs disjoint paths per pair is equivalent to the all-pairs edge connectivity problem which is a special case of the all-pairs max flow problem for uniform edge capacities. It can be solved using a spanning tree (*Gomory-Hu tree* [@panigrahi2008gomory]) with minimum $s-t$-cut values for the respective partitions on the edges. The minimum $s-t$ cut for each pair is then the minimum edge weight on the path in this tree, which can be computed cheaply for all pairs. The construction of the tree requires ${\mathcal{O}}(N_r)$ $s-t$-cuts, which cost ${\mathcal{O}}(N_r^3)$ each (e.g., using the Push-Relabel scheme [@cherkassky1997implementing]). Since we are more interested in the max flow values, rather than the min-cut partitions, a simplified approach can be used: while the Gomory-Hu tree has max flow values and min cut partitions equivalent to the original graph, a *equivalent flow tree* [@gusfield1990] only preserves the max flow values. While constructing it needs the same number of max-flow computations, these can be performed on the original input graph rather than the contracted graphs of Gomory-Hu, which makes the implementation much easier. For length-restricted connectivity, common max-flow algorithms have to be adapted to respect the path length constraint. The Gomory-Hu approach does not work, since it is based on the principle that the distances in the original graph do not need to be respected. We implemented an algorithm based on the Ford-Fulkerson method [@ford1956maximal], using BFS [@cormen2009introduction], which is not suitable for an all-pairs analysis, but can provide results for small sets of samples. The spanning-tree based approaches only work for undirected graphs, and solve the more general max-flow problem. There are also algorithms that only solve the edge-connectivity problem, using completely different approaches. Cheung et. al [@cheung2013] propose an algorithm based on linear algebra which can compute all-pairs connectivity in ${\mathcal{O}}(|E|^\omega + |V|^2 k'^\omega)$; $\omega \leq 3$ is the exponent for matrix-matrix multiplication. For our case of $k' \approx \sqrt{N_r}$ and naive matrix inversion, this is ${\mathcal{O}}(N_r^{4.5})$ with massive space use, but there are many options to use sparse representations and iterative solvers, which might enable ${\mathcal{O}}(N_r^{3.5})$. Due to their construction, those algorithms also allow a limitation of maximum path length (with a corresponding complexity reduction) and the heavy computations are built on well-known primitives with low constant overhead and good parallel scaling, compared to classical graph schemes. Deriving Edge Connectivity -------------------------- This scheme is based on the ideas of Cheung et. al. [@cheung2013]. First we adapt the algorithm for vertex connectivity, which allows lower space- and time complexity than the original algorithm and might also be easier to understand. The original edge-connectivity algorithm is obtained by applying it to a transformed graph.[^5] We then introduce the path-length constraint by replacing the exact solution obtained by matrix inversion with an approximated one based on iterations, which correspond to incrementally adding steps. The algorithm is randomized in the same way as the original is; we will ignore the probability analysis for now, as the randomization is only required to avoid degenerate matrices in the process and allow the use of a finite domain. The domain $\mathbb{F}$ is defined to be a finite field of sufficient size to make the analysis work and allow a real-world implementation; we can assume $\mathbb{F} = \mathbb{R^+}$ for the algorithm itself. First, we consider a *connection matrix*, which is just the adjacency matrix with random coefficients for the edges: $$K_{i,j} = \begin{cases} x \in \mathbb{F}\ \text{u.a.r.} & \text{iff}\ (i,j) \in E \\ 0 & \text{else}\,. \end{cases}$$ In the edge-connectivity algorithm we use a much larger adjacency matrix of a transformed graph here (empty rows and columns could be dropped, leaving an $|E| \times |E|$ matrix, but our implementation does not do this since the empty rows and columns are free in a sparse matrix representation): $$K'_{(i,k),(k,j)} = \begin{cases} x \in \mathbb{F}\ \text{u.a.r.} & \text{iff}\ (i,k) \in E \wedge (k,j) \in E\\ 0 & \text{else}\,. \end{cases}$$ Now, we assign a vector $F_i \in \mathbb{F}^k$, where $k$ is the maximum vertex degree, to each vertex $i$ and consider the system of equations defined by the graph: the value of each vertex shall be the linear combination of its neighbors weighted by the edge coefficients in $K$. To force a non-trivial solution, we designate a source vertex $s$ and add pairwise orthogonal vectors to each of its neighbors. For simplicity we use unit vectors in the respective columns of a $k \times |V|$ matrix $P_s$ (same shape as $F$). So, we get the condition $$\label{equ:def_f} F = FK+P_s\,.$$ This can be solved as $$F = -P_s(\mathbb{I}-K)^{-1}\,.$$ The work-intensive part is inverting $(\mathbb{I}-K)$, which can be done explicitly and independently from $s$, to get a computationally inexpensive all-pairs solution, or implicitly only for the vectors in $P_s$ for a computationally inexpensive single-source solution. To compute connectivity, we use the following theorem. The scheme outlined in the following proof counts vertex-disjoint paths of any length. The size of the vertex cut set $c_{st}$ from $s$ to $t$ equals $\operatorname{rank}(FQ_t)$, where $F = -P_s(\mathbb{I}-K)^{-1}$ and $Q_t$ is a $|V| \times k$ permutation matrix selecting the incoming neighbors of $t$. First, $c_{st} \leq \operatorname{rank}(FQ_t)$, because all non-zero vectors were injected around $s$ and all vectors propagated through the cut set of $c_{st}$ vertices to $t$, so there cannot be more than $c_{st}$ linearly independent vectors near $t$. Second, $c_{st} \geq \operatorname{rank}(FQ_t)$, because there are $c_{st}$ vertex-disjoint paths from $s$ to $t$. Each passes through one of the $c_{st}$ outgoing neighbors of $s$, which has one of the linearly independent vectors of $P_s$ assigned (combined with potentially other components). As there is a path from $s$ to $t$ trough this vertex, on each edge of this path the component of $P_s$ will be propagated to the next vertex, multiplied by the respective coefficient in $K$. So, at $t$ each of the paths will contribute one orthogonal component. To count length-limited paths instead, we simply use an iterative approximation of the fixed point instead of the explicit solution. Since we are only interested in the ranks of sub-matrices, it is also not necessary to actually find a precise solution; rather, following the argument of the proof above, we want to follow the propagation of linearly independent components through the network. The first approach is simply iterating Equation \[equ:def\_f\] from some initial guess. For this guess we use zero vectors, due to $P_s$ in there we still get nontrivial solutions but we can be certain to not introduce additional linearly dependent vectors: $$\begin{aligned} F_0 &= \big(0\big)\quad (k \times |V|)\\ F_l &= F_{l-1}K + P_s\,. \end{aligned}$$ This iteration still depends on a specific source vertex $s$. For an all-pairs solution, we can iterate for all source vertices in parallel by using more dimensions in the vectors; we set $k = |V|$. Now we can assign every vertex a pairwise orthogonal start vector, e.g., by factoring out $P_s$ and selecting rows by multiplying with $P_s$ in the end. The intermediate products are now $|V| \times |V|$ matrices, and we add the identity matrix after each step. Putting all together gives $$c_{st} = \operatorname{rank}(P_s\underbrace{(((K+\mathbb{I})\cdot K + \mathbb{I})\cdot\ldots)}_{\text{$l$ times, precomputed}}Q_t)\,.$$ The total complexity includes the $\mathcal{O}\left(|V|^3 l\right)$ operations to precompute the matrix for a maximum path length of $l$ and $\mathcal{O}\left(|V|^2 k^3\right)$ operations for the $\operatorname{rank}$ operations for all vertex pairs in the end, which will be the leading term for the $k = \mathcal{O}\left((\sqrt{|V|}\right)$ (diameter 2) undirected graphs considered here, for a total of $\mathcal{O}\left(|V|^{3.5}\right)$. For the edge connectivity version, we use the edge incidence connection matrix $K'$, and select rows and columns based on edge incidence, instead of vertex adjacency. Apart from that, the algorithm stays identical, but the measured cut set will now be a cut set of edges, yielding edge connectivity values. However, the algorithm is more expensive in terms of space use and running time: $\mathcal{O}\left(|E|^3 l\right)$ to precompute the propagation matrix. Details of Evaluation Setup {#sec:app-simulations-full-data} =========================== We now provide details of the evaluation setup. Behavior of Flows in OMNet++ {#sec:app-flow-omnet} ---------------------------- First, we use Figure \[fig:app-star\_lambda\] to illustrate the behavior of long flows (2MB) in the pFabric web search distribution in response to the flow arrival rate $\lambda$ (flows per endpoint per second) on a 60-endpoint crossbar (tail limited to 90% due to the low sample size). The left plot shows how the per-flow throughput decreases beyond $\lambda=250$, which is a sign of network saturation; the right figure shows three samples of completion time distributions for low, moderate, and high loads. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} Behavior of Flows in htsim {#sec:app-flow-htsim} -------------------------- In htsim simulations, on the star network as well as the baseline $2x$-oversubscribed fat tree, we observe better performance compared to the OMNet++ TCP simulations. This leads to a lower network load, which would be misleading in topology comparisons. Therefore, we use $\lambda = 300$, where the system starts to show congestion at the network level. At lower $\lambda$, we only observe endpoint congestion (crossbar (Star) results equal fat tree results), while at higher $\lambda$, the FCTs increase beyond the $2\times$ expected from the oversubscription: the lower service rate leads to more concurrent flows, decreasing the throughput per flow (see Figure \[fig:app-eta\_lambda\]). {width="\textwidth"} Selection of TCP Parameters --------------------------- TCP retransmissions on packet loss are controlled by two separate timeouts: one for the initial SYN and SYNACK handshake packets, and one that is used during the flow. Both are guarded by an upper and lower limit. For the handshake timeout, the lower limit is used in the beginning, increasing it up to the upper limit on retries. For the normal limit, it is adapted in response to the measured RTT but limited by the bounds, initially starting from a high value. Since we usually do not see lost SYN packets, we did not optimize the handshake timeouts. Most of the time, they simply have no effect at all. We did optimize the normal retransmission timeouts, and observed that limiting the lower bound can decrease performance at high load, while the upper bound does not have much impact (again, this is because it is unlikely that a packet is lost before an RTT estimate is produced, so this parameter is not used at all). The value of 200$\mu$s for the RTO lower bound is fairly high and can lead to performance degradation, but it also models a limited timer granularity on the endpoints, which makes low timeouts unrealistic. In the usual workload model considered in this work, packet loss rates are low enough that the RTO does not have any measurable impact, as long as the timeouts are not very high (with the INET default value of 1s, a single flow experiencing a RTO can influence the mean significantly). The TCP retransmission parameters become more relevant if very sparse, and therefore incomplete, layers are used, where packets are lost not only due to congestion but also due to being non-routable. However, in this case we use feedback via ICMP to trigger an immediate retransmission on a different layer, therefore the RTO limits also have no significant impact in this scenario. [^1]: These schemes account for packet-reordering. [^2]: We use the term “flow”, which is equivalent to a “message”. [^3]: We abstract away HW details and use a term “router” for L2 switches and L3 routers. [^4]: Setting $A^l_{i,i} = 0$ before/after each step does not prevent cycles, since a path from $i$ to $k$ might pass $j$, causing a cycle, and we cannot tell this is the case without actually recording the path. [^5]: Vertex-connectivity, defined as the minimum size of a cut set $c_{st} \subset V\setminus\{s,t\}$ of vertices that have to be removed to make $s$ and $t$ disconnected, is not well defined for neighbors in the graph. The edge-connectivity algorithm avoids this problem, but this cannot be generalized for vertex-connectivity.

ArXiv

8.5in .25in Ł[[L]{}]{} Ø[[O]{}]{} \#1\#2[0=1=to0[$#2$]{}0=1=to0[\#2]{}\#1-01]{} ‘@=11 stequation ‘=12 =cmssbx10 scaled 2 to [**SUPERSYMMETRY WITH GRAND\ UNIFICATION[^1]**]{}\ [V. Barger$^{\,a}$, M.S. Berger$^{\,a}$, P. Ohmann$^{\,a}$ and R.J.N. Phillips${\,^b}$]{}\ *$^a$Physics Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA\ $^b$Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, UK* Introduction ============ Supersymmetry (SUSY) has many well known attractions, especially in the context of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). SUSY stabilizes scalar mass corrections (the hierarchy problem), greatly reduces the number of free parameters, facilitates gauge coupling unification, and provides a plausible candidate for cosmological dark matter. In this conference report we survey some recent examples of progress in SUSY-GUT applications. Gauge coupling unification ========================== As the renormalization mass scale $\mu$ is changed, the evolution of couplings is governed by the Renormalization Group Equations (RGE). For the gauge group $\rm SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$, with corresponding gauge couplings $g_3(=g_s), g_2(=g), g_1(=\sqrt{5/3}g')$, the RGE can be written $${dg_i\over dt} = {g_i\over 16\pi^2} \left[ b_ig_i^2 + {1\over16\pi^2} \left( \sum_{j=1}^3 b_{ij} g_i^2g_j^2 - \sum_{j=1}^3 a_{ij} g_i^2\lambda_j^2\right)\right] \,,$$ where $t=ln( \mu /M_G)$ and $M_G$ is the GUT scale. The first term on the right is the one-loop approximation; the second and third terms contain two-loop effects, involving other gauge couplings $g_j$ and Yukawa couplings $\lambda_j$. The coefficients $b_i,\ b_{ij}$ and $a_{ij}$ are determined at given scale $\mu$ by the content of active particles (those with mass ${}<\mu$). If there are no thresholds ([*i.e.*]{} no changes of particle content) between $\mu$ and $M_G$, then the coefficients are constants through this range and the one-loop solution is $$\alpha_i^{-1}(\mu) = \alpha_i^{-1}(M_G) - t b_i/(2\pi) \;,$$ where $\alpha_i = g_i^2/(4\pi)$; thus $\alpha_i^{-1}$ evolves linearly with $\ln\mu$ at one-loop order. If there are no new physics thresholds between $\mu = M_Z \simeq m_t$ and $M_G$, as in the basic Standard Model (SM), then equations of this kind should evolve the observed couplings at the electroweak scale [@giatw] $$\begin{aligned} \alpha_1(M_Z)^{-1} &=& 58.89 \pm 0.11 \,, \\ \alpha_2(M_Z)^{-1} &=& 29.75 \pm 0.11 \,, \\ \alpha_3(M_Z) &=& 0.118\pm 0.007 \,,\end{aligned}$$ to converge to a common value at some large scale. Figure 1(a) shows that such a SM extrapolation does NOT converge; this figure actually includes two-loop effects but the evolution is still approximately linear versus $\ln\mu$, as at one-loop order. GUTs do not work, if we assume just SM particles plus a desert up to $M_G$. But if we increase the particle content to the minimal SUSY model (MSSM), with a threshold not too far above $M_Z$, then GUT-type convergence can happen. Figure 1(b) shows an example with SUSY threshold $M_{\rm SUSY}=1$ TeV [@susygut; @bbo]. The evolved couplings are consistent with a common intersection at $M_G \sim 10^{16}$GeV; GUTs are plainly more successful with MSSM than with SM. Henceforth we assume MSSM. In fact a precise single-point intersection is not strictly necessary; the exotic GUT gauge, fermion and scalar particles may not be quite degenerate, giving several non-degenerate thresholds near $M_G$, to be passed through on the way to GUT unification. Yukawa coupling evolution ========================= The Yukawa couplings also evolve. Typical evolution equations are[@susyrge1; @susyrge2] $$\begin{aligned} {d\lambda_t\over dt} &=& {\lambda_t\over16\pi^2} \left[-\sum c_i g_i^2 + 6\lambda_t^2 + \lambda_b^2 + \mbox{2-loop terms}\right] \;,\label{yuklam_t}\\ {d\lambda_b\over dt} &=& {\lambda_b\over16\pi^2} \left[-\sum c'_ig_i^2 + \lambda_t^2 + 6\lambda_b^2 + \lambda_\tau^2 + \hbox{2-loop}\right]\,,\\ {d\lambda_\tau\over dt} &=& {\lambda_{\tau } \over16\pi^2} \left[-\sum c''_ig_i^2 + 3\lambda_b^2 + 4\lambda_\tau^2 + \hbox{2-loop}\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $c_i=(13/15,3,16/3)$, $c'_1=(7/15,3,16/3)$, $c''_i=(9/5,3,0)$, and hence $${d(\lambda_b/\lambda_\tau)\over dt} = {(\lambda_b/\lambda_\tau)\over16\pi^2} \left[-\sum d_i g_i^2+\lambda_t^2+3\lambda_b^2-3\lambda_\tau^2 + \mbox{2-loop terms} \right]\,, \label{yuklam_b}$$ with $d_i=(-4/3,0,16/3)$. Evolution is mainly driven by the largest couplings $g_3,\ \lambda_t,\ \lambda_b,\ \lambda_{\tau}$. The low-energy values at $\mu=m_t$ are $$\begin{aligned} \label{lambda_b} \lambda_b(m_t) = {\sqrt2\, m_b(m_b)\over\eta_b v\cos\beta}\,, \qquad \lambda_\tau(m_t) = {\sqrt2m_\tau(m_\tau)\over \eta_\tau v\cos\beta}\,, \qquad \lambda_t(m_t) = {\sqrt2 m_t(m_t)\over v\sin\beta} \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta_f = m_f(m_f)/m_f(m_t)$ gives the running of the masses below $\mu=m_t$, obtained from 3-loop QCD and 1-loop QED evolution, for heavy flavors $f=t,b,c,\tau$. For light flavors $f=s,u,d,e,\mu$ we stop at $\mu=1$ GeV and define $\eta_f = m_f(1{\rm\ GeV})/m_f(m_t)$. The $\eta_q$ values depend principally on the value of $\alpha_3(M_Z)$; for $\alpha_3(M_Z)=0. 118,\ \eta_b\simeq 1.5,\ \eta_c\simeq 2.1,\ \eta_s=\eta_u=\eta_d\simeq 2.4$. The running mass values are $m_b(m_b)=4.25\pm0.15$ GeV, $m_\tau(m_\tau)=1.777$ GeV, $m_c(m_c) \simeq 1.2{\rm\ GeV}, m_s(1\rm\ GeV) \simeq 0.175$ GeV, $m_u(1\rm\ GeV) \simeq 0.006$ G eV, $m_d(1\rm\ GeV) \simeq 0.008$ GeV[@GL]. The denominator factors in Eq. (\[lambda\_b\]) arise in the MSSM from the two Higgs vevs $v_1=v\cos\beta$ and $v_2=v\sin\beta$; they are related to the SM vev $v=246$ GeV by $v_1^2+v_2^2=v^2$, while $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$ measures their ratio. [Fig. 2: Typical Yukawa scaling factors $S_i= \lambda_i(M_G)/\lambda_i(m_t)$ [@bbo].]{} The above RGE allow the Yukawa couplings to be evolved from $m_t$ up to the GUT scale. Figure 2 illustrates the scaling factors $S_i = \lambda_i(M_G)/\lambda_i(m_t)$ for the case $M_{\rm SUSY} = m_t(m_t) =150$ GeV and $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$. It shows that the scaling factors are sensitive to $\tan\beta$ when the latter is very large or very small. Large and small $\tan\beta$ correspond to the regions in which the Yukawa couplings become large; between these regions and if $m_t$ is not too large (${\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}170$ GeV), the gauge couplings dominate the evolution giving rise to scaling factors less than one. Figure 3 compares the values of $\lambda_i(M_G)$ corresponding to the scaling factors in Figure 2. ([*caution:*]{} the input $b,c,s,d,u$ mass values here have substantial uncertainties). Extrapolations of this kind allow us to test various postulated GUT relations such as[@fixpt] $$\begin{aligned} \lambda_b(M_G) &\simeq& \phantom3\lambda_\tau(M_G)\,,~~\rm Ref.\cite{ceg} \;, \label{b=tau} \\ \lambda_{\mu}(M_G) &\simeq& 3 \lambda_s(M_G)\,,~~\rm Ref.\cite{gj} \,, \\ \lambda_e(M_G) &\simeq& \textstyle{1\over3}\lambda_d(M_G) \,,~~\rm Ref.\cite{gj}\,.\\ \lambda_t(M_G) &\simeq& \lambda_b(M_G) \simeq \lambda_{\tau}(M_G)\,,\label{tbteq}\rm~~ Ref.\cite{tbt} \,.\end{aligned}$$ In the rest of this section we discuss various aspects of Yukawa coupling evolution. [Fig. 3: Typical Yukawa couplings $\lambda_i(M_G)$ at the GUT scale [@bbo].]{} The theoretical requirement that Yukawa couplings remain perturbative throughout their evolution up to $M_G$ places constraints on $\tan\beta$. If we require that the ratio of 2-loop/1-loop contributions in the RGE remains less than 1/4, then[@bbo; @cpw; @lp] $$0.6 {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}\tan\beta {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}65 \,.$$ There is also an indirect perturbative constraint on the input parameter $\alpha_3(M_Z)$, if we wish to have $b$-$\tau$ Yukawa unification (Eq.\[b=tau\]). Since the $g_3^2$ and $\lambda_t^2$ terms enter the $\lambda_b/\lambda_{\tau}$ RGE with opposite signs, an increase in $g_3$ requires a compensating increase in $\lambda_t$ to maintain unification; see Fig. 4. To keep $\lambda_t$ perturbative requires[@bbo; @cpw; @lp] $$\alpha_3(M_Z) {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}0.13 \,.$$ As $\mu\to m_t$, $\lambda_t$ rapidly approaches an infrared fixed point [@pendleton] as shown in Figure 5. An approximate fixed-point solution for $m_t$ is given by the vanishing of the one-loop terms on the right of Eq. (\[yuklam\_t\]) $$-\sum c_ig_i^2 + 6\lambda_t^2 + \lambda_b^2 = 0 \,.$$ Neglecting $g_1,\, g_2$ and $\lambda_b$, $m_t$ is then predicted in terms of $\alpha_s(m_t)$ and $\beta$: [@fixpt; @cpw; @lp; @fkm; @dhr; @bbhz] $$\begin{aligned} m_t(m_t) \approx \frac{4}{3}\sqrt{2\pi\alpha_3(m_t)}\, \frac{v}{\sqrt2}\sin\beta \approx (192\gev){\tan\beta\over\sqrt{1+\tan^2\beta}} \,. \label{mt(mt)}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the scale of the top-quark mass is naturally large in SUSY-GUT models but depends on $\tan\beta$. Note that the propagator-pole mass is related to this running mass by $$m_t({\rm pole}) = m_t(m_t)\left[1+{4\over3\pi}\alpha_3(m_t)+\cdots\right]\,. \label{mtpole}$$ An exact numerical solution for the relation between $m_t$ and $\tan\beta$, obtained from the 2-loop RGEs for $\lambda_t$ and $\lambda_b/\lambda_\tau$, with $\lambda_b(M_G)=\lambda_{\tau}(M_G)$ unification, is shown in Fig. 6 taking $M_{\rm SUSY}=m_t$. At large $\tan\beta$, $\lambda_b$ becomes large and the above fixed-point solution no longer applies. In fact, the solutions become non-perturbative at large $\tan\beta$; our perturbative requirement (2-loop)/(1-loop)${}\leq 1/4$ leads to $\lambda_t(M_G)\leq3.3$, $\lambda_b(M_G)\leq3.1$ and $\tan\beta{\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}65$. For most $m_t$ values there are two possible solutions for $\tan\beta$; the lower solution is controlled by the $\lambda_t$ fixed point, following Eqs. (\[mt(mt)\]),(\[mtpole\]): $$\sin\beta\simeq m_t(\rm pole)/(200\gev) \,. \label{mt3}$$ An upper limit $m_t(\rm pole) {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}200$ GeV is found with these RGE solutions. [Fig. 4: Qualitative dependence of $\lambda_t$ at the GUT scale on $\alpha_3(M_Z)$ [@bbo].]{} [Fig. 5: The Yukawa coupling $\lambda_t$ approaches a fixed point at the electroweak scale [@fixpt].]{} [Fig. 6. Contours of constant $m_b(m_b)$ in the $\left(m_t(m_t),\tan\beta^{\vphantom1}\right)$ plane [@bbo].]{} Figures 3 and 6 show that there is the possibility of $\lambda _t=\lambda _b=\lambda _{\tau }$ unification at $M_G^{}$; $m_t$ and $\tan \beta $ must then be large. In the presence of GUT threshold corrections, there may effectively be corrections to GUT relations like Eq. 9[@lp; @hs; @hrs]. Figure 7 shows the effects of small deviations of $\lambda _b/\lambda _{\tau }$ from unity at $\mu =M_G^{}$. Large threshold corrections are only possible in the case that $\lambda _b < \lambda _{\tau }$ due to the proximity of the Landau pole. [Fig. 7: GUT threshold corrections to Yukawa coupling unification [@fixpt].]{} Evolution of the CKM matrix =========================== The CKM matrix comes from the mismatch between transformations that diagonalize the up-type and down-type quark mass matrices, arising from the matrices of Yukawa couplings. We can therefore define a running CKM matrix, with its own RGE, by diagonalizing the running mass matrices. The RGE become especially simple if we keep only the leading terms in the experimentally observed mass and CKM hierarchies, i.e. if we neglect $\lambda_c/\lambda_t,\ \lambda_u/\lambda_c,\ \lambda_s/\lambda_b,\ \lambda_d/\lambda_s,\ |V_{ub}|^2$ and $|V_{cb}|^2$[@op; @bbo2; @bs]. Then the only off-diagonal CKM elements that evolve are those connected to the third generation, i.e. $V_{ub},\ V_{cb},\ V_{td},\ V_{ts}$, and these all have the same RGE (to all loops): $$\frac{d|V_{Qq}|}{dt} = -\frac{|V_{Qq}|}{16\pi ^2}[\lambda_t^2 +\lambda_b^2 + \mbox{2-loop}] \,.$$ All other off-diagonal matrix elements have $d|V_{Qq}|/dt=0$, while the diagonal elements remain $\simeq 1$ by unitarity. Hence the moduli of CKM elements have the scaling behaviour[@op; @bbo2; @bs] $$|V_{\rm CKM}|(\mu=M_G) = \left( \begin{array}{rrr} |V_{ud}| & |V_{us}| & \sqrt S |V_{ub}|\\ |V_{cd}| & |V_{cs}| & \sqrt S |V_{cb}|\\ \sqrt S |V_{td}| & \sqrt S |V_{ts}| & |V_{tb}| \end{array}\right)_{\mu=m_t}$$ where $S$ is a universal scaling factor. A small unitarity violation here is of sub-leading order in the mass/CKM hierarchy. Similarly, it can be shown that the rephase-invariant CP-violation parameter $J = \Im(V_{ud}V_{cs}V_{us}^*V_{cd}^*)$ scales as[@op; @bbo2; @bs] $$J(\mu=M_G) = S J(\mu=m_t) \,.$$ Figure 8 shows how the universal scaling factor depends on $\tan\beta$ in typical cases. This approximate scaling property offers a quick and simple way to test GUT-scale hypotheses about mass- and CKM-matrices. [Fig. 8: Typical CKM scaling factor $\sqrt S$ versus $\tan\beta$ [@bbo2].]{} GUT-scale Yukawa hypotheses usually take the form of assumed parametric forms, called “textures", for the quark and lepton mass matrices at $M_G$. For example, the SU(5) SUSY-GUT model of Ref.[@gj] postulates up-quark, down-quark and charged lepton mass matrices (Yukawa coupling matrices) of the forms $${\bf U} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & C & 0 \\ C & 0 & B \\ 0 & B & A \end{array}\right) \qquad {\bf D} = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & F & 0 \\ F' & E & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & D \end{array}\right) \qquad {\bf E } = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0 & F & 0 \\ F' & -3E & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & D\end{array}\right) \,.$$ These immediately imply the relation[@gj; @hrr; @fls] $$|V_{cb}| = \sqrt {\lambda_c / \lambda_t } \label{Vcb} \,,$$ since $V_{cb}$ originates entirely from the [**U**]{}-matrix, and also $$\lambda_{\tau} \simeq \lambda_b \,, \qquad \lambda_{\mu} = 3 \lambda_s \,, \qquad \lambda_e = {1\over3} \lambda_d \,, \qquad ({\rm all\ at}\ \mu = M_G)\,.$$ The DHR model [@dhr; @hrr] introduces changes by putting $${\bf U}= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0&C&0\\ C&0&B\\ 0&B&A\end{array}\right) \qquad {\bf D}= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0&Fe^{i\phi}&0\\ Fe^{-i\phi}&E&0\\ 0&0&D\end{array}\right) \qquad {\bf E}= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0&F&0\\ F&-3E&0\\ 0&0&D\end{array}\right) ,$$ when the left and right down quarks and charged leptons appear in the same multiplet such as the $\bf 16$ of SO(10). Other phases can be rotated away. The ADHRS models[@adhrs] $${\bf U}= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0&{1\over 27}C&0\\ {1\over 27}C&0&x_uB\\ 0&x_u^{\prime }B&A\end{array}\right) \quad {\bf D}= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0&C&0\\ C&Ee^{i\phi }&x_dB\\ 0&x_d^{\prime }B&A\end{array}\right) \quad {\bf E}= \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 0&C&0\\ C&3Ee^{i\phi }&x_eB\\ 0&x_e^{\prime }B&A\end{array}\right) ,$$ have fewer zeros in [**D**]{} and [**E**]{} but retain SO(10)-type relations $|V_{cb}| = \chi \sqrt{\lambda_c/\lambda_t}$ at $\mu = M_G$, where $\chi$ is a (discrete) Clebsch factor. These models are more predictive since they relate the up-quark Yukawa matrix to the down-quark Yukawa matrix resulting in two fewer continuous parameters. In order to test the prediction $|V_{cb}| = \sqrt{\lambda_c /\lambda_t}$ at $\mu = M_G$, we can proceed as follows. 1. Start with low-energy input, $m_t(m_t), m_b(m_b), m_c(m_c)$; 2. evolve Yukawa couplings up to $\mu = M_G$; 3. when $\lambda_b(M_G) = \lambda_{\tau}(M_G)$ is satisfied, construct $|V_{cb}(M_G)|$ and evolve it down to $|V_{cb}(m_t)|$, and compare with experiment. Figure 9 shows contours of $|V_{cb}(m_t)|$ in the $(m_t(m_t), \tan\beta)$ plane, for MSSM GUT solutions with the $b$-$\tau$ Yukawa unification constraint and various $m_c(m_c)$ input choices. The region of $b$-$\tau$-$t$ Yukawa unification is indicated. The relation Eq. (\[Vcb\]) leads to a lower bound[@bbo] $$|V_{cb}(m_t)| \ge 0.043(200\ {\rm GeV}/m_t^{\rm pole})^{1/2}\;.$$ [Fig. 9: Typical contours of $|V_{cb}(m_t)|$ [@bbo].]{} Figure 10 shows the effects of threshold corrections and/or a group theory Clebsch factor on the GUT scale relation. These effects are parametrized by the factor $X$ in the revised unification criteria $|V_{cb}|=X\sqrt{\lambda _c/\lambda _t}$ at $M_G^{}$. Some relations between quark masses and CKM mixing angles are satisfied under more general assumptions. For example, the GUT scale relationships $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|=\sqrt{m_u/m_c}$ and $|V_{td}/V_{ud}|=\sqrt{m_d/m_s}$ have been shown to pertain to a whole class of unification scenarios[@hr]. Implications for SUSY Higgs searches ==================================== The $\lambda_t$ fixed-point solutions have interesting implications for the phenomenology of Higgs bosons in the MSSM. Recall that there are 5 Higgs bosons in this model[@hhg]: neutral CP-even $h$ and $H\ (m_h < m_H)$, neutral CP-odd $A$, and charged $H^{\pm}$. At tree level there are just two parameters, usually taken to be $m_A$ and $\tan\beta$ and a mass bound $m_h < M_Z$, but large one-loop radiative corrections (principally depending on $m_t$ and the mean $t$-squark mass $m_{\tilde t}$) affect the Higgs masses and couplings and push up the $m_h$ bound to $$m_h^2 < M_Z^2 + \frac{6G_Fm_t^4}{\sqrt2 \pi^2} \ln(m_{\tilde t}/m_t) .$$ Studies of MSSM Higgses usually refer to the $(m_A, \tan\beta)$ parameter plane, taking a range of $m_t$ and assuming $m_{\tilde t} \sim 1$ TeV. Several groups[@barger; @baer; @gunion; @kunszt] have systematically discussed the potential of present and future colliders to discover one or more MSSM Higgses. LEPI has already excluded part of the $(m_A, \tan\beta)$ plane; LEPII will cover more but not all. SSC/LHC offer new search possibilities, but there remains a region $m_A \sim 100$–150 GeV, $\tan\beta {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}5$ where apparently no MSSM Higgs signals whatever would be detectable (unless high-performance $b$-tagging[@dai] and rapidity gap searches[@fs] can succeed). It is therefore very interesting to find any theoretical arguments why this inaccessible region may be forbidden. The $\lambda_t$ fixed-point solutions provide a possible argument if $m_t {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}160$ GeV, since these solutions are then constrained to a range of small $\tan\beta$ as shown in Fig. 6, with $m_t$ and $\tan\beta$ directly correlated via Eq. (\[mt3\]) [@fixpt]. With this correlation, the $(m_A,\tan\beta)$ region excluded by 1992 LEPI searches is shown in Fig. 11(a) (assuming $m_{\tilde t} \simeq 1$ TeV). The corresponding region in the $(m_h,\tan\beta)$ plane is shown in Fig. 11(b), where the left-hand boundary comes from LEPI data and the right-hand boundary comes from internal MSSM constraints with one-loop corrections. We see that the lower limit on $m_h$ is about 60 GeV (close to the 61 GeV SM Higgs limit with these data), while the input assumption $m_t < 160$ GeV implies that $m_h {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}85 $ GeV — within reach of LEPII searches. The corresponding mass limits on the other Higgses are $m_A {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}70$ GeV, $m_{H^\pm} {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}105$ GeV, $m_H {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}140$ GeV. In principle, $A$ too might be discoverable at LEPII via $e^+ e^- \to Ah$ production, but in fact there is only a small parameter region where the cross section would be big enough; the other production channels $AH,ZH,H^+H^-$ are kinematically inaccessible. Thus this range of $\lambda_t$ fixed-point solutions implies that we shall not have to wait for SSC/LHC to discover a MSSM Higgs boson. What more will be detectable there? Figure 12 shows the limits of detectability for the principal SSC/LHC signals, in the $h \to \gamma \gamma,\ H \to \ell\ell\ell\ell, A \to \gamma\gamma$ and $H^{\pm} \to \tau\nu$ channels. Depending on $m_A$ and $\tan\beta$, we see there could be good chances to discover one or more additional Higgses, though not all of them at once; but there also exists a parameter region where no Higgs signals whatever would be expected at SSC/LHC[@fixpt]. Possible future $e^+e^-$ linear colliders with energies above LEPII offer interesting further possibilities, however. The principal neutral-Higgs production channels are $$\begin{aligned} e^+ e^- &\to& Zh, Ah, ZH, AH \\ e^+ e^- &\to& \nu \nu h, \nu \nu H, e^+ e^- h, e^+ e^- H .\end{aligned}$$ Here the two-body cross sections fall with $1/s$ while the others ($WW$ and $ZZ$ fusion) rise logarithmically. Now the $Z^* \to ZH,Ah$ plus $WW,ZZ \to H$ rates are all suppressed by a factor $\cos^2(\beta-\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is a CP-even mixing angle; in the $\lambda_t$ fixed-point solutions, $\cos^2(\beta-\alpha) < 0.3\ (0.05)$ for $m_t < 160$ GeV (145 GeV). However, the remaining $Z^* \to Zh,AH$ plus $WW,ZZ \to h$ rates contain the complementary factor $\sin^2(\beta - \alpha)$ and are unsuppressed, while the charged-Higgs process $$e^+ e^- \to H^+ H^-$$ has no such factors. Copious $h$ production is therefore guaranteed, with $H, A, H^{\pm}$ too if they are not too heavy. Summary ======= 1. The success of SUSY GUTS in gauge coupling unification is tantalizing. 2. Yukawa coupling possibilities $(\lambda_b \simeq \lambda_{\tau}$, etc) are equally attractive. 3. The constraint $\lambda_b(M_G) = \lambda_{\tau}(M_G)$ leads to a narrow corridor in the plane of $\tan\beta$ and $m_t^{\rm pole}$. 4. $\lambda_t$ fixed-point solutions with $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.118$ predict $\sin\beta \simeq m_t^{\rm pole}/(200$ GeV) or $\tan \beta $ large. 5. Perturbativity at the GUT scale implies several constraints: $m_t^{\rm pole} {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}200$ GeV (for $\alpha_s(M_Z) = 0.118$), $\alpha_s(M_Z) {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}0.13$, $\tan\beta {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}65$. 6. A simple scaling law connects CKM matrix elements at $\mu = m_t$ and $M_G$. 7. GUT textures give interesting low-energy predictions; e.g. $|V_{cb}(M_G)| = \hfill\break \sqrt {\lambda_c(M_G)/\lambda_t(M_G)}$ gives $|V_{cb}(m_t)| > 0.043 (200\ {\rm GeV}/m_t^{\rm pole})^{1/2}$. 8. Threshold effects at the GUT scale may not be negligible. 9. $\lambda_t$ fixed-point solutions imply that $m_t {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}130$ GeV and the lightest MSSM Higgs mass $m_h {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}60 GeV$; if in fact $m_t {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}160$ GeV, then $m_h {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}85$ GeV and $h$ will be discoverable at LEP. This research was supported in part by the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-76ER00881, and in part by the Texas National Laboratory Research Commission under grant no. RGFY93-221. PO was supported in part by an NSF Graduate Fellowship. [00]{} Review of Particle Properties, Phys. Rev. [**D45,**]{} no.11-II (1992); G. Altarelli, CERN-TH.6623/92. U. Amaldi, W. de Boer, and H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. [**B260**]{}, 447 (1991); J. Ellis, S. Kelley and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. [**B260**]{} 131 (1991); P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. [**D44**]{}, 817 (1991). V. Barger, M.S. Berger, and P. Ohmann, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 1093 (1993), and unpublished calculations. K. Inoue, A. Kakuto, H. Komatsu and S. Takeshita, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**67**]{}, 1889 (1982). J. E. Björkman and D. R. T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. [**B25 9**]{}, 533 (1985). J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Rep. [**87**]{}, 77 (1982). V. Barger et al., Madison preprint MAD/PH/755, to be published in Phys. Lett. B. M. Chanowitz, J. Ellis, and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys., 506 (1977). H. Georgi and C. Jarlskog, Phys. Lett. [**86B**]{}, 297 (1979). M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. [**B214**]{}, 393 (1991); B. Ananthanarayan et al., Phys. Rev. [**D44**]{}, 1613 (1991); S. Kelley et al., Phys. Lett. [**B274**]{}, 387 (1992); B. Ananthanarayan, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. [**B300**]{}, 245 (1993). M. Carena, S. Pokorski, and C. E. M. Wagner, Max Planck Institute preprint MPI-PH-93-10 (1993). P. Langacker and N. Polonsky, University of Pennsylvania preprint UPR-0556-T (1993). B. Pendleton and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. [**98B**]{}, 291 (1981); C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. [**D24**]{}, 691 (1981). C. D. Froggatt, I. G. Knowles, and R. G. Moorehouse, Phys.Lett. [**B249**]{}, 273 (1990); [**B298**]{}, 356 (1993). S. Dimopoulos, L. Hall and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1984 (1992); Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, 4192 (1992); [**D46**]{}, 4793 (1992); G.W. Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 3702 (1993). V. Barger, M. S. Berger, T. Han, and M. Zralek, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**68**]{}, 3394 (1992). A. E. Faraggi, B. Grinstein, S. Meshkov, SSCL-PREPRINT-126-REV; L. J. Hall and U. Sarid, Lawrence Berkeley Preprint LBL-32905 (1993). L. J. Hall, R. Rattazzi, and U. Sarid, Lawrence Berkeley Preprint LBL-33997 (1993). M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. [**B257**]{}, 388 (1991). V. Barger, M.S. Berger and P. Ohmann, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 2038 (1993). K. S. Babu and Q. Shafi, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{}, 5004 (1993). H. Georgi and D. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. [**B159**]{}, 16 (1979); J. Harvey, P. Ramond, and D. B. Reiss, Phys. Lett. [**92B**]{}, 309 (1980); Nucl. Phys. [**B199**]{}, 223 (1982). E. M. Freire, G. Lazarides, and Q. Shafi, Mod. Phys., 2453 (1990). L. J. Hall, Plenary talk given at 16th Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and 3rd Particles, Strings, and Cosmology Symposium (TEXAS / PASCOS 92), Berkeley, CA, 13-18 Dec 1992, LBL-33677 (1993); S. Raby, Talk presented at International Workshop on Recent Advances in the Superworld, Woodlands, TX, 13-16 Apr 1993, OHSTPY-HEP-T-93007 (1993). L. J. Hall and A. Rasin, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory preprint LBL-33668 (1993). For a review see J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane and S. Dawson, “The Higgs-Hunter’s Guide", Addison-Wesley (1990). V. Barger et al., Phys. Rev. [**D45**]{}, 4128; [**D46**]{}, 4914 (1992). H. Baer et al., Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}, 1067 (1992). J.F. Gunion et al., Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}, 2040, 2052 (1992); [**D47**]{}, 1030 (1993). Z. Kunszt and F. Zwirner, Nucl. Phys. [**B385**]{}, 3 (1992). J. Dai, J.F. Gunion and R. Vega, Davis preprint UCD-93-20; T. Garavaglia, W. Kwong, and D. Wu, Prairie View A-M Preprint PVAM-HEP-93-1. R. S. Fletcher and T. Stelzer, Madison preprint MAD/PH/763 (1993), and unpublished calculations. [^1]: Talk presented by V. Barger at the [*Workshop on Physics at Current Accelerators and theSupercollider*]{}, Argonne, June 1993.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'By employing the method of moving planes in a novel way we extend some classical symmetry and rigidity results for smooth minimal surfaces to surfaces that have singularities of the sort typically observed in soap films.' address: - 'Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218' - 'Department of Mathematics, The University of Texas at Austin, 2515 Speedway, Stop C1200, Austin TX 78712-1202, USA' author: - Jacob Bernstein - Francesco Maggi bibliography: - 'references.bib' title: | Symmetry and Rigidity of Minimal Surfaces\ with Plateau-like Singularities --- Introduction ============ Overview -------- Minimal surfaces in ${\mathbb R}^3$ provide the standard mathematical model of soap films at equilibrium. Nevertheless, there is a historical mismatch between the classical theory of minimal surfaces, which focuses on smooth immersions with vanishing mean curvature, and the richer structures documented experimentally since the pioneering work of Plateau [@plateau]. Indeed, two types of singular points are observed in soap films, called $Y$ and $T$ points; see Figure \[fig yt\] below. We call the surfaces described in experiments [*minimal Plateau surfaces*]{} and ask: [*To what extent may the classical theory of minimal surfaces be generalized to minimal Plateau surfaces and what new conclusions may be drawn?*]{} This paper studies this question in the model case provided by [**Schoen’s rigidity theorem for catenoids**]{} [@SchoenSymmetry]: a (classical) minimal surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$ spanning two parallel circles with centers on the same axis has rotational symmetry about this axis and so is either a pair of flat disks or a subset of a catenoid. Schoen’s theorem is an interesting model case for two reasons: (i) its extension to minimal Plateau surfaces requires the inclusion of new cases of rigidity, given by singular catenoids; (ii) Schoen’s proof uses Alexandrov’s method of moving planes [@alexandrov], which has been almost exclusively applied in the smooth setting: thus its adaptation to a class containing singular surfaces is notable. The only other application of the moving planes method in a non-smooth setting that we are aware of is the recent work [@HaslhoferEtAl; @HaHeWh]. However, in that work *a posteriori* regularity is derived from the moving planes method despite allowing *a priori* singularities. This is unlike our applications in which genuinely singular surfaces are symmetric examples; see Figure \[fig catenoids\]. This introduction is organized as follows. In Section \[section schoen rigidity\] we recall the rigidity theorems from [@SchoenSymmetry]. In Sections \[section plateau surfaces\] and \[section cell structure\] we define Plateau surfaces and introduce a notion of orientability for them, that we call the cell structure condition. In Section \[section schoen plateau\] we state our main results, which extend Schoen’s rigidity theorems to minimal Plateau surfaces. Finally, in Sections \[section physical motivation\] and \[section nonsmooth rigidity\] we discuss further the physical and mathematical motivations for Plateau surfaces and situate them within the more general frameworks provided by geometric measure theory. Schoen’s rigidity theorems {#section schoen rigidity} -------------------------- The [*first rigidity theorem*]{} proved in [@SchoenSymmetry] states that a minimal immersion of a compact connected surface with boundary consisting of a pair of coaxial circles in parallel planes is, up to rigid motion and dilation, a piece of the catenoid. Here the catenoid is the minimal surface $${\mathrm{Cat}}={\left\{x_1^2+x_2^2=\cosh^2 x_3\right\}}\,.$$ The [*second rigidity theorem*]{} is more global in nature. It says that, up to rigid motion and dilation, any complete minimal immersion that is regular at infinity and has two ends, must either be a catenoid or a pair of planes. Here, a surface is *regular at infinity* if after removing a sufficiently large compact set, each remaining component of the surface is modeled on either a catenoidal or planar end. In both rigidity theorems the hypotheses that the minimal surface be an immersion is essential, as can be seen by the example of the *Y-catenoid*, $${\mathrm{Cat}}_Y={\left\{x_1^2+x_2^2=\cosh^2 (|x_3|+h_0)\right\}}\bigcup {\left\{3(x_1^2+x_2^2)\leq 4, x_3=0\right\}}$$ (where $h_0=\log(3)/2$ is the unique solution to $\sinh h_0=1/\sqrt{3}$). Indeed, ${\mathrm{Cat}}_Y$ is minimal both in a distributional sense (that is, as a stationary $2$-dimensional varifold in ${\mathbb R}^3$) and is the prototypical example of what we call a minimal Plateau surface. Plateau surfaces {#section plateau surfaces} ---------------- Let $\mathcal{K}$ a family of cones in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with vertex the origin with $$\{P,H\}\subset\mathcal{K}\,,$$ where $P={\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ is a plane and $H={\left\{x_3=0, x_1\geq 0\right\}}$ a half-plane, and so that all the elements of $\mathcal{K}$ are distinct up to rotations. In particular, if $K\in\mathcal{K}\setminus\{P,H\}$, then $K$ is neither a plane nor a half-plane. Given $U\subset{\mathbb R}^3$ open, a closed subset $\Sigma\subset U$ is a [**$\mathcal{K}$-surface in $U$**]{} if, for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$ and for all $p\in \Sigma\cap U$, there is an $r>0$ and a $C^{1,\alpha}$-regular diffeomorphism $\phi: B_{r}(p)\subset U\to {\mathbb R}^3$ so that $\phi(\Sigma\cap B_{r}(p))\in\mathcal{K}$ and $D\phi_p \in O(3)$, i.e., $D \phi_p$ is an orthogonal linear transformation. The element of $\mathcal{K}$ corresponding to $p\in\Sigma$ is unique and is denoted by $$\hat{T}_p\Sigma\in \mathcal{K}\,.$$ The [**tangent cone**]{} of $\Sigma$ at $p$, denoted $T_p\Sigma$, is defined by $D\phi_p\left(T_p\Sigma\right)= \hat{T}_p\Sigma$. Clearly, $T_p\Sigma=\lim_{\rho\to 0^+} (\Sigma-p)/\rho$ where the limit is in the pointed Hausdorff sense. For each $K\in\mathcal{K}$, we let $\Sigma_K=\{p\in\Sigma\cap U:\hat{T}_p\Sigma=K\}$. Correspondingly, we identify the sets of [**interior points**]{} ${\rm int}(\Sigma)=\Sigma_P$, of [**boundary points**]{} $\partial\Sigma=\Sigma_H$, of [**regular points**]{} ${\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)={\rm int}(\Sigma)\cup{\partial}\Sigma$, and of singular points ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)=\Sigma\setminus{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)$. By construction, an Hölder continuous vector field $\nu^{nt}_\Sigma$ of [**outer unit conormals**]{} to $\Sigma$ can be defined along ${\partial}\Sigma$. When ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)=\emptyset$, the notion of $\mathcal{K}$-surface reduces to that of [**regular surface**]{} (with boundary and of class $C^{1,\alpha}$) in $U$. A (relatively) closed subset $\Sigma\subset U$, in an open subset $U\subset {\mathbb R}^3$, is a [**Plateau surface in $U$**]{} if: [**(a)**]{} $\Sigma$ is a $\mathcal{K}$-surface in $U$ for $$\label{K plateau} \mathcal{K}=\{P,H,Y,T\}\,,$$ where $Y=H\cup H_{120}\cup H_{-120}$ (and $H_\theta$ is the rotation of $H$ by $\theta$-degrees about the $x_2$-axis), and $T$ is the cone over the edges of a reference regular tetrahedron centered at the origin, see Figure \[fig yt\]; [**(b)**]{} each connected component of $\mathrm{int}(\Sigma)$ has (weak) constant mean curvature. If $\mathrm{int}(\Sigma)$ has zero mean curvature, then $\Sigma$ is a [**minimal Plateau surface in $U$**]{}. When $\Sigma_T=\emptyset$, one calls $\Sigma$ a [**$Y$-surface**]{}. \[rmk PS from c1a to analytic\] [If $\Sigma$ is a Plateau surface, then $\Sigma\backslash (\partial \Sigma\cup \Sigma_T)$ admits smooth (in fact real-analytic) charts. Indeed, standard elliptic regularity ensures the smoothness of any $C^{1,\alpha}$-graph whose mean curvature is constant in a weak sense and so $\mathrm{int}(\Sigma)$ consists of smooth surfaces. Furthermore, work of Kinderleher, Nirenberg and Spruck [@KNS Theorem 5.2] implies that each component of $\Sigma_Y$ is a smooth curve.]{} Orientability of Plateau surfaces {#section cell structure} --------------------------------- We introduce a notion of orientability in the Plateau setting that generalizes the notion of a regular surface separating an ambient three-manifold. A Plateau surface $\Sigma$ [**defines a cell structure**]{} in $U\subset{\mathbb R}^3$ open, if there exists a family of open, connected sets $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma)={\left\{U^i: 1\leq i \leq N\right\}}$, called the [**cells of $\Sigma$**]{}, such that $$\label{cell structure} \partial \Sigma \subset \partial U\,,\qquad U\backslash \Sigma =\bigcup_{i=1}^N U^i$$ and, for each $p\in \Sigma$ there is a $\rho>0$ so $B_{\rho}(p)\subset U$ and, for each $0<\rho'<\rho$ and $i=1, \ldots, N$, $B_{\rho'}(p)\cap U^i$ is connected (possibly empty). Clearly, ${\mathrm{Cat}}$ defines a cell structure in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with two cells while ${\mathrm{Cat}}_Y$ defines a cell structure in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with three cells. An example of a surface not defining a cell structure is illustrated in Figure \[fig regularbi\]-(b). A connected regular surface defines a cell structure in $U$ when it is separating in $U$. Observe that the tetrahedral cone $T\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ defines a cell structure in $\mathbb{R}^3$ but is not a flat chain mod 3. Schoen’s rigidity theorems for Plateau surfaces {#section schoen plateau} ----------------------------------------------- Let us recall some notation and terminology from [@SchoenSymmetry]. A set $\Sigma\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ is a [**graph**]{} if $\pi|_{\Sigma}:\Sigma \to {\mathbb R}^2$ is one-to-one, where $\pi: {\mathbb R}^3\to {\mathbb R}^2$ is the projection $\pi((\mathbf{y},x_3))=\mathbf{y}$. We say that $\Sigma$ is a [**graph of locally bounded slope**]{} if it is a graph and there exists a (one- or two-dimensional) $C^{1}$-submanifold $\sigma$ of ${\mathbb R}^3$ such that $\Sigma=\bar{\sigma}$ and such that $T_p \sigma$ is transverse to $\mathbf{e}_3$ for each $p\in \sigma$ – for example, $\Sigma=\{x_3\ge0\,,x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=1\}$ and $\Sigma=\{x_3\ge0\,, x_2=0\,,x_1^2+x_3^2=1\}$ are both graphs of locally bounded slope. Given an open subset $\Omega\subset \mathbb{R}^2$, let $$C_{\Omega}={\left\{(\mathbf{y}, z): \mathbf{y}\in \Omega\right\}}\subset {\mathbb R}^3$$ be the cylinder over $\Omega$. A [**minimal Plateau bi-graph**]{} over $\Omega$ is a (not necessarily connected) minimal Plateau surface, $\Sigma$, satisfying $\Sigma\subset\bar{C}_\Omega$, $\partial\Sigma=\Sigma\cap\partial C_\Omega$, and so $$\Sigma_{0^+}=\Sigma\cap\{x_3\ge0\}\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad\Sigma_{0^-}=\Sigma\cap\{x_3\le 0\}\,,$$ are both graphs of locally bounded slope; see Figure \[fig regularbi\]. Clearly, such $\Sigma$ must have $\Sigma_T=\emptyset$, $\Sigma_Y\subset\{x_3=0\}$, and if $p\in\Sigma_Y$, then the spine of $T_p\Sigma$ is contained in $\{x_3=0\}$. If, in addition, $\Sigma\cap\{x_3=0\}$ is empty or is the boundary of a single topological disk contained in $\{x_3=0\}$, then $\Sigma$ is [**simple**]{}. For instance, ${\mathrm{Cat}}\cap \bar{C}_{B_R}$, $ {\left\{|x_3|=1\right\}}\cap \bar{C}_R$ and ${\mathrm{Cat}}_Y\cap \bar{C}_{B_R}$ are all simple minimal Plateau bi-graphs for appropriate $R$. Simple minimal Plateau bi-graphs define a cell structure in $C_{\Omega}$, but this is not necessarily the case when $\Sigma$ is not simple; see Figure \[fig regularbi\]-(b). Our extension of Schoen’s first rigidity result to the Plateau setting is as follows. \[MainThm\] Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ be a bounded, open convex set with $C^1$-boundary, and let $\Sigma$ be a compact, minimal Plateau surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with $$\partial\Sigma=(\partial\Omega)\times\{1,-1\}\,.$$ If $\Sigma$ defines a cell structure in $U={\left\{|x_3|<1\right\}}$, then $\Sigma$ is a simple minimal Plateau bi-graph, which is symmetric by reflection through $\{x_3=0\}$. Moreover, if $\Omega$ is the interior of a circle, then $\Sigma$ is either a union of two disks, or, up to translation and dilation, is a subset of ${\mathrm{Cat}}$ or of ${\mathrm{Cat}}_Y$. Unlike Schoen’s first result, our proof does not apply to arbitrary pairs of coaxial circles. However, we expect the more general result is also true. We also obtain an analog of Schoen’s second rigidity theorem. Namely, global rigidity and symmetry for minimal Plateau surfaces with two regular ends that are subject to the same orientability condition used in the previous theorem. \[GlobalThm\] Let $\Sigma$ be a minimal Plateau surface that defines a cell structure in ${\mathbb R}^3$. If there is an $R_0>0$ so that $\Sigma\backslash B_{R_0}$ has two regular ends, then, up to a rigid motion and dilation, $\Sigma$ is either a pair of planes, a catenoid or a $Y$-catenoid. It is unclear whether the assumption that the minimal Plateau surfaces define cell structures in Theorems \[MainThm\] and \[GlobalThm\] are necessary or just a technical hypothesis needed for our proof. This point is further discussed in Section \[Questions\]. Physical and mathematical motivation {#section physical motivation} ------------------------------------ The physical motivation for the notion of Plateau surface proposed in this paper lies in the celebrated Plateau’s laws, which are empirical observations about the geometric structure of soap films. Plateau’s laws state that soap films at equilibrium are arranged into smooth surfaces with constant mean curvature, meeting in threes along edges at 120$^\circ$ degrees angles; and that these edges meet in four at vertex points, and they do so at the angles defined by the skeleton of a regular tetrahedron. The definition given in Section \[section plateau surfaces\] simply captures, in exact mathematical terms, all the features listed in Plateau’s laws – as explained in Remark \[rmk PS from c1a to analytic\], the $C^{1,\alpha}$-regularity requirement is purely technical. This corresponds physically to films arising in clusters of soap bubbles while minimal Plateau surfaces correspond to films spanning a fixed “wire frame". The mathematical justification for our definition of Plateau surface is given by Taylor’s theorem [@taylor76]. Indeed, Taylor proved that if $U\subset{\mathbb R}^3$ is open, $\Sigma$ is a relatively compact and rectifiable set in $U$, $\Sigma=U\cap{\mathrm{spt}}(\mathcal{H}^2\llcorner \Sigma)$, and, for some $\alpha>2$, $$\label{taylor hp} \mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma)\le\mathcal{H}^2(\varphi(\Sigma))+C\,r^\alpha$$ whenever $\{\varphi\ne{\rm id}\}\subset B_r(x)\subset\subset U$, $x\in\Sigma$ and ${\rm Lip}\,\varphi<\infty$, then, in our terminology, $\Sigma$ is a $\mathcal{K}$-surface without boundary in $U$ where $\mathcal{K}$ is as in . Moreover, when $C=0$, $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface. The significance of Taylor’s theorem is that it explains the (interior) singularities observed by Plateau solely in terms of the geometric calculus of variations. Various “non-distributional approaches to Plateau’s problem” have been proposed to show the existence of compact sets $\Sigma$ satisfying with $C=0$ and with $U$ given by the complement of a compact “wire frame”: these include, at least, Reifenberg’s approach of homological spanning conditions, the Harrison-Pugh approach of homotopic spanning conditions, and David’s notion of sliding minimizers; see [@reifenberg1; @reifenberg2; @reifenberg3; @davidshouldwe; @fangAPISA; @FangKola; @harrisonpughACV; @harrisonpughGENMETH; @DLGM; @delederosaghira] and other related papers. These approaches provide rigorous constructions of many minimal Plateau surfaces – though care has to be taken at the boundary; see below. Rigidity theorems in more general non-smooth settings {#section nonsmooth rigidity} ----------------------------------------------------- Plateau surfaces provide an interesting “semi-classical” setting to which extending the theory of minimal surfaces. The same goal could however be pursued in even more general settings – specifically those provided by geometric measure theory (GMT). There are two major motivations for this. First of all, the two-dimensional area minimizing surfaces in ${\mathbb R}^3$ constructed by the non-distributional approaches to Plateau’s problem mentioned above (e.g., [@reifenberg1; @harrisonpughACV; @DLGM; @davidshouldwe]), as well as those found in distributional approaches (e.g., flat chains modulo 3 [@taylor73]), may possess boundary singularities. This is not a purely theoretical issue as boundary singularities are also observed in physical soap films. Thus, it is natural to consider a more general notion of Plateau surface where boundary behavior is not modeled only by the half-plane $H$, but by more general cones. In particular, Plateau surfaces as introduced here should be properly understood as “Plateau surfaces with regular boundary”. A list of possible boundary singularities is described in [@lawlormorgan96 Section 5.2 and Figure 5.3], although not all the examples in that list are likely to be locally area minimizing (i.e., physical), and so it is unclear what the correct modification of the definition adopted in this paper should be. By working in the language of GMT one sidesteps this difficulty by working in a class large enough to encompass all possible boundary singularities. Secondly, GMT provides powerful compactness theorems which, in turn, allow one to turn rigidity theorems like Theorem \[MainThm\] into interesting perturbative results. For instance, in the case of the volume-preserving mean curvature flow, a characterization of equilibrium states requires the generalization of the classical Alexandrov’s theorem (smooth boundaries with constant mean curvature enclosing finite volumes are spheres [@alexandrov]) to the class of sets of finite perimeter and finite volume with constant distributional mean curvature; see [@delgadinomaggiAPDE]. In a similar vein, Theorem \[MainThm\] could be used to understand the long time behavior of (singular) mean curvature flows with fixed boundary given by two parallel convex curves; see [@StuvardTonegawa]. With these motivations in mind, in the follow-up paper [@VarifoldPaper] we extend the reach of our rigidity theorems from minimal Plateau surfaces to an appropriate class of stationary varifolds. Organization of the paper ------------------------- In Section \[section moving planes\] we present the key technical statement of the paper, Theorem \[CylThm\]. Sections \[section rigidity slab\] and \[section global rigidity\] contain, respectively, the proofs of Theorem \[MainThm\] and Theorem \[GlobalThm\], while in Section \[Questions\] we collect some open questions. Moving planes for minimal Plateau surfaces in a cylinder {#section moving planes} ======================================================== In Section \[section rs and uc\] we prove a removable singularity result and a unique continuation principle for minimal Plateau surfaces and record a simple observation about the infinitesimal structure of cellular surfaces. In Section \[ReflectSec\] we provide conditions so an infinitesimal reflection symmetry in a minimal Plateau surface propagates to a global symmetry. Finally, in Section \[section mp\] we present the main moving planes argument. For future extensions to varifolds – see [@VarifoldPaper] – the results of this section will be proved for a more general class of surfaces than minimal Plateau surfaces. Specifically, we consider a closed set, $\Sigma$, that is a minimal Plateau surface away from a discrete set, $Q$, of potentially exotic singularities. We show that, under certain natural conditions on these singularities, neither they nor $T$-points occur in the region in which the moving planes method applies – i.e., $\Sigma$ is a $Y$-surface in this region. More precisely, we require that, at the points of $Q$, $\Sigma$ has upper density strictly less than $2$. Here the [**upper density of $\Sigma$ at $p$**]{} is defined to be $$\bar{\Theta}(\Sigma, p)=\limsup_{r\to 0^+} \frac{\mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma\cap B_r(p))}{\pi r^2}\,,$$ When the usual limit exists, we denote it by $\Theta(\Sigma,p)$ and call it the [**density of $\Sigma$ at $p$**]{}. If $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in a neighborhood of $p$, then $\bar{\Theta}(\Sigma, p)<2$ as, $$\label{density for minimal plat surf} \Theta(\Sigma, p)=\left\{ \begin{split} &1/2\,,&\quad\mbox{if $p\in \partial \Sigma$}\,, \\ &1\,,&\quad\mbox{if $p\in \mathrm{int}(\Sigma)$}\,, \\ &3/2\,,&\quad\mbox{if $p\in \Sigma_Y$}\,, \\ &\frac{6}{2\pi} \arccos\Big(-1/3 \Big) \approx 1.82\,,&\quad\mbox{if $p\in \Sigma_T$}. \end{split} \right .$$ Removable singularities and unique continuation {#section rs and uc} ----------------------------------------------- We first prove a simple removable singularities result for minimal Plateau surfaces. It will be helpful to observe that if $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in $U$, then, for any $X\in C^1_c(U;{\mathbb R}^3)$, $$\label{minimal PS} \int_{{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)}\,{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{div} \:} }}^\Sigma X\,d{\mathcal{H}}^2=\int_{{\partial}\Sigma}X\cdot\,\nu^{co}_{\Sigma}\,d{\mathcal{H}}^1\,,$$ In particular, the rectifiable varifold, $V_\Sigma$, defined by $\Sigma$ is stationary in $U\setminus \partial \Sigma$. \[RemoveSingLem\] Let $\Sigma$ be a closed subset of $B_R=B_R(0)$ without isolated points so that $\Sigma\backslash {\left\{0\right\}}$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $B_{R}\backslash {\left\{0\right\}}$. If $\bar{\Theta}(\Sigma, 0)<2$ and $\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3\geq 0\right\}}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope, then $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in $B_R$. When $0\in \Sigma$, $0\in \mathrm{int}(\Sigma)\cup \Sigma_Y$ and if $0$ is a $Y$-point, then the spine of $T_0 \Sigma$ lies on ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. Since $\Sigma$ is closed in $B_R$, if $0\not\in\Sigma$, then $B_r\cap\Sigma=\emptyset$ for some $r>0$, and thus the fact that $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in $B_R\setminus{\left\{0\right\}}$ implies that $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in $B_R$. We can thus assume that $0\in\Sigma$. [*Step one*]{}: We first prove that $$\label{sigma is stationary} \int_{{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{div} \:} }}^\Sigma X=0\qquad\forall X\in C^\infty_c(B_R;{\mathbb R}^3)\,,$$ that is, the rectifiable varifold $V_\Sigma$ defined by $\Sigma$ is stationary in $B_R$. As holds for $\Sigma$ in $B_{R}\backslash {\left\{0\right\}}$, we have $\int_{{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{div} \:} }}^\Sigma Y d\mathcal{H}^2=0$ for every $Y\in C^\infty_c(B_{R}\backslash {\left\{0\right\}};{\mathbb R}^3)$. Setting $Y=\eta_\varepsilon\,X$ for $X\in C^\infty_c(B_R;{\mathbb R}^3)$ and $\eta_\varepsilon$ a smooth cutoff with $\eta_\varepsilon=1$ on ${\mathbb R}^3\setminus B_\varepsilon$ and $\eta_\varepsilon=0$ on $B_{\varepsilon/2}$, we thus find $$\int_{{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)}\,\eta_\varepsilon\,{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{div} \:} }}^\Sigma X=-\int_{{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)} X\cdot\nabla\eta_\varepsilon\,.$$ Choosing $\eta_\varepsilon$ so that $\eta_\varepsilon\to 1$ on ${\mathbb R}^3\setminus{\left\{0\right\}}$ and $|\nabla\eta_\varepsilon|\le 1_{B_\varepsilon\setminus B_{\varepsilon/2}}\,C/\varepsilon$, we have $$\Big|\int_{{\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)}{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{div} \:} }}^\Sigma X\Big|\le C\,\|X\|_{C^0}\,\limsup_{\varepsilon\to 0^+}\frac{\mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma\cap B_\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}=0\,,$$ where we have used $\bar\Theta(\Sigma,0)<\infty$ to deduce $\mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma\cap B_\varepsilon)={\rm o}(\varepsilon)$ as $\varepsilon\to 0^+$. We have thus proved that holds. [*Step two*]{}: We show that $\Theta(\Sigma,0)$ exists and belongs to $[1,2)$. By , $\Theta(\Sigma,p)$ exists at every $p\in B_R$ and defines an upper-semicontinuous function on $B_R$. As $\Sigma$ contains no isolated points and $0\in \Sigma$, there are $p_j\to 0$ as $j\to\infty$ with $p_j\in\Sigma\setminus\{0\}$. By upper semicontinuity of $\Theta(\Sigma,\cdot)$ in $B_R$ we have $$\Theta(\Sigma,0)\ge\limsup_{j\to\infty}\Theta(\Sigma,p_j)\ge 1\,,$$ where we have used and the assumption that $\Sigma$ has no boundary points in $B_R\setminus\{0\}$ to obtain $\Theta(\Sigma,p_j)\ge 1$ for every $j$. Hence, $1\le\Theta(\Sigma,0)\leq \bar{\Theta}(\Sigma,0)<2$. [*Step three*]{}: As $\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3\geq 0\right\}}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope and $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $B_R\setminus\{0\}$, it follows that $\Sigma \cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ is a smooth, stable minimal surface in $B_R\cap\{x_3>0\}$. It is possible this set is empty. Hence, for $q\in\Sigma\cap\{x_3>0\}\cap B_{R/2}$, $\Sigma$ is a stable minimal surface in $B_{x_3(q)}(q)$, and thus, by the curvature estimates of Fischer-Colbrie and Schoen [@FCS], $$\label{CurvEstEqn} |A_{\Sigma}(q)|\leq \frac{C}{x_3(q)}\,,\qquad \forall q\in {\Sigma\cap B_{R/2} \cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}}$$ where here $C>0$ is a universal constant. Given a sequence of radii $\rho_i\to 0^+$, up to extracting a subsequence, the multiplicity one varifolds $V_{\Sigma/\rho_i}$ have a varifold limit $\mathcal{C}$ which is stationary in ${\mathbb R}^3$, supported on a cone $K={\mathrm{spt}}\mathcal{C}$ with vertex at $0$, and with upper semicontinuous and integer valued density $\theta$. Since implies $$|A_{\Sigma/\rho_i}(q)|\leq \frac{C}{x_3(q)}\,,\qquad \forall q\in {\Sigma/\rho_i\cap B_{R/2\rho_i} \cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}}$$ we deduce that $K\cap\{x_3>0\}$ is a smooth minimal surface. By the upper semicontinuity of density, by $\Theta(\mathcal{C},0)\in[1,2)$ and since $\mathcal{C}$ is integer multiplicity, we deduce that $\Theta(\mathcal{C},q)=1$ for every $q\in K\cap\{x_3>0\}$. As $\mathcal{C}$ is a cone, this means that $$\mathcal{C}\llcorner {\left\{x_3\geq 0\right\}}=\sum_{i=1}^N V_{H_i}$$ where $H_i\subset {\left\{x_3\geq 0\right\}}$ are half-planes with $\partial H_i=\ell\subset {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ for $1\leq i\leq N$, $\ell$ is a line in ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, and $V_{H_i}$ is the multiplicity one varifold associated to $H_i$. By $\Theta(\mathcal{C},0)\in[1,2)$ and by stationarity of $\mathcal{C}$, we either have that $\Theta(\Sigma, 0)=1$ or that $\Theta(\Sigma,0)=3/2$. In the former case, $\mathcal{C}=V_{P'}$ where $P'$ is plane and in the latter $\mathcal{C}=V_{Y'}$ where $Y'$ is a rotation of $Y$ whose spine is $\ell$. If $\Theta(\Sigma, 0)=1$, then, by Allard’s regularity theorem [@Allard], $\Sigma$ is smooth at $0$ and the proof is concluded. If $\Theta(\Sigma, 0)=3/2$, then it follows from [@SimonCylindrical Corollary 3 in Section 1, Remark 2 in Section 7] that $\mathcal{C}$ is the unique tangent cone at $0$ to $V_\Sigma$ and, in fact, $\Sigma$ has the structure of a a $Y$-surface in a neighborhood of $0$. We next prove a kind of unique continuation result for minimal Plateau surfaces lying on one side of a regular minimal surface. This is slightly subtle as the usual unique continuation principle does not directly hold for minimal Plateau surfaces. \[UniqueContLem\] Let $U\subset{\mathbb R}^3$ be open, $Q={\left\{q_1, \ldots, q_N\right\}}$ be a finite set of points in $U$, $\Sigma_1$ be a connected, (relatively) closed set in $U$ and assume that $\Sigma_1\backslash Q$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $U\backslash Q$ with $\bar{\Theta}(\Sigma_1, q)<2$ for each $q\in Q$. Suppose there is an open subset $V\subset U$ so that $\Sigma_2\subset U\cap\partial V$ is a regular minimal surface without boundary. If $V\cap \Sigma_1=\emptyset$ and there is a point $p_0\in \Sigma_1\cap \Sigma_2$, then $\Sigma_1\subset \Sigma_2$. If $\Sigma_2$ is connected, then $\Sigma_1=\Sigma_2$. By throwing out points of $Q$ if needed, we may assume $\Sigma_1$ is not a regular minimal surface in a neighborhood of any point of $Q$. Set $\Gamma=\Sigma_1\cap \Sigma_2$. We claim $$\label{uc1} \left( Q\cup {\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma_1\backslash Q)\right)\cap \Gamma= \emptyset.$$ Indeed, as in step one of the proof of Lemma \[RemoveSingLem\], the multiplicity one varifold $V_{\Sigma_1}$ defined by $\Sigma_1$ is stationary in $U$. If $q\in \Gamma$, then as $\Sigma_2$ is smooth and $\Sigma_2=\partial V$, there is an open half-space $H$ so $T_q\Sigma_2=P=\partial H=T_q V$. As $\Sigma_1\cap V=\emptyset$, any tangent cone, $\mathcal{C}$, to $V_{\Sigma_1}$ at $q$ has support disjoint from $H$ and, because $\Sigma_1$ is connected, $\Theta(\Sigma, q)\geq 1$ and so $\mathcal{C}$ is non-trivial. As $\mathcal{C}$ is a stationary integer multiplicity cone with density strictly less than $2$, this implies that $\mathcal{C}=V_P$, Hence, by Allard’s theorem [@Allard], $q$ is a regular point of $V_{\Sigma_1}$, and so $q\not \in Q\cup {\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma_1\backslash Q)$. In particular, by , $\Sigma_2\cap\mathrm{int}(\Sigma_1\backslash Q)=\Gamma$. Hence, for any $q\in \Gamma$ there is an $r>0$ so $\Sigma_1'=B_r(q)\cap \Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2'=B_{r}(q)\cap \Sigma_2$ are connected regular minimal surfaces with $\Sigma_1'$ lying on one side of $\Sigma_2'$ and $q\in \Sigma_1'\cap \Sigma_2'$. The strong maximum principle immediately implies $\Sigma_1'=\Sigma_2'\subset \Gamma$, i.e., $\Gamma$ is an open subset of $\Sigma_1$. As $\Gamma$ is also clearly a closed subset of $\Sigma_1$ and $p_0\in \Gamma$, the connectedness of $\Sigma_1$ implies $\Sigma_1=\Gamma\subset \Sigma_2$. Likewise, $\Sigma_1=\Gamma$ is an open and closed subset of $\Sigma_2$, proving the last claim. Finally, we observe that there is an injective map from the cells of the tangent cone at a non-boundary point of a cellular minimal Plateau surface to its own cells. \[CellularLem\] Let $U\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ be open and $\Sigma\subset U$ be minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $U$ that is cellular in $U$. For each $p\in \Sigma$, $T_p\Sigma$ is cellular in ${\mathbb R}^3$. Moreover, there is a well defined injective map $$\mathcal{I}_p : \mathcal{C}(T_p\Sigma)={\left\{W^j\right\}}_{j=1}^M\to \mathcal{C}(\Sigma)=\{U^i\}_{i=1}^N$$ defined by $\mathcal{I}_p(W^j)=U^{i_j}$ when and only when $$W^j=\lim_{\rho\to 0} \rho^{-1}(U^{i_j}-p),$$ where the convergence occurs in $L^1_{{\rm loc}}({\mathbb R}^3)$ for the corresponding indicator functions. By inspection, $P, Y$ and $T$ are cellular in ${\mathbb R}^3$ with two, three, and four cells respectively. Hence, each $T_p\Sigma$ is cellular in ${\mathbb R}^3$. By the definition of minimal Plateau surface, there exist an $r>0$ and a $C^{1,\alpha}$-diffeomorphism $\phi:B_r(p)\to {\mathbb R}^3$ such that $\phi(p)=0$, $D\phi_p=I$, the identity map and $\phi(B_r(p)\cap\Sigma)= {T}_p\Sigma$. In particular, there is a $0<r_1<r$ so for $0<r'<r_1$, $B_{\frac{1}{2}r'}(0)\subset \phi(B_{r'}(p))\subset B_{2r'}(0)$. Moreover, one has $\mathcal{I}_p(W^j)=U^{i_j}$ if and only if, for any $0<r'<r$, $W^j\cap B_{\frac{1}{2}r'}(0)\subset \phi(U^{i_j}\cap B_{r'}(p))$. It remains only to show $\mathcal{I}_p$ is injective. As $\Sigma$ defines a cell structure in $U$, there is a $\rho>0$ so that $B_{\rho}(p)\subset U$ and, for every $0<\rho'<\rho$, $B_{\rho'}(p)\cap U^{i}$ is connected. Let $r_2=\frac{1}{2}\min {\left\{r_1, \rho\right\}}$. Now suppose $\mathcal{I}_p(W^{j})=U^{i_j}=\mathcal{I}_p(W^{k})$. As observed, this means $(W^j\cup W^k)\cap B_{\frac{1}{2} r_2} (0) \subset \phi(U^{i_j}\cap B_{r_2}(p))$. As $U^{i_j}\cap B_{r_2}(p)$ is connected, so is $\phi(U^{i_j}\cap B_{r_2}(p))\subset {\mathbb R}^3\backslash T_p\Sigma$ and so it must be that $W^j=W^k$ and so $\mathcal{I}_p$ is injective. Reflection symmetry {#ReflectSec} ------------------- An important technical consequence of the unique continuation result, Lemma \[UniqueContLem\], and the Hopf maximum principle is that, under suitably hypotheses, an infinitesimal symmetry of a minimal Plateau surface (assumption (4) in Lemma \[SymmetryLem\] below) extends to a global symmetry (the conclusion $R_0(\Sigma^+) \subset \Sigma$ in the same lemma). In order to state this precisely, it is helpful to recall some additional notation from [@SchoenSymmetry]. First let $R_t$ denote the reflection map through $\{x_3=t\}$, so that $$R_t(\mathbf{y}, x_3)=(\mathbf{y}, 2\,t-x_3)\,.$$ If $\Sigma \subset {\mathbb R}^3$ and $t\in {\mathbb R}$, we let $$\Sigma_{t^+}=\Sigma\cap\{x_3\ge t\} \mbox{ and } \Sigma_{t^+}^\circ= \Sigma \cap {\left\{x_3>t\right\}}.$$ Similarly, let $$\Sigma_{t^-}=\Sigma\cap\{x_3\le t\}\mbox{ and } \Sigma_{t^-}^\circ= \Sigma \cap {\left\{x_3<t\right\}}.$$ Observe that, due to the possible presence of a floating disk in ${\left\{x_3=t\right\}}$, one may have $\Sigma_{t^\pm }^\circ\subsetneq \bar{\Sigma}_{t^\pm }^\circ\subsetneq \Sigma_{t^\pm}$, where $\bar{\Sigma}_{t^+}^\circ$ is the closure of ${\Sigma}_{t^+}^\circ$. \[SymmetryLem\] Let $U$ be an open set so that $R_0(U)\subset U$ and let $Q\subset U\cap {\left\{x_3<0\right\}}$ be a finite set of points. Suppose $\Sigma\subset U$ is a closed set so $\Sigma\backslash Q$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $U$ and $\bar{\Theta}(\Sigma,q)<2$ for all $q\in Q$. If $\Sigma^+$ is a component of ${\Sigma}^\circ_{0^+}$ and $V$ is an open subset of $U\cap{\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ so that: 1. $\Sigma^+$ is a connected regular minimal surface in ${\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$; 2. $ \Sigma^+\subset \partial V$ in $U\cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$; 3. $R_0(V)\cap \Sigma=\emptyset$; 4. There is a $p\in {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}\cap \bar{\Sigma}^+$ so that $R_0(T_p\Sigma)=T_p\Sigma$ and $T_p\Sigma \neq {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, then $R_0(\Sigma^+) \subset \Sigma$. First observe that if $\Sigma$ is regular at $p$, then (4) implies that $T_p\Sigma$ is a plane orthogonal to ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, i.e., a vertical plane. Likewise, if $p$ is a singular point, then $T_p\Sigma$ is a $Y$ whose spine, $\ell$, lies in ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and so that one of the half-planes making up $Y\backslash \ell$ is contained in ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. Hence, up to rotating around the $x_3$-axis, which leaves all hypotheses unchanged, we may assume $T_p\Sigma$ is ${\left\{x_1=0\right\}}$ in the regular case, or $T_p\Sigma=H_0\cup H_{120}\cup H_{-120}$ in the singular case. We first prove that $\Sigma$ is locally symmetric near $p$. That is, there is a $R>0$ so that $R_0(\Sigma^+)\cap B_R(p)\subset \Sigma$. [*Local symmetry in the regular case*]{}: As $T_p\Sigma={\left\{x_1=0\right\}}$, there is a radius $r>0$ so that $B_{2r}(p)\cap \Sigma$ is a smooth surface and there is a solution to the minimal surface equation $u: D_r={\left\{(0,s,t): s^2+t^2<r^2\right\}}\to {\mathbb R}$ so that $u(0)=0$, $\nabla u(0)=0$ and $$\Sigma\cap B_{r/2}(p)\subset {\left\{(x_1(p)+u(s,t), x_2(p)+s, x_3+t): (s,t)\in D_r\right\}}\subset \Sigma\cap B_{2r}(p).$$ Let $V_-=D_r\cap {\left\{x_3\leq 0\right\}}$ be the closed half-disk. Set $v_-=u|_{V_-}$ and ${v}_+=(u\circ R_0)|_{V_-}$. Clearly, $v_\pm$ satisfy the minimal surface equation on $V_-$, $v_\pm(0)=0$ and $\nabla v_\pm(0)=0$. Up to rotation around the $x_3$-axis by $180^\circ$, condition (2) and (3) imply that $v_+\geq v_-$ on $V_-$. In particular, up to shrinking $r$, $w=v_+-v_-$ is a non-negative solution to a uniformly elliptic equation on $V_-$ with $w(0)=0$ and $\nabla w(0)=0$ and so, by the Hopf maximum principle, $v\equiv 0$. That is $v_-\equiv v_+$ on $V_-$ and so claim holds with $R=r/2$. [*Local symmetry in the singular case*]{}: In this case $T_p \Sigma=H_0\cup H_{120}\cup H_{-120}$ and there exist $r>0$, so that $\Sigma\cap B_{2r}(p)$ is a $Y$-surface. Indeed, by taking $r$ small enough there are two $C^{1,\alpha}$-domains with boundary $V_\pm\subset D_r=\{(0,s,t):s^2+t^2<r\}\subset\{x_1=0\}$ so that $D_r=V_+\cup V_-$ and $$\big\{(0,0, \pm t); t\in (0, r)\big\}\subset V_\pm\,,\qquad \mbox{$\eta=D_r\cap\partial V_+\cap\partial V_-$ is a $C^{1,\alpha}$ curve}\,,$$ and two smooth solutions to the minimal surface equation $u_\pm:V_\pm\to {\mathbb R}$ so $$\label{upm} u_\pm(0)=0\,,\qquad u_+|_\eta=u_-|_{\eta}\,,\qquad \nabla u_{\pm}(0)=(0, \mp\sqrt{3})$$ and $$\Sigma\cap B_{r/2}(p)\subset \Big\{(x_1(p)+u_\pm (s,t),x_2(p)+s, x_3(p)+t): (s,t)\in V_\pm \Big\}\subset \Sigma\,;$$ see Figure \[fig uplusmin\]. By hypothesis (1), $\Sigma$ is regular in ${\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ and so $V_-\subset R_{0}(V_+)$ and so $v_+=(u_+\circ R_0)|_{V_-}$ is defined on the same domain, $V_-$, as $v_-=u_-$. Clearly, (2) and (3) imply either that $v_+\geq v_-$ on $V_-$ or $v_-\geq v_+$. Indeed, the former occurs if $$\Big\{(x_1(p)+z,x_2(p)+s, x_3(p)+t): (s,t)\in V_+, u_+(s,t)<z \Big\}\cap B_{r}(p)\subset V$$ and the later occurs when $$\Big\{(x_1(p)+z,x_2(p)+s, x_3(p)+t): (s,t)\in V_+, u_+(s,t)>z \Big\}\cap B_{r}(p)\subset V.$$ We assume $v_+\geq v_-$, the proof is the same in the other case. Observe implies $v_+(0)=v_-(0)=0$ and $\nabla v_+(0)=\nabla v_-(0)$. As $v_-$ and $v_+$ both satisfy the minimal surface equation on $V_-$, up to shrinking $r$, $w=v_+-v_-\geq 0$ satisfies a uniformly elliptic equation on $V_-$. As $w(0)=0$ and $\nabla w(0)=0$, the Hopf maximum principle for $C^{1, \alpha}$ domains – see [@LeoRosales] – implies $w\equiv 0$, that is, $u_+\circ R_0=u_-$ on $V_-$. Hence, the claim holds with $R= r/2$. [*Propagating the symmetry*]{}: Finally, we apply Lemma \[UniqueContLem\] to propagate the inclusion $R_0(\Sigma_+)\cap B_R(p)\subset \Sigma$ to $R_0(\Sigma^+)\subset \Sigma$. Let $\Sigma_1$ be the component of ${\Sigma}_{0^-}^\circ$ whose closure contains $p$ – such a component exists and is unique as $T_p\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3<0\right\}}$ is connected and non-empty. Set $\Sigma_2=R_0(\Sigma^+\cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}})$, so that, in $U'=U\cap {\left\{x_3<0\right\}}$, $$\Sigma_2=R_0(\Sigma^+)\subset \partial\big( R_0(V)\big)$$ and by hypothesis (3), $R_0(V)\cap \Sigma_1=\emptyset$. As $B_R(p)\cap \Sigma_1=B_R(p)\cap \Sigma_2$ and both $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ are connected, Lemma \[UniqueContLem\] implies $R_0(\Sigma^+)=\Sigma_2=\Sigma_1\subset \Sigma$. The moving planes argument {#section mp} -------------------------- We now prove the key technical result of the paper: Let $\Sigma$ be a minimal Plateau surface in a convex cylinder $C_\Omega$ whose boundary $B$ is contained in the boundary of the cylinder. If $B_{0^+}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope and $B$ is “ordered by reflection with respect to the plane $\{x_3=0\}$” (assumption (b) below), then the same holds for $\Sigma$, i.e., $\Sigma_{0^+}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope, and $\Sigma$ is ordered by reflection, see conclusions (i) and (ii) of Theorem \[CylThm\]. In order to state this result concisely we recall the following partial order from [@SchoenSymmetry]. For subsets $A,B\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ we write $$A\leq B$$ if $\pi(A)= \pi(B)$, and if $(\mathbf{y},t)\in \pi^{-1}(\mathbf{y})\cap A$ and $(\mathbf{y}, t')\in \pi^{-1}(\mathbf{y})\cap B$ implies $t\le t'$. Here, as in the previous section, $\pi(\mathbf{y},t)=\mathbf{y}$ for every $(\mathbf{y},t)\in{\mathbb R}^3$. \[CylThm\] Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ be a bounded, open convex set with $C^1$-boundary, and let the open cylinder over $\Omega$ be denoted by $$C_{\Omega}={\left\{(\mathbf{y},x_3): \mathbf{y}\in \Omega\right\}}\,.$$ Let $\Sigma\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ be a compact set without isolated points and let $B\subset \partial C_{\Omega}$ be a closed, non-empty, one-dimensional $C^1$-submanifold (not necessarily connected). Suppose that $B$ and $\Sigma$ satisfy the following: 1. $B_{0^+}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope and $T_pB$ is not vertical for any $p\in B\cap\{x_3>0\}$; 2. $B_{0^-}\le R_0(B_{0^+})$; 3. $(\partial C_{\Omega})_{0^+}\backslash B_{0^+}$ has two connected components, denoted by $V^0$ and $V^1$; 4. $\Sigma\backslash Q$ is a minimal Plateau surface in ${\mathbb R}^3\setminus Q$, where $Q={\left\{q_1, \ldots, q_M\right\}}$ is a finite subset of $C_{\Omega}$ and, for every $i$, $\bar{\Theta}(\Sigma, q_i)<2$; 5. $\partial (\Sigma\backslash Q)=B$ and $\Sigma\backslash B\subset C_{\Omega}$; 6. $\Sigma\setminus Q$ defines a cell structure $\{U^i\}_{i=0}^N$ in $C_{\Omega}\backslash Q$, and for $i=0,1$ we have $$\bar{V}^i=\partial U^i\cap ( \partial C_{\Omega})_{0^+}\,;$$ see Figure \[fig cyl\]. Then 1. $\Sigma_{0^+}$ is a graph with locally bounded slope; 2. $\Sigma_{0^-}\le R_0(\Sigma_{0^+})$; 3. there is $\epsilon>0$ so that $\Sigma \cap {\left\{x_3>-\epsilon\right\}}$ is a minimal Plateau surface in ${\left\{x_3>-\epsilon\right\}}$. Theorem \[CylThm\], whose proof is presented below, has the following corollary: \[CylCor\] Let $\Omega$, $B$, and $\Sigma$ satisfy the assumptions in Theorem \[CylThm\], but replace assumptions (b), (c) and (f) with 1. $B_{0^-}= R_0(B_{0^+})$; 2. $(\partial C_{\Omega})_{0^\pm}\backslash B_{0^\pm}$ has two connected components, denoted by $V^{0,\pm}$ and $V^{1,\pm}$; 3. $\Sigma\setminus Q$ defines a cell structure $\mathcal{C}=\{U^i\}_{i=0}^N$ in $C_{\Omega}\backslash Q$ and there are cells $U^{i,\pm}\in \mathcal{C}$ so that $$\bar{V}^{i,\pm}=\partial U^{i,\pm}\cap ( \partial C_{\Omega})_{0^\pm}\,,\qquad i=0,1\,,$$ here $U^{i,+}$ and $U^{i,-}$ are not necessarily distinct elements of $\mathcal{C}$. Then $R_0(\Sigma_{0^+})=\Sigma_{0^-}$ and $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau bi-graph. Thanks to assumptions (b’), (c’) and (f’), we can apply Theorem \[CylThm\] to both $\Sigma$ and $R_0(\Sigma)$, and so, by conclusion (i), it is true that $\Sigma_{0^+}$ and $(R_0(\Sigma))_{0^+}=R_0(\Sigma_{0^-})$ are graphs of locally bounded slope. Furthermore, conclusion (ii) implies $$\Sigma_{0^-}\le R_0(\Sigma_{0^+}) \mbox{ and } R_0(\Sigma_{0^+})=(R_0(\Sigma))_{0^-}\le R_0\big((R_0(\Sigma))_{0^+}\big)=\Sigma_{0^-}\,.$$ Hence, $R_0({\Sigma}_{0^+})=\Sigma_{0^-}$ and so $\Sigma=R_0(\Sigma)$. By conclusion (iii) of Theorem \[CylThm\], $\Sigma$ and $R_0(\Sigma)$ are both minimal Plateau surfaces in ${\left\{x_3>-\epsilon\right\}}$ for some $\epsilon>0$, and so $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in ${\mathbb R}^3$. Finally, as $\Sigma_{0^-}=R_0({\Sigma}_{0^+})$ and $\Sigma_{0^+}$ are both graphs of locally bounded slope and ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)\subset {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau bi-graph. First observe that, by deleting points from $Q$, we may assume that $\Sigma$ is not a minimal Plateau surface in a neighborhood of any $q\in Q$. That is, the points of $Q$ are essential singularities of $\Sigma$. We define $${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)={\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma\backslash Q)\cup Q\,,$$ where ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma\backslash Q)$ is the singular set of $\Sigma\setminus Q$ as a minimal Plateau surface in $C_\Omega\setminus Q$. Similarly, let $${\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)=\Sigma\backslash {\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)\,,\qquad \mathrm{int}(\Sigma)=\Sigma\backslash (B\cup {\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma))\,.$$ [*Step one*]{}: We establish some elementary facts. First, we claim, $$T_+=\max{\left\{x_3(p):p\in B\right\}}>0> T_{-}=\min{\left\{x_3(p): p\in B\right\}}.$$ Indeed, as $B$ is non-empty, either $B_{0^+}$ or $B_{0^-}$ is non-empty. Furthermore, $R_0(B_{0^+})\geq B_{0^-}$ requires that $\pi(B_{0^+})=\pi(B_{0^-})$ and so [*both*]{} $B_{0^+}$ and $B_{0^-}$ are non-empty. In particular, both $T_+$ and $T_-$ are finite. Clearly, $T_+\ge0$. If $T_+=0$, then $(\partial C_{\Omega})_{0^+}\backslash B_{0^+}$ has one connected component in $(\partial C_{\Omega})_{0^+}$, contradicting assumption (c) and so $T_+>0$, and because assumption (b) implies $T_-\le-T_+$ we conclude that $T_-<0$. Secondly, by the same argument used in step one of the proof of Lemma \[RemoveSingLem\], the multiplicity one varifold $V_\Sigma$ defined by $\Sigma$ is stationary in ${\mathbb R}^3\backslash B$. Hence, the convex hull property of $V_\Sigma$ and the properties of $B$ imply $$\label{convex hull principle} \Sigma\subset\overline{C}_\Omega\cap\{T_-\leq x_3\le T_+\}\,.$$ Finally, we review assumption (f): $\Sigma\setminus Q$ defines a cell structure $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma)=\{U^i\}_{i=0}^N$ in $C_{\Omega}\backslash Q$, so that the sets $U^i$ are open and connected, with $$\label{cell structure2} \partial(\Sigma\setminus Q) \subset \partial(C_{\Omega}\setminus Q)\,,\qquad C_{\Omega}\backslash (\Sigma\cup Q)=(C_\Omega\backslash Q)\backslash (\Sigma\backslash Q) =\bigcup_{i=0}^N U^i\,,$$ and $\partial U^i\cap \partial C_{\Omega}=\bar{V}^i$ for $i=0,1$. As $\Sigma$ is compact and $C_{\Omega}$ has two components at infinity, corresponding to $x_{3}\to \pm \infty$ there is exactly one unbounded component of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma)$ that contains points $p$ with $x_3(p)>T_+$. Up to a swapping $V^0$ and $V^1$, we may assume $U^1$ is this component and so $V^1$ is unbounded. [*Step two*]{}: We verify that the theorem holds in the “trivial case” where $$\label{trivial case} \mbox{$\overline{\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$ is a connected component of $\Sigma$}\,.$$ Indeed, if this occurs, than the definition of minimal Plateau surface implies that there is a $\delta>0$ so that $\Sigma=\overline{\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$ in the slab $\{T_+-\delta<x_3<T_++\delta\}$. In particular, $\partial\Sigma={\partial}{\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$ in this slab. As ${\partial}{\Omega}\times \{T_+\}$ is a graph, assumption (a) implies $B_{0^+}={\partial}{\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$. Hence, as a $\Sigma$ cannot have a connected component without boundary points, we conclude that $$\label{trivial case stronger} \Sigma_{0^+}=\overline{\Omega}\times\{T_+\}\,.$$ Conclusion (i) is thus immediate. By assumption (e) we have $$(\partial{\Omega})\times\{T_+\}=(\partial\Sigma)\cap\{x_3>0\}=B\cap\{x_3>0\}=B_{0^+}\cap\{x_3>0\}$$ so that assumption (b) gives $B_{0^-}\le(\partial\Omega)\times\{-T_+\}$. In particular, $\Sigma_{0^-}$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in ${\left\{x_3>-T_+\right\}}\backslash Q$ and so the varifold $V_{\Sigma_{0^-}}$ defined by $\Sigma_{0^-}$ is stationary in ${\mathbb R}^3\backslash B_{0^-}$. Hence, the convex hull property implies, $$\Sigma_{0^-}\subset\overline\Omega\times(-\infty,-T_+]\,,$$ which implies conclusion (ii). Finally, by (ii) and it follows that $\Sigma\cap\{x_3>-T_+\}=\overline{\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$, so that conclusion (iii) holds. Having proved the theorem when holds, we will henceforth assume that [ *does not hold*]{}. [*Step three*]{}: Begin the moving planes argument. For $t\in (0, T_+)$ and $U^i\in\mathcal{C}(\Sigma)$, let $$A^i=U^i\cap\{x_3<T_+\} $$ see Figure \[fig uit\]. Let us consider the set of heights $$G={\left\{t\in (0,T_+): \mbox{properties (P1)--(P5) hold for $t$}\right\}}\,,$$ where the properties defining $G$ are: 1. $\Sigma\cap \{x_3=t\}$ is a subset of ${\rm reg}(\Sigma)$; 2. $|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|<1$ on $\Sigma\cap \{x_3=t\}$; 3. $R_t(\Sigma_{t^+})$ and $\Sigma_{t^+}$ are graphs with locally bounded slope over $\Omega_t=\pi(\Sigma_{t^+})$; 4. $\overline{R_t(A^0_{t^+})}\cap {\left\{x_3<t\right\}}\cap C_{\Omega}\subset U^0$; 5. The only cells of $\mathcal{C}$ whose closures meet $\{x_3=t\}$ are $U^0$ and $U^1$. We claim that $G=(0,T_+)$. To prove this, we show that $$\label{ex of t0} \mbox{$\exists\, t_0\in(0,T_+)$ such that $(t_0,T_+)\subset G$}\,,$$ and then prove that one may take $t_0=0$. First of all, keeping in mind we excluded the trivial case , one has $$\label{nabla sigma x3 near top} \mbox{$\exists\, t_0\in(0,T_+)$ such that}\,\, \left\{\begin{split}&\mbox{(P1) holds for all $t\in [t_0,T_+)$, and} \\ &\mbox{$0<|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|<1$ on $\Sigma_{t_0^+}$}\end{split}\right .\,\,$$ To see this we first observe that $$\label{ep} {\left\{x_3=T_+\right\}}\cap \Sigma\cap C_\Omega=\emptyset\,.$$ Indeed, let $p\in {\left\{x_3=T_+\right\}}\cap \Sigma\cap C_\Omega$, set $U=C_\Omega$, $V=C_\Omega\cap\{x_3>T_+\}$, $\Sigma_2={\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$ and denote by $\Sigma_1$ the component of $\Sigma\cap C_{\Omega}$ containing $p$. Lemma \[UniqueContLem\] and imply that $p\in \Sigma_1\cap \Sigma_2$ and so $\Sigma_1=\Sigma_2={\Omega}\times\{T_+\}$. That is, holds, contradicting the assumption made in step two. By , $\Sigma\cap\{x_3=T_+\}\subset B$ and, by definition, $\Sigma$ is regular in a neighborhood of $B$, thus, for $t_0$ closed enough to $T_+$, (P1) holds for every $t\in[t_0,T_+)$. In particular, $$\label{Q not t0} Q\cap\{t_0\le x_3\}=\emptyset.$$ Now, let $p\in \Sigma\cap \{x_3=T_+\}\subset B$. If $|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|(p)=0$, then and the Hopf maximum principle applied to $\Sigma$ and $\overline\Omega\times\{T_+\}$ imply there is a connected neighborhood, $\Sigma_p$, of $p$ in $\Sigma$ so $\Sigma_p\subset \Sigma\cap \{x_3=T_+\}$. If $\Sigma_1$ is the component of $\Sigma\cap C_{\Omega}$ containing $\Sigma_p$ and $\Sigma_2=\Omega\times {\left\{T_+\right\}}$, then $\Sigma_1\cap \Sigma_2\neq \emptyset$ and so, arguing as above, holds, and a contradiction is reached. Therefore $|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|>0$ on $\Sigma \cap{\left\{x_3=T_+\right\}}$, and so holds for $t_0$ near enough to $T_+$ by continuity. Again, by continuity, to show $|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|<1$ on $\Sigma_{t_0^+}$ for $t_0$ near to $T_+$ it is enough to show $|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|<1$ on $\Sigma\cap\{x_3=T_+\}\subset B$. To show this last fact, let $H$ be a supporting closed half-space to $C_{\Omega}$ at $p$ ($H$ is unique as $\partial \Omega$ is $C^1$ regular), and set $\Pi=\partial H$. By , $\Sigma\subset H$. Consider the half-space $T_p\Sigma$. By the Hopf maximum principle, if $T_p\Sigma \subset \Pi$, then there is a neighborhood $\Sigma'$ of $p$ in $\Sigma$ with $\Sigma'\subset \Pi$. As $\Pi \cap C_{\Omega}=\emptyset$, contradicts assumption (e), i.e., that $\Sigma\backslash B\subset C_{\Omega}$. Hence, $T_p \Sigma \subsetneq \Pi$, while $B\subset{\partial}C_{\Omega}$ implies $T_pB\subset\Pi$. Since $T_pB$ is not vertical (either by assumption (a), or because, in this specific case, it is actually contained into $\{x_3=T_+\}$, and thus is horizontal), we conclude that $|\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3|(p)<1$ and so holds. In fact, as we will use later, this argument implies $$\label{P2Boundary} |\nabla_\Sigma x_3|<1 \mbox{ for any $p\in B\cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$}.$$ We now show that, after possibly moving $t_0$ toward $T_+$, (P1)-(P5) hold for $t\in(t_0,T_+)$. Indeed, , immediately gives a $t_0$ so (P1) and (P2) hold for every $t\in (t_0,T_+)$. Up to moving $t_0$, this implies (P3) holds for $t\in (t_0,T_+)$. In particular, $$\label{graph t0} \Sigma\cap\{x_3>t_0\}=\mbox{graph of a smooth function over $\pi(\Sigma\cap\{x_3>t_0\})$}\,.$$ By and , we have that $$\label{cell structure2 star} \{x_3>t_0\}\cap(C_{\Omega}\backslash \Sigma)=\{x_3>t_0\}\cap\bigcup_{i=0}^N U^i\,.$$ By the convex hull property, each component of $\{x_3>t_0\}\cap(\bar{C}_{\Omega}\backslash \Sigma)$ must intersect $\partial C_\Omega$. Hence, it follows from assumptions (c) and (f) that $\{x_3>t_0\}\cap(C_{\Omega}\backslash \Sigma)=\{x_3>t_0\}\cap\left(U^0\cup U^1\right)$. Hence, as does not hold and $\Sigma$ defines a cell structure in $C_{\Omega}\cap {\left\{x_3>t_0\right\}}$ $$\begin{aligned} \Sigma_{t^+}&=& \partial A_{t^+}^0\cap \partial A_{t^+}^1\,, \\ {\left\{T_+>x_3> t\right\}}\cap \bar{C}_{\Omega}&=& {\left\{T_+>x_3> t\right\}} \cap \left(\Sigma_{t^+}\cup {A}^0_{t^+}\cup {A}^1_{t^+}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ for every $t\in(t_0,T_+)$. This immediately implies, that after moving $t_0$ toward $T_+$ by any amount, (P5) holds for $t\in (t_0,T_+)$. Moreover, combining this with implies that, possibly up to further moving $t_0$ toward $T_+$, (P4) hold for $t\in(t_0,T_+)$ – see Figure \[fig uit\]. [*Step five* ]{}: We show that $G=(0,T_+)$. Suppose instead that $$t_1=\sup{\left\{ t<T_+: t\not\in G\right\}}>0\,.$$ We prove that $t_1\not\in G$ by showing that $[t_1,T_+)\subset G$ implies the existence of $\delta>0$ such that $(t_1-\delta,T_+)\subset G$. By continuity, it is clear that if (P1) and (P2) hold at $t=t_1$, then they hold whenever $|t-t_1|<\delta$ for some $\delta>0$. The implicit function theorem, the validity of (P1) and (P2) for $|t-t_1|<\delta$ and the fact that (P3) already holds for $t\in [t_1,T_+)$, together imply that, up to decreasing, $\delta$, (P3) holds for $t\in(t_1-\delta, T)$. Finally, the argument used above to deduce that (P4) and (P5) hold on $(t_0,T_+)$ from the fact that (P1), (P2) and (P3) hold on $(t_0,T_+)$ can be repeated verbatim with $(t_1-\delta,T_+)$ in place of $(t_0,T_+)$. We have thus proved that $t_1\not\in G$: in particular, (P1)–(P5) hold for every $t\in(t_1,T_+)$, but at least one of them fails at $t=t_1>0$. We now exclude these five possibilities to reach a contradiction. This will ultimately prove that we cannot have $t_1>0$, and thus that $t_1=0$ and so $G=(0,T_+)$. First, we show there is no infinitesimal symmetry at $t=t_1$ when $t_1>0$. [*Proof there is no infinitesimal symmetry at $t=t_1>0$*]{}: It is true that $$\label{nosymmetry} \mbox{if $t_1>0$, $p\in \Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3=t_1\right\}}\backslash Q$ and $T_p\Sigma\neq {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, then $R_0(T_p \Sigma)\neq T_p\Sigma$}.$$ We argue by contradiction and suppose $R_0(T_p\Sigma)=T_p\Sigma$. As $T_p\Sigma \neq {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, $T_p\Sigma \cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ is non-empty. Hence, there is a component, $\Sigma^+$ of $\Sigma_{t_1^+}^\circ$ so that $p \in \bar{\Sigma}^+$. As (P1) holds for $t>t_1$, $\Sigma^+$ is regular in ${\left\{x_3>t_1\right\}}\cap C_{\Omega}$. Set $V'=U^0\cap {\left\{t_1<x_3<T_+\right\}}\subset A_{t_1^+}^0$ so $V'$ is open in $C_{\Omega}\cap {\left\{x_3>t_1\right\}}$. As (P4) holds for $t>t_1$, there is a connected component $V$ of $V'$ so that $\Sigma^+\subset\partial V$ in $C_{\Omega}\cap {\left\{x_3>t_1\right\}}$. Moreover, as $V'=\bigcup_{t>t_1} A_{t^+}^0$, the fact that (P5) holds for $t>t_1$ implies $R_{t_1}(V')\subset U^0$ and so $R_{t_1}(V)\cap \Sigma=\emptyset$. That is, the hypotheses of Lemma \[SymmetryLem\] hold in $U=C_\Omega$. Hence, $$\label{xmas} R_{t_1}(\Sigma^+)\cap C_\Omega\subset \Sigma \mbox{ and so, as $\Sigma$ is closed, } R_{t_1}(\Sigma^+) \subset \Sigma.$$ By the convex hull principle for stationary varifolds, $B\cap \Sigma^+\neq \emptyset$ and so there is a $q\in B\cap \Sigma^+$. Observe that as $\Sigma^+\subset \Sigma_{t_1}^\circ$, $x_3(q)>t_1$. By hypotheses (e), $R_0(\Sigma_+)\cap \partial C_\Omega\subset B$ and so implies $${\left\{q,R_{t_1}(q)\right\}}\subset \pi^{-1}(\pi(q))\cap \Sigma\subset B.$$ If $t_1\geq \frac{1}{2}T_+$ this implies $q,R_{t_1}(q)\in B_{0^+}$ contradicting $ B_{0^+}$ being a graph. If $t_1\in (0, \frac{1}{2}T_+) $, then $R_{t_1}(q)\in B_{0^-}$ and $x_3(R_{t_1}(q))>x_3 (R_0(q))$, a contradiction to $R_0(B_{0^+})\geq B_{0^-}$, i.e., (b). From this we conclude that holds. [*Proof that $t_1\not\in G$ and $t_1>0$ imply (P1) holds at $t=t_1$*]{}: If (P1) fails at $t=t_1$, then $$\label{proof of P1} \exists\,p\in {\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)\cap \{x_3=t_1\}\,.$$ As ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)\cap B=\emptyset$, $t_1<T_+$, and $Q$ is a finite set of points, there is $R>0$ such that $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $B_R(p)\backslash {\left\{p\right\}}$. Moreover, by (P3) and $(t_1, T_+)\subset G$, one has that $ \Sigma\cap B_R\cap {\left\{x_3>t_1\right\}}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope. Since $\bar\Theta(\Sigma,p)<2$ and $p\in{\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)$, Lemma \[RemoveSingLem\] implies that $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in $B_R(p)$ and that $p$ is a $Y$-point of $\Sigma$, with the spine of the tangent $Y$-cone $T_p\Sigma$ lying in the horizontal plane ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. Thus, up to rotating $\Sigma$ around the $x_3$-axis, $$\label{t1t2t3} T_p\Sigma=H_{\theta_1}\cup H_{\theta_2} \cup H_{\theta_3}, \mbox{ where } |\theta_2| \leq 30, \; \theta_1=\theta_2+120, \; \theta_3=\theta_2-120;$$ see Figure \[fig t1t2t3\]. Let $W^3$ be the region of ${\mathbb R}^3\backslash T_p \Sigma$ between $H_{\theta_1}$ and $H_{\theta_2}$ and likewise let $W^2$ be the region between $H_{\theta_1}$ and $H_{\theta_3}$ and $W^1$ the region between $H_{\theta_2}$ and $H_{\theta_3}$. Appealing to Lemma \[CellularLem\], let $\mathcal{C}(T_p\Sigma)={\left\{W^1, W^2,W^3\right\}}$ and let $U^{i_j}=\mathcal{I}_p(W^j)$ be the cells in $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma)$ that correspond to $W^j$, $j=1,2,3$. By Lemma \[CellularLem\], $\mathcal{I}_p$ is injective and so $U^{i_j}\neq U^{i_k}$ for $j\neq k$. We claim $\theta_2=0$, $\theta_1=120$, $\theta_3=-120$. Suppose $\theta_2>0$. In this case, $H_{\theta_1}$ and $H_{\theta_2}$ both meet ${\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$, and so $W^1, W^2$ and $W^3$ all meet ${\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ (this is exactly the situation depicted in Figure \[fig t1t2t3\]). As (P5) holds for $t\in(t_1,T_+)$, this means that ${\left\{U^{i_1}, U^{i_2}, U^{i_3}\right\}}={\left\{U^0, U^1\right\}}$ which is impossible as the three regions must be distinct. Hence, $\theta_2\leq 0$, see Figure \[fig ui2ui3\]. In this case, only $W^2$ and $W^3$ intersect ${\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ and so, as (P5) holds for $t\in (t_1,T_+)$, ${\left\{U^{i_2}, U^{i_3}\right\}}={\left\{U^0, U^1\right\}}$. Thus, there are two cases, $$\begin{aligned} \label{ui2ui3 cases} \mbox{either $U^{i_2}=U^1$ and $U^{i_3}=U^0$}\,,\qquad\mbox{or $U^{i_2}=U^0$ and $U^{i_3}=U^1$}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The validity of (P4) for $t\in (t_1,T_+)$ implies that either in the first case of that $R_0(W^3) \cap\{x_3<0\}\subset W^3$ and in the second that $R_0(W^2) \cap\{x_3<0\}\subset W^2$. In the first case, $-\theta_1\ge \theta_2$ while, by , $\theta_2+120=\theta_1\le-\theta_2$ and so $\theta_2\le-60$. This contradicts $\theta_2\in[-30,0]$ and so does not occur. In the second case, $-\theta_1\le \theta_3$, and so combined with one has $0\leq \theta_1+\theta_3=2\theta_2\leq 0$ and so $2\theta_2=\theta_1+\theta_3=0$. This verifies the claim that $\theta_2=0$, $\theta_1=-120$, and $\theta_3=120$. In particular, $R_0(T_p\Sigma)=T_p\Sigma$, however this contradicts and so (P1) holds at $t=t_1$. [*Proof that $t_1\not\in G$ and $t_1>0$ imply that (P2)–(P5) holds at $t=t_1$*]{}: If (P2) does not hold for $t=t_1$, then, by , there is a point $p\in {\left\{x_3=t_1\right\}} \cap \Sigma$, $p\not\in B$ such that $|\nabla_\Sigma x_3|(p)=1$ – recall, $\Sigma\cap\{x_3=t_1\}$ consists of regular points as (P1) has already been established at $t=t_1$. Hence, $T_p\Sigma$ is vertical and so $T_p\Sigma\neq {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and $R_0(T_p\Sigma)=T_p\Sigma$. As this contradicts , (P2) must hold for $t=t_1$. (P3) follows immediately from (P1), (P2) and the fact that (P3) holds for $t>t_1$. If (P4) holds for $t\in (t_1,T_+)$ but fails at $t=t_1$, one must have that $$\overline{R_{t_1}\big(A^0_{t_1^+}\big)}\cap {\left\{x_3<t_1\right\}}\cap C_{\Omega}\subset \overline{U}^0\,,$$ holds but $$\overline{R_{t_1}\big(A^0_{t_1^+}\big)}\cap {\left\{x_3<t_1\right\}}\cap C_{\Omega}\subset U^0$$ does not. Therefore, there is $p\in\partial U^0\cap \partial( R_{t_1}(A^0_{t_1^+}))\cap {\left\{x_3<t_1\right\}}\cap C_{\Omega}$. Since $$\partial\big( R_{t_1}(A^0_{t_1^+})\big)\cap {\left\{x_3<t_1\right\}}\subset R_{t_1}\big(\Sigma_{t_1^+}\big)$$ and (P1) holds for $t\geq t_1$, we see that $p$ is a regular point of $R_{t_1}(\Sigma_{t_1^+})$. However, as $p\in \partial U^0\cap C_{\Omega}$, we also have $p\in \Sigma$ and so applying Lemma \[UniqueContLem\], gives $R_{t_1}(\Sigma_{t_1^+})\subset \Sigma$ and this yields a contradiction as in the proof of . Hence, (P4) holds at $t=t_1$. Finally, if (P5) fails for $t=t_1$, we can find $U^k$ with $k\ne 0,1$ such that $\bar{U}^k\cap\{x_3=t_1\}\ne\emptyset$. Up to relabeling, we can set $k=2$, and thus consider the existence of $p\in\bar{U}^2\cap\{x_3=t_1\}$. By assumption (c), $\bar{U}^2\cap (C_\Omega)_{0^+}=\emptyset$ and so $p\in C_\Omega$. Moreover, the validity of (P5) for $t>t_1$ implies that $\bar{U}^2\subset {\left\{x_3\leq t_1\right\}}$ and so $p\in \partial U^2\cap C_{\Omega}\subset \Sigma$. In fact, as (P1) holds at $t=t_1$, $p\in \mathrm{int}(\Sigma)$. Given that $\Sigma$ agrees with $\partial U^2$ near $p$, one has $\nabla_{\Sigma} x_3(p)=0$. Hence, the strict maximum principle implies $x_3=t_1$ on $B_{r}(p)\cap \Sigma$ for some small $r>0$. As (P1) is an open condition, there is $\delta>0$ so that $\Sigma_1=\Sigma\cap\{x_3>t_1-\delta\}$ is a regular minimal surface with boundary in ${\left\{x_3>t_1-\delta\right\}}\cap \bar{C}_\Omega$. In particular, we may apply the standard unique continuation principle for smooth minimal surfaces to $\Sigma_1$ and the connected surface $\Sigma_2=\Omega\times{\left\{t_1\right\}}$ to see that $\Sigma_2\subset \Sigma_1\subset \Sigma$. This contradicts and so conclude (P5) holds at $t=t_1$. Hence, if $t_1\not\in G$ and $t_1>0$, then $t_1\in G$. and so $t_1=t_0=0$ and $G=(0,T_+)$. [*Step Six*]{}: To conclude the proof we first observe that $G=(0,T_+)$ immediately implies (i) and (ii) hold. We are left to show conclusion (iii), namely the existence of $\epsilon>0$ so $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface in ${\left\{x_3>-\epsilon\right\}}$. As $G=(0,T_+)$, $\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}$ is a regular minimal surface with boundary, so we need only check that $Q\cap\{|x_3|<\epsilon\}=\emptyset$ for a suitable $\epsilon>0$. As $Q$ is a finite set contained in $C_\Omega$, we only need to check that if $p\in \{x_3=0\}\cap \Sigma\cap C_{\Omega}$, then $p\not\in Q$. Clearly, there is an $r>0$ so that $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau surface without boundary in $B_r(p)\setminus\{p\}$. Obviously $\bar\Theta(\Sigma,p)<2$, and since $G=(0,T_+)$, $\Sigma\cap\{x_3>0\}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope. By Lemma \[RemoveSingLem\], $p$ is either a regular or a $Y$-point, so it does not belong to $Q$, as claimed. Rigidity for minimal Plateau surfaces in a slab {#section rigidity slab} =============================================== In this section we prove the rigidity of minimal Plateau surfaces in a slab with symmetric convex boundary. We begin by proving topological rigidity in Proposition 3.1, which consists in showing that such minimal Plateau surfaces are [*simple*]{} bi-graphs. Combined with the previous section and a moving planes argument of Pyo [@Pyo] this will complete the proof Theorem \[MainThm\]. This topological rigidity is an extension of an argument of Ros [@Ros] to minimal Plateau surfaces. Note that Ros’s argument uses the Lopez-Ros deformation [@LopezRos] and so is special to ${\mathbb R}^3$. \[LopezRosProp\] Let $\Sigma\subset{\left\{|x_3|\leq 1\right\}}$ be a connected minimal Plateau bi-graph with $\partial \Sigma=\Gamma\times {\left\{\pm 1\right\}}$ where $\Gamma\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ is convex. If $\Sigma$ is symmetric across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and $\Sigma$ defines a cell structure in ${\left\{|x_3|<1\right\}}$, then $\Sigma$ is simple. Let $\Sigma_+=\bar{\Sigma}_{0^+}^\circ=\overline{\Sigma \cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}}$. The symmetry of $\Sigma$ and the fact that it is a bi-graph implies that $\Sigma_+$ is a regular minimal surface with boundary whose interior is a graph over ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. In particular, as $\Sigma$ is connected, $\Sigma_+$ is a connected planar domain. One readily checks that at the points of ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}\cap \partial\Sigma_+$, $\Sigma$ either intersect ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ orthogonally (if the point is a regular point of $\Sigma$) or intersect at an angle of $120^\circ$ (if the point is a $Y$-point of $\Sigma$). There must exist such points as $\Sigma$ is connected. In fact, as $\Sigma$ defines a cell structure in ${\left\{|x_3|<1\right\}}$ one must have either ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}\cap \Sigma \subset {\mathrm{reg}}(\Sigma)$ or ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}\cap \Sigma = {\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)$ – see Figure \[fig regularbi\]-(b). That is, either $\Sigma$ is regular or every component of $\Sigma_+\cap {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ consists of $Y$-points and bounds a disk in $\Sigma$. If $\Sigma$ is regular, then this means $\Sigma_+$ solves the free boundary Plateau problem for the data $(\Gamma_+, {\left\{x_3=0\right\}})$ in the sense of [@Ros] and so is an annulus by [@Ros Corollary 3]. It immediately follows that $\Sigma$ is also an annulus and so is simple. If $\Sigma$ is singular, then the constant contact angle with ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$, continues to imply that every non-null homologous loop in $\Sigma_+$ has vertical flux. Indeed, let $\sigma$ be an (oriented) component of $\partial \Sigma_+$ that meets ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ at $120^\circ$. Let $\nu_\sigma$ is the outward conormal to $\sigma$ in $\Sigma_+$ and let $\mathbf{n}_{\sigma}$ be the outward normal to $\sigma$ in ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. Clearly, $\nu_\sigma(p)=-\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{n}_{\sigma}(p)-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \mathbf{e}_3$ and so, $$\mathrm{Flux}(\sigma)= \int_{\sigma} \nu_{\sigma} d\mathcal{H}^1=-\frac{1}{2} \int_{\Sigma} \mathbf{n}_{\sigma} d\mathcal{H}^1-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \mathcal{H}^1(\sigma) \mathbf{e}_3=-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \mathcal{H}^1(\sigma) \mathbf{e}_3$$ where the last equality follows from applying the divergence theorem in ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. As any closed curve in $\Sigma_+$ is homologous to some linear combination of the components of ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}\cap \partial \Sigma_+$, it follows that $\Sigma_+$ has vertical flux for each closed curve. To complete the proof we use the Lopez-Ros deformation [@LopezRos] to reduce to the regular case. To that end consider the Weierstrass data $(M, \eta, G)$ of $\Sigma_+$. Here $M$ is the underlying Riemann surface structure of $\Sigma_+$, $\eta$ is the (holomorophic) height differential (i.e., the complexification of $dx_3$) and $G$ is the meromorphic function given by the stereographic projection of the Gauss map (of the outward normal). This data produces a conformal embedding of $\Sigma_+$ by $M$ $$\mathbf{F}:M\to \Sigma^+\subset {\mathbb R}^3$$ given by $$\mathbf{F}(p)=\mathrm{Re} \int_{p}^{p_0}\left(\frac{1}{2}(G^{-1} -G), \frac{i}{2}(G^{-1}+G), 1 \right)\eta.$$ Let $\partial_+ M$ be the component of $\partial M$ sent to $\Gamma\times {\left\{1\right\}}$ and let $\partial_-M=\partial M\backslash \partial_+M$ be the components sent to $\Sigma_+\cap {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. As $\Sigma_+$ meets ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ at $120^\circ$, one has $|G|=\gamma_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}> 0$, is constant on $\partial_-M$. As observed by Lopez-Ros [@LopezRos], because the flux of $\Sigma_+$ is vertical, the Weierstrass data $(M, \eta, \gamma_0^{-1} G)$ produces a conformal immersion $\mathbf{F}':M\to \Upsilon_+\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ of a new (possibly immersed) minimal surface with boundary $\Upsilon_+$. The properties of the Lopez-Ros deformation ensure that $\partial \Upsilon_+\subset {\left\{x_3=1\right\}}\cup {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and $\mathbf{F}(\partial_+M)= \partial \Upsilon_+\cap {\left\{x_3=1\right\}}$ is convex – see [@PerezRos Lemma 2] while $\Upsilon_+$ meets ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ orthogonally. It follows that the set $\Upsilon=\Upsilon_+\cup R_0 (\Upsilon_+)$ given by taking the union of $\Upsilon_+$ with its reflection across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ gives a connected smooth minimal (possibly immersed) surface whose boundaries are convex curves lying on ${\left\{x_3=\pm 1\right\}}$. By a result of Ekholm, Weinholtz and White [@EWW], $\Upsilon$ is embedded and so $\Upsilon_+$ solves the free boundary Plateau problem for the data $(\Upsilon_+, {\left\{x_3=0\right\}})$ in the sense of [@Ros] and so, as before, is an annulus by [@Ros Corollary 3]. Hence, $\Sigma_+$ is an annulus and so $\Sigma$ is also simple in the singular case. We are now in a position to prove Theorem \[MainThm\]. For brevity we use Proposition \[LopezRosProp\] to allow us to appeal to a result of Pyo [@Pyo] to handle the case where the boundaries are circles, however, one could also work directly with moving planes argument used in [@Pyo] and avoid Proposition \[LopezRosProp\]. Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb R}^2$ be the convex open domain so $\Gamma=\partial \Omega$. We first prove that $\Sigma$ is a simple minimal Plateau bi-graph, which is symmetric by reflection through $\{x_3=0\}$. This is immediate if $\Sigma$ is disconnected. Indeed, in that case, by the convex hull property we find that $\Sigma\subset {\left\{|x_3|=\pm 1\right\}}$, and so $\Sigma=\Omega_-\cup \Omega_+$ where $\Omega_\pm =\Omega\pm \mathbf{e}_3$. We thus assume that $\Sigma$ is connected, and claim that $\Sigma$ satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary \[CylCor\] in $C_{\Omega}$ with $B=\Gamma_-\cup \Gamma_+$ and $Q=\emptyset$. Indeed, the only item that is not immediate is $\Sigma\backslash B\subset C_{\Omega}$. but this follows from the maximum principle of Solomon-White applied to $V_\Sigma$, the varfiold associated to $\Sigma$, and appropriate catenoidal barriers. Hence, by Corollary \[CylCor\], $\Sigma$ is a minimal Plateau bi-graph that is symmetric with respect to reflection across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. As $\Sigma$ is connected we may then appeal to Proposition \[LopezRosProp\] to see that $\Sigma$ is simple. Finally, we treat the case that $\Gamma$ is a circle. To that end, let $\Sigma_+=\overline{\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}}$. As already observed this set is a regular minimal annulus with one boundary a circle in the plane ${\left\{x_3=1\right\}}$ and the other boundary meeting ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ in a constant contact angle (either $90^\circ$ or $120^\circ$). It now follows from the main result of [@Pyo] that $\Sigma_+$ is a piece of a catenoid. As such, $\Sigma$ is either a subset of ${\mathrm{Cat}}$ or of ${\mathrm{Cat}}_Y$ depending on its regularity. Global rigidity of minimal Plateau surfaces with two regular ends {#section global rigidity} ================================================================= In this section we prove Theorem \[GlobalThm\]. To do so we first establish certain elementary properties of the ends – specifically that asymptotically they are parallel and have equal, but opposite, logarithmic growth rate – this is entirely analogous to what is done in the regular case. As a consequence, we may appeal to Theorem \[CylThm\] to conclude that $\Sigma$ is, after rotation and vertical translation, symmetric with respect to reflection across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and that $\Sigma_+=\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3\geq 0\right\}}$ is a graph of locally bounded slope. We conclude the proof by using complex analytic arguments – specifically a variant of the Lopez-Ros deformation [@LopezRos] – to reduce to the case already considered by Schoen [@SchoenSymmetry]. We remark that one could also adapt the moving planes method with planes orthogonal to ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ as is done in [@SchoenSymmetry] and [@Pyo] to give a direct proof of rotational symmetry of $\Sigma_+$ that avoids complex analytic methods entirely. Let $\Sigma\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ be a minimal Plateau surface with two regular ends. In particular, following [@SchoenSymmetry] there is a compact set $K\subset {\mathbb R}^3$ so that $$\Sigma\backslash K= \Gamma_1\cup \Gamma_2$$ where there are rotations $S_1, S_2\in SO(3)$ and a radius $\rho>0$ so for $i=1,2$, $$S_i \cdot \Gamma_i={\left\{(\mathbf{y}, u_i(\mathbf{y})): \mathbf{y}\in {\mathbb R}^2\backslash \bar{B}_{\rho}\right\}}$$ and $$u_i(\mathbf{y})= a_i \log |\mathbf{y}|+ b_i+ \mathbf{c}_i\cdot \frac{\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{y}|^2}+R_i(\mathbf{y})$$ where $$|R_i(\mathbf{y})|+|\mathbf{y}| |\nabla R_i(\mathbf{y})|\leq C |\mathbf{y}|^{-2}.$$ Let $P_i=S_i ({\left\{x_3=0\right\}})$, be the planes the $\Gamma_i$ are graphs over. One readily checks that $\lim_{\rho \to 0} \rho \Gamma_i=P_i$, that is, each $\Gamma_i$ is asymptotic to the plane $P_i$. \[GlobalAuxLem\] One has $\lim_{R\to \infty} \frac{\mathcal{H}^2(\Sigma\cap B_R)}{\pi R^2}=2$. In fact, one has $P_1=P_2=P$ and $\lim_{\rho\to 0} \Sigma=P$ in $C^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb R}^3\backslash {\left\{0\right\}})$. If $\Sigma$ is disconnected then $\Gamma=P_1'\cup P_2'$ where $P_i'$ are disjoint planes parallel to $P$. It is clear from the definition of regular end that $\lim_{\lambda\to 0} \lambda \Sigma= P_1 \cup P_2$ in $C^1({\mathbb R}^3\backslash {\left\{0\right\}})$. This proves the first claim. Suppose that $P_1\neq P_2$ as both $P_1$ and $P_2$ are planes through the origin this means that there is a point $q\in \partial B_2\cap P_1\cap P_2$ so that $D_i=B_1(q)\cap P_i$ are two disks that meet transversely along a line segment. The convergence of $\rho\Gamma_i$ to $P_i$ as $\rho\to 0$. Implies that for $\rho$ very small $D_i'(\rho)=\rho \Gamma_i \cap B_{1}(q)$ is a graph over $D_i$ with small $C^1$ norm and so $D_1'(\rho)$ meets $D_2'(\rho)$ transversely along a curve in small tubular neighborhood of $D_1\cap D_2$. This means that $\rho \Sigma$ is not a Plateau surface in $B_1$ (as the infinitesimal model is the transverse union of two planes) and so this cannot occur under the hypotheses of Theorem \[GlobalThm\]. Hence, $P_1=P_2=P$. The nature of the convergence and standard elliptic regularity implies the convergence may be taken in $C^\infty_{loc}({\mathbb R}^3\backslash {\left\{0\right\}})$. Finally, if $\Sigma$ is disconnected, then, as there are no compact minimal Plateau surfaces without boundary, there are exactly two connected components, $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ of $\Sigma$ corresponding to the ends $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$. Clearly, each $\Sigma_i$ is a minimal Plateau surface and $\lim_{\rho\to 0} \Sigma_i =P_i=P$. By the monotonicity formula this implies each $\Sigma_i$ is a plane that is parallel to $P$ by definition. If $\Sigma$ is disconnected, then Lemma \[GlobalAuxLem\] implies $\Sigma$ is a pair of disjoint parallel planes and we are done. If ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)=\emptyset$, then $\Sigma$ is a smooth minimal surface and so [@SchoenSymmetry] applies and we are also done. As such we may assume $\Sigma$ is connected and ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)\neq \emptyset$. In this, case up to an ambient rotation we may assume the the unique tangent plane at infinity, $P$, given by Lemma \[GlobalAuxLem\] is $P={\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. Let $u_i$ be the functions with the given asymptotics for the ends $\Gamma_i$. Note that even though $P_1=P_2=P$, there is still a freedom in the choice of the rotations $S_i$. For concreteness, choose the same rotation for both ends. As a consequence, by vertically translating $\Sigma$ appropriately, we may assume $b_1+b_2=0$. It follows from standard calculations (e.g., those in [@SchoenSymmetry]) that the flux of each $\Gamma_i$ is vertical. In fact, if $\sigma_i$ is an appropriately oriented choice of generator for the homology of the annulus $\Gamma_i$, then $$\mathrm{Flux}(\sigma_i)= \int_{\sigma_i} \nu_{\sigma_i} d\mathcal{H}^1=2\pi a_i\mathbf{e}_3.$$ Hence, by the balancing properties of the flux – which hold for minimal Plateau surfaces as they follow from – one has $2\pi a_1+2\pi a_2=0$. Up to relabelling, one may assume $a_1\geq 0 \geq a_2=-a_1$. In fact, by the strong half-space theorem [@HoffmanMeeks], $a_1>0>a_2=-a_1$. Take $R>1$ large and let $\Sigma_R=\Sigma\cap \bar{C}_{R}$ be the closed cylinder of radius $R$ centered on the $x_3$-axis. Our assumptions on $\Sigma$ and the properties of the ends imply that, for any $\epsilon>0$, there is an $R_\epsilon>0$ large so that, for $R>R_\epsilon$, $\Sigma_R-\epsilon \mathbf{e}_3$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem \[CylThm\]. It follows that $\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3>\epsilon\right\}}$ and $\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3<-\epsilon\right\}}$ are both graphs over the plane ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and each is $\epsilon$ close to reflection across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ of the other. Taking $\epsilon\to 0$, it follows that $\Sigma\backslash {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ consists of two graphical components and is symmetric with respect to reflection across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$. To complete the proof one considers $\Sigma_+=\overline{\Sigma\cap {\left\{x_3>0\right\}}}$. As ${\mathrm{sing}}(\Sigma)\neq \emptyset$, $\Sigma_+$ is a surface with one catenoidal end that meets ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ along one boundary curve with constant contact angle equal to $120^\circ$. Observe that as $\Sigma_+$ has a catenoidal end, the underlying Riemann surface structure of $\Sigma_+$ is $M\backslash {\left\{p_0\right\}}$ where $M$ is a compact Riemann surface with boundary and $p_0\not\in \partial M$. Let $(M\backslash {\left\{p_0\right\}}, \eta, G)$ be Weierstrass data for $\Sigma_+$ so $\eta$, is the height differential, and $G$, the stereographic projection of the Gauss map of the outward pointing normal. As $\Sigma_+$ has a catenoidal end, $\eta$ and $G$ both extend meromorphically to $M$ with $\eta$ having a simple pole at $p_0$ and $G$ a simple zero. Moreover, as $\Sigma_+$ meets ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ at $120^\circ$, $|G|=\gamma_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}> 0$ on $\partial M$. As in the proof of Proposition \[LopezRosProp\], the constant contact angle implies that the flux over any closed loop in $\Sigma_+$ is vertical. Hence, by [@LopezRos], the Weierstrass data $(M\backslash {\left\{p_0\right\}}, \eta, \gamma_0^{-1} G)$ parameterizes a new (possibly immersed) minimal surface with boundary $\Upsilon_+$ and this surface also has a regular end asymptotic to a vertical catenoid. Moreover, $\partial \Upsilon_+\subset {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ and, as the boundary of $\Upsilon_+$ is parameterized by $\partial M$, the choice of Weierstrass data ensures $\Upsilon_+$ meets ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ orthogonally. It follows that the set $\Upsilon=\Upsilon_+\cup R_0 (\Upsilon_+)$ given by taking the union of $\Upsilon_+$ with its reflection across ${\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ gives a connected smooth minimal (possibly immersed) surface with two regular ends. As [@SchoenSymmetry] applies to immersed minimal surfaces, it follows that $\Upsilon$ is a vertical catenoid. As the Lopez-Ros deformation of a vertical catenoid is just a reparamaterization of the original catenoid, it follows that $\Sigma_+$ is also a subset of a vertical catenoid. From this one immediately concludes that $\Sigma$ is a $Y$-catenoid. Further remarks and open questions {#Questions} ================================== We conclude with some further remarks and questions about minimal Plateau surfaces in slabs. First of all, we observe that having appropriate boundary regularity seems to be essential to the proof of Theorem \[MainThm\]. This is something we explore more thoroughly in [@VarifoldPaper] and motivates the following question: Is it possible to find a circle $\Gamma$ in $ {\left\{x_3=0\right\}}$ so that if $\Gamma_\pm =\Gamma\pm {\mathbf{e}}_3\subset {\left\{x_3=\pm 1\right\}}$, then there is a minimal Plateau surface $\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb R}^3\backslash \Gamma_-\cup \Gamma_+$ which does not possess rotational symmetry? A plausible candidate surface would be to desingularize the union of an appropriately scaled pieces of ${\rm Cat}$ and ${\rm Cat}_Y$. Less clear is whether the orientability condition is necessary. This motivates the following questions: Fix two curves $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_1$ in parallel planes – not necessarily convex. Is there a minimal Plateau surface $\Sigma$ with $\partial \Sigma=\Gamma_0\cup \Gamma_1$ so that $\Sigma$ does not have an associated cell structure? Even if such examples exist for general choices of curves, does the conclusion of Theorem \[MainThm\] still hold? I.e., is the cell condition unnecessary in the convex or circular case? Theorem \[MainThm\] applies to “unstable" minimal Plateau surfaces as well as to the physical “stable" ones. It would be interesting to rigorously produce examples of these sorts examples for large classes of curves. One approach would be to develop a min-max theory in this setting. Can one produce unstable singular minimal Plateau surfaces that span pairs of convex curves? Alternatively, one could hope to develop a degree theory analogous to the theory developed by Meeks and White to study the space of minimal annuli spanning a pair of convex curves [@MWannuli; @MWcommhelv]. In particular, they show that generic pairs of convex curves are spanned by either no minimal annulus or exactly two, one stable and the other unstable. One may ask to what extent this generalizes to minimal Plateau surfaces that are topologically ${\rm Cat}_Y$ – i.e. an annulus with a disk glued in. Can one characterize the space of Plateau minimal surfaces that are topologically ${\rm Cat}_Y$ surfaces and span pairs of convex curves? For generic pairs are there exactly two such surfaces, one stable and one unstable? The Convex Curves conjecture of Meeks [@MeeksConj] states that the only connected minimal surfaces spanning two convex curves in parallel planes are topological annuli. One may ask an analogous question in the Plateau setting. Must a singular minimal Plateau surface spanning a pair of convex curves be topologically ${\rm Cat}_Y$? What if the curves are coaxial circles? Theorem \[MainThm\] shows the answer is yes when the curves are vertical translations of one another provided the surface is cellular – in the smooth setting this is a result of Ros [@Ros] and Schoen [@SchoenSymmetry]. Finally, catenoids possess an interesting variational property. Namely in [@BernsteinBreiner] the authors show that an appropriate piece of the catenoid has the least area among minimal annuli whose boundaries lie in two fixed parallel planes. This was generalized in [@choedaniel] who increased the class of competitors to a larger class of (smooth) minimal surfaces of different topological type. One may ask the same question in the class of singular minimal Plateau surfaces. Among minimal Plateau surfaces spanning two fixed parallel planes what is the least area singular surface? Is it an appropriate piece of ${\rm Cat}_Y$? Minimal Plateau surfaces with singularities are expected to arise as area minimizers when formulating Plateau’s problem for two parallel circles via the homotopic spanning condition introduced by Harrison and Pugh [@harrisonpughACV; @DLGM]; see, e.g., [@kms Figure 1-2(b)].

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The aim of this paper is to generalize the notion of conformal blocks to the situation in which the Lie algebra they are attached to is not defined over a field, but depends on covering data of curves. The result will be a sheaf of conformal blocks on the stack ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ parametrizing $\Gamma$-coverings of curves. Many features of the classical sheaves of conformal blocks are proved to hold in this more general setting, in particular the fusion rules, the propagation of vacua and the WZW connection.' author: - Chiara Damiolini bibliography: - 'Biblio.bib' title: Conformal blocks attached to twisted groups --- Introduction ============ In conformal field theory [@tsuchiya1989conformal] there is a way to associate to a simple and simply connected group $G$ over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero, a vector bundle $\mathbb{H}_\ell(0)_{{X_{univ}}}$, called the *sheaf of conformal blocks*, on ${{\mathcal{M}_{g}}}$, the stack parametrizing smooth curves of genus $g$. The goal of this paper is to generalize this construction to the case in which the group $G$ is replaced by a certain type of parahoric Bruhat-Tits group ${\mathcal{H}}$ arising from coverings. Classical conformal blocks {#classical-conformal-blocks .unnumbered} -------------------------- Before going into the details of the content of this paper, we briefly recall the properties of the sheaf of conformal blocks. Denote by ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ the Lie algebra of $G$ and by $P_\ell$ the set of integral dominant weights of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of level at most $\ell$. Let $X$ be a (nodal) curve over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k)$ of genus $g$, which is stably marked by the points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_n$. Then, to the $2n$-tuple $({{\mathfrak{p}}}_i, \lambda_i)_{i=1}^n$, with $\lambda_i \in P_\ell$, it is possible to associate a vector space $\mathbb{H}_\ell(\lambda_i)$. This construction extends to families of $n$-pointed stable curves of genus $g$, giving rise to the vector bundle $\mathbb{H}_\ell(\lambda_i)_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g, n}}}$. This is what is called the *sheaf of conformal blocks* attached to the weights $\lambda_i$’s. In the case in which all the $\lambda_i$’s are zero, the so called *propagation of vacua* ensures that the associated sheaf of conformal blocks is actually independent of the marked points, hence it descends to ${{\mathcal{M}_{g}}}$. We denote this vector bundle, which is called the *sheaf of covacua*, by $\mathbb{H}_\ell(0)_{{X_{univ}}}$. The rank of $\mathbb{H}_\ell(\lambda_i)_{{X_{univ}}}$ has been computed with the *Verlinde formula* [@tsuchiya1989conformal] [@Faltings1994Verlinde] [@sorger1996formule]. The main ingredient for this computation consists in the *fusion rules* which control the behaviour of the rank under degeneration of curves. Thanks to this property the computation of the rank is reduced to the case of the projective line ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ with three marked points. These sheaves have played an important role not only as a tool to study ${{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g, n}}}$, but also in the study of ${{\textrm{Bun}_G}}(X)$, the stack parametrizing $G$-bundles on a smooth curve $X$. In fact, for every $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there is a canonical isomorphism $$H^0({{\textrm{Bun}_G}}(X), {\mathscr{L}}^{\otimes \ell})^* \cong \mathbb{H}_\ell(0)_X$$ where ${\mathscr{L}}$ is the determinant line bundle on ${{\textrm{Bun}_G}}(X)$ [@BeauvilleLaszlo1994Conformal] [@KumarNR1994Grassmannian]. The key point to prove this isomorphism is the *uniformization theorem* which describes ${{\textrm{Bun}_G}}(X)$ as a quotient of the the affine Grassmannian $\textsf{Gr}(G)$, whose line bundles and the space of their global sections have been described in terms of representations of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ by Kumar [@Kumar] and Mathieu [@Mathieu]. This theorem, which was proved initially by Beauville and Laszlo in [@BeauvilleLaszlo1994Conformal] for $G={\text{SL}_{n}}$, has been generalized for parabolic groups by Pauly in [@Pauly1996Parabolic] and by Laszlo and Sorger in [@LS1997PicardBunG]. Finally Heinloth proved the uniformization theorem for ${\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}(X)$, for connected parahoric Bruhat-Tits groups ${\mathcal{H}}$ in [@heinloth2010uniformization], where he also gave a description of the Picard group of ${\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}(X)$. Having in hand the notion of the sheaf of conformal blocks for parahoric Bruhat-Tits groups ${\mathcal{H}}$ satisfying factorization rules and propagation of vacua, is then the first step to describe the space of global sections $H^0({\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}(X), {\mathscr{L}})$ of certain line bundles ${\mathscr{L}}$ on ${\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}(X)$ and achieve, in a second time, a Verlinde type formula for $H^0({\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}(X), {\mathscr{L}})$, as asked by Pappas and Rapoport in [@PappasRapoport2007Questions]. Parahoric Bruhat-Tits groups arising from coverings. {#parahoric-bruhat-tits-groups-arising-from-coverings. .unnumbered} ---------------------------------------------------- As already mentioned, in our generalization we replace the group $G$ with a parahoric Bruhat-Tits group ${\mathcal{H}}$ defined over a curve $X$. Since the group ${\mathcal{H}}$ depends on the geometry of the curve, our version of the sheaf of conformal blocks will be in general not defined over ${{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g, n}}}$ but on a moduli space which encodes also the information on ${\mathcal{H}}$. Inspired by [@balaji2011moduli], we restrict ourselves to consider only those groups *arising from coverings* in the following sense. We fix the cyclic group $\Gamma:={\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ of prime order $p$ and a group homomorphism $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$. Let $q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ be a (ramified) Galois covering of nodal curves with Galois group $\Gamma$ and denote its moduli stack by ${\overline{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}$. We remark that in contrast to [@bertin2007champs], we assume that the nodes of $X$ are disjoint from the branch locus ${\mathcal{R}}$ of $q$. Then we say that a group ${\mathcal{H}}$ on $X$ arises from $q$ and $\rho$ if it is isomorphic to the group of $\Gamma$-invariants of the Weil restriction of ${{\widetilde{X}}}\times_k G$ along $q$, i.e. ${\mathcal{H}}= q_*({{\widetilde{X}}}\times_k G)^\Gamma$. We observe that the groups ${\mathcal{H}}$ that we consider are parahoric Bruhat-Tits groups which in general are not generically split, while in [@balaji2011moduli] the authors only work in the split situation. This reflects the condition that in their paper they only allow $\Gamma$ to act on $G$ by inner automorphisms, i.e. $\rho$ is a group homomorphism $\Gamma \to G$. The following statement is a particular instance of Theorem \[thm-equivstacks\] which generalizes [@balaji2011moduli Theorem 4.1.6]. Let $q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ be a $\Gamma$ covering of curves and $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$ be a homomorphism of groups. Set ${\mathcal{H}}=(q_*(X \times G))^\Gamma$. Then the functor $q_*(-)^\Gamma$ induces an equivalence between ${\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}(X)$ and the stack ${\textrm{Bun}}_{(G,\Gamma)}^G({{\widetilde{X}}})$ parametrizing $G$-bundles on ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ equipped with an action of $\Gamma$ *compatible* with the one on $G$. The notion of compatibility stressed in the above Theorem will be clarified in Appendix \[app-A\] in terms of *local type* of $(\Gamma, G)$-bundles. Main results {#main-results .unnumbered} ------------ In order to define the generalized sheaf of conformal blocks, we first of all need to introduce the pointed version of ${\overline{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}$ and in second place replace $P_\ell$ with an appropriate set of representations of ${\mathcal{H}}$. We denote by ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ the stack parametrizing $\Gamma$-coverings of nodal curves ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$, where $X$ is marked by a point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ which is disjoint from the branch locus ${\mathcal{R}}$. In similar fashion we define ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ for $n \geq 1$. Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be the group on ${{X_{univ}}}$ arising from the universal covering $({{\widetilde{X}_{univ}}}\to {{X_{univ}}}, {{\mathfrak{p}}})$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ and the homomorphism $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$. Set ${{\mathfrak{h}}}:= {\text{Lie}}({\mathcal{H}})$ and denote by ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ the set of irreducible representations ${\mathcal{V}}$ of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ of level at most $\ell$. In Section \[sec-ConformalBlocks\] we explain how to associate to each representation ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})$, a vector bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ (Proposition \[prop-DescendtHh\] and Definition \[def-HhnV\]). This definition is generalized in Section \[subsec-SemiLocalCase\] to the case in which ${{X_{univ}}}$ is marked by $n$ points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_n$, obtaining a vector bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1,\dots , {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ attached to the representations ${\mathcal{V}}_i \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_i})$. The vector bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is called the *sheaf of conformal blocks* attached to the representations ${\mathcal{V}}_i$’s. As in the classical case, in Proposition \[prop-NodalDegenerationH\] we formulate fusion rules controlling the rank of the vector bundle under degeneration of the covering: Let $(q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, {{\mathfrak{p}}}) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}(k)$ such that $X$ is irreducible and has only one nodal point $x$. Let $X_N$ be its normalization so that $q_N \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}_N \to X_N$ is a $\Gamma$-covering with three marked points. Then for any ${\mathcal{W}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ we have a canonical isomorphism $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{W}}})}}_X \cong \bigoplus_{{\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_x)} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{W}}, {\mathcal{V}}, {\mathcal{V}}^*})}}_{X_N}.$$ Moreover, also the propagation of vacua holds (Proposition \[prop-PropVacua\]), leading to the following statement. Let ${\mathcal{V}}(0)$ be the trivial representation of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_i}$. Then the bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}(0), \dots, {\mathcal{V}}(0)})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is independent of the choice of the marked points, hence it descends to a vector bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$. Insights into the construction and properties of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ {#insights-into-the-construction-and-properties-of-mathcalh_ellmathcalv_x_univ .unnumbered} ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We now give an overview of how the twisted conformal blocks are defined, generalizing the methods used in [@kac1994infinite], [@tsuchiya1989conformal] and [@looijenga2005conformal]. For simplicity we consider $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, {{\mathfrak{p}}}) \in {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k))$ and denote ${{\mathfrak{h}}}={\text{Lie}}({\mathcal{H}})$. Observe that since ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is not a branch point, ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is isomorphic, although non canonically, to ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. It follows that once we choose such an isomorphism, we can use the classical construction [@kac1994infinite Chapters 7 and 9] to associate to each representation ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}}) \cong P_\ell$ the integrable highest weight representation ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, a central extension of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}={{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_k k((t))$ defined in terms of Killing form and residue pairing. The key point is to see that this construction is actually independent of the isomorphism chosen between ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. The Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}:= {{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{X \setminus {{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ is a sub Lie algebra of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and we set ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ to be the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$. The construction of the sheaf of conformal blocks runs similarly for any family $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \sigma) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}(S)$, being careful that the isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{\sigma(S)}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k S$ exists only locally. Although it is easy to show that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is coherent (Proposition \[prop-HhnFinGen\]), it is not immediate from its construction that it is also locally free. Following Looijenga in [@looijenga2005conformal], the first step to achieve this result is to show the following statement: \[Corollary \[cor-ConnectionLocFree\]\] The sheaf ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ is equipped with a projective connection with logarithmic singularities along the boundary $\Delta_{univ}$. This shows in particular that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{{X_{univ}}}}$ is a locally free module over ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. The idea is to realise ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ as a Fock-type representation of a Lie algebra of derivations which is a central extension of the sheaf of logarithmic vector fields of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ along $\Delta_{univ}$. It is important to remark that the flat connection we obtain on ${\mathbb{P}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}})$ descends to ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$ and generalizes the *WZW connection* defined in terms of conformal field theory. Combining this with the fusion rules, we are able to prove the local freeness on the whole stack ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ (Corollary \[cor-HhnFREEEEE\]). It is then clear that the fusion rules play a double role in the theory of conformal blocks. On one side they contribute to show that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is locally free on the whole ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$, and on the other side they are a useful tool to reduce the computation to lower genera curves. \[subsec-NotationAndSetting\] Unless otherwise stated, throughout the paper we fix the following objects. - An algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic zero. - A prime $p$ and for simplicity of notation we denote the group ${\mathbb{Z}}/p{\mathbb{Z}}$ by $\Gamma$. - A simple and simply connected algebraic group $G$ over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k)$. - A group homomorphism $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$. Preliminaries on groups arising from coverings and Hurwitz stacks {#sec-HurwitzStacks} ================================================================= In this section we introduce the group schemes associated to coverings as indicated in the introduction. Since we need to work with these groups in families, we will formulate the definition for families of coverings of curves. We obtain in this way the family ${\mathcal{H}}_{univ}$ over the universal curve ${{X_{univ}}}$ over the Hurwitz stack parametrizing coverings of curves. Let $\pi \colon X \to S$ be a possibly nodal curve over $S \in {\textbf{Sch}}_k$. A *Galois covering* of $X$ with group $\Gamma$, called also *$\Gamma$-covering*, is the data of 1. a finite, faithfully flat and generically étale map $q \colon \widetilde{X} \to X$ between curves; 2. an isomorphism $\phi \colon \Gamma \cong {\text{Aut}}_X({{\widetilde{X}}})$; satisfying the following conditions: 1. each fibre of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ is a generically étale $\Gamma$-torsor over $X$; 2. the singular locus of $\pi q$, i.e. the set of nodes of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$, is contained in the étale locus of $q$. We want to attach to any $\Gamma$-covering $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi} \to S)$ and to the homomorphism $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$ a group scheme ${\mathcal{H}}$ over $X$ in the same fashion as in [@balaji2011moduli Section 4]. We remark that Balaji and Seshadri consider $\rho$ to map to the inner automorphisms of $G$ only, i.e. arising from a morphism $\Gamma \to G$. Without imposing that restriction we allow also groups ${\mathcal{H}}$ which are non-split over the generic point of $X$. First of all we consider the scheme $\widetilde{G}:= {{\widetilde{X}}}\times_k G$ and let $q_*(\widetilde{G})$ be its Weil restriction along $q$ which is defined as $$q_*\widetilde{G}(T) := {\textrm{Hom}}_{{\widetilde{X}}}(T \times_X {{\widetilde{X}}}, \widetilde{G})$$ for every $T \in {\textbf{Sch}}_X$. It follows from [@bosch1990neron Theorem 4 and Proposition 5, Section 7.6] that $q_*\widetilde{G}$ is representable by a smooth group scheme over $X$. The actions of $\Gamma$ on $G$ and on ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ induce the action of $\Gamma$ on $q_*\widetilde{G}$ given by $$(\gamma \cdot f)(t,{{\widetilde{x}}}):= \rho(\gamma)^{-1} f( \gamma(t,{{\widetilde{x}}}))= \rho(\gamma)^{-1} f(t,\gamma^*({{\widetilde{x}}}))$$ for all $t \in T$ and ${{\widetilde{x}}}\in {{\widetilde{X}}}$. We define ${\mathcal{H}}$ to be the subgroup of $\Gamma$-invariants of $q_*(\widetilde{G})$, i.e. $$\mathcal{H}:=(q_*\widetilde{G})^\Gamma.$$ We denote by ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ the sheaf of Lie algebras of ${\mathcal{H}}$. Since ${\mathcal{H}}$ is smooth, as shown in [@Edixhoven1992Neron Proposition 3.4], ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is a vector bundle on $X$ which is moreover equipped with a structure of Lie algebra. The action of $\Gamma$ on $G$ via $\rho$ induces an action on ${{\mathfrak{g}}}:={\text{Lie}}(G)$. We equivalently could have defined ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ as the Lie algebra of $\Gamma$-invariants of $q_*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}})$. \[eg-SLn\] Let $\rho \colon \Gamma={\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}\to {\text{Aut}}({\text{SL}_{n}})$ be given by $\rho(\gamma)M=(M^t)^{-1}$ and $q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ a $\Gamma$-covering of smooth curves. The group ${\mathcal{H}}=(q_*({\text{SL}_{n}}\times {{\widetilde{X}}}))^\Gamma$ is the quasi split special unitary group associated to the extension $k(X) \subseteq k({{\widetilde{X}}})$. Observe that only in the case $n=2$ this action comes from inner automorphisms. The stack ${\textrm{Bun}}_{\mathcal{H}}$ which parametrizes ${\mathcal{H}}$-bundles on $X$ can be described in terms of $G$-bundles over ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ which admit an action of $\Gamma$ compatible with $\rho$. This is a corollary of Theorem \[thm-equivstacks\] which holds in a more general setup and for which we refer to Appendix \[app-A\]. Properties of $\Gamma$-coverings {#subsec-propGammacov} -------------------------------- In this section we recall the definitions and properties of coverings of curves. Although the main reference is [@bertin2007champs], we make the stronger assumption that the ramification locus of the covering map $q$ consists only of smooth points. ### Ramification and branch divisors. Consider a $\Gamma$-covering $(f \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S)$. We define the *ramification divisor* ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$ to be the effective Cartier divisor $(p-1){{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma$, where ${{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma$ is the subscheme of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ fixed by $\Gamma$. Equivalently, since $\Gamma$ does not have proper subgroups, ${{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma$ is the complement of the étale locus of $q$, which is either empty or an effective Cartier divisor of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$. The *reduced branch divisor* ${\mathcal{R}}$ is the effective divisor given by the image of ${{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma$ in $X$. It is the reduced divisor of the proper pushforward $q_*{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$. \[rmk-divisori\] If the map $q$ is not étale both divisors ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}$ are finite and étale over $S$. This is a proved in [@bertin2007champs Proposition 3.1.1] for the smooth case only and in [@bertin2007champs Proposition 4.1.8] for the general situation. The ramification divisors are naturally related to tangent bundles of $X$ and ${{\widetilde{X}}}$. Let ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S}$ be the tangent bundle of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ relative to $S$, so that its sections are $f^{-1}{\mathscr{O}}_S$-linear derivations of ${\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}$. Consider its pushforward to $X$ along $q$ and notice that the action of $\Gamma$ on $q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}$ induces an action on $q_* {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S}$ by sending a derivation $D$ to $\gamma D \gamma^{-1}$. The following lemma, which describes the $\Gamma$-invariants of $q_* {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S}$, follows from [@bertin2007champs Proposition 4.1.11] and we report the proof for completeness. \[lem-tang\] The sheaf $(q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S})^\Gamma$ over $X$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$. Let first observe that the natural map $d(q) \colon {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S} \to q^*{\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}$ identifies ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S}$ with $q^*{\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}})$. This is clear outside ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$. On the formal neighbourhood $R[[t]]$ of a point ${{\widetilde{x}}}\in {{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$ the map $q$ is given by sending $t$ to $t \zeta$ for a primitive $p$-th root of unity $\zeta$. It follows that $d(q) \colon R[[t]]d/dt \to R[[t]]d/d(t^p)$ sends the generator $d/dt$ to $p t^{p-1}d/d(t^p)$, concluding the argument. We now pushforward the isomorphism $d(q) \colon {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S} \to q^*{\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}})$ along $q$ and take $\Gamma$-invariants obtaining the isomorphism $$(q_*d(q))^\Gamma \colon (q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S})^\Gamma \to (q_*(q^*{\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}})))^\Gamma .$$ Since étale morphisms induce isomorphism on the tangent bundles, this map is an isomorphism outside the branch divisor ${\mathcal{R}}$. Since by assumption the branch points are smooth, we are left to check that the target of the map equals ${\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ under the condition that $X \to S$ is smooth. From the smoothness we deduce that ${\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}$ is locally free, so using the projection formula we obtain that $(q_*(q^*{\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}})))^\Gamma \cong {\mathcal{T}}_{X/S} \otimes q_*({\mathscr{O}}(-{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}))^\Gamma$. We are left to prove that $q_*({\mathscr{O}}(-{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}))^\Gamma$ is isomorphic to ${\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}})$. Observe, for this purpose, that the sheaf $q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}}$ is supported only at ${\mathcal{R}}$, so we only need to compute that its submodule of $\Gamma$-invariants is one dimensional. Let $x \in {\mathcal{R}}$ and note that the formal neighbourhood of $q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}}$ at $x$ is isomorphic to $$R[[t]] / t^{p-1} R[[t]] \cong R \oplus t R \oplus \cdots \oplus t^{p-2}R$$ on which any element of $\Gamma$ acts multiplying $t$ by a $p$-th root of unity. It follows that the only invariant submodule is $R$, hence $(q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}})^\Gamma \cong {\mathscr{O}}_{\mathcal{R}}$. ### Hurwitz data {#hurwitz-data .unnumbered} The Hurwitz data provide a description of the action of $\Gamma$ at the ramification points. Before considering families of curves we take ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$, a $\Gamma$-covering of curves over $k$. Let ${{\widetilde{x}}}\in {{\widetilde{X}}}(k)^\Gamma$ be a ramification point and up to the choice of a local parameter $t$ the formal disc around ${{\widetilde{x}}}$ is isomorphic to ${\textrm{Spec}}(k[[t]])$. Since $\Gamma$ fixes ${{\widetilde{x}}}$, one of its generators acts on $k[[t]]$ by sending $t$ to $\zeta t$ for a primitive $p$-th root unity $\zeta$. It follows that the action of $\Gamma$ on ${\textrm{Spec}}(k[[t]])$ is uniquely determined by non trivial characters $\chi_{{{\widetilde{x}}}} \colon \Gamma \to k^*$. Let ${\textrm{Char}}(\Gamma)^*$ be the set of all non trivial characters of $\Gamma$ and set $R_+(\Gamma) := \oplus_{\chi \in {\textrm{Char}}(\Gamma)^*} {\mathbb{Z}}\chi$. The *ramification data* or *Hurwitz data* of a $\Gamma$-covering ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ is the element $$\xi :=\sum_{{{\widetilde{x}}}\in {{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma}\chi_{{{\widetilde{x}}}} \in R_+(\Gamma).$$ The *degree* of $\xi=\sum b_i \chi_i$ is $\deg(\xi):=\sum b_i$. Note that $\deg(\xi)=\deg({{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma)=\deg({\mathcal{R}})$. In the case $\Gamma={\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}$, the Hurwitz data encode only the number of points which are fixed. Let ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S$ be a $\Gamma$-covering with $S$ connected. We say that it has Hurwitz data $\xi \in R_+(\Gamma)$ if $\xi$ is the Hurwitz data of one, hence all ([@bertin2007champs Lemme 3.1.3]), of its fibres. We fix for the next two lemmas, a generator $\gamma$ of $\Gamma$ and $\zeta \in k$ a primitive $p$-th root of $1$. This identifies the set of characters of $\Gamma$ with $\{0, \dots, p-1\}$. \[lem-decompE\] Denote by ${\mathscr{E}}_i$ the ${\mathscr{O}}_{X}$-submodule of $q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}$ where $\gamma$ acts by multiplication by $\zeta^i$. Then $$q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}= \bigoplus_{i=0}^{p-1} {\mathscr{E}}_i {\quad \text{and} \quad}{\mathscr{E}}_i \otimes {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i} \cong {\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}}).$$ The action of $\Gamma$ on $q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}}$ provides the decomposition with ${\mathscr{E}}_0 \cong {\mathscr{O}}_X$. For the second statement, the tensor product ${\mathscr{E}}_i \otimes {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i}$ is a submodule of ${\mathscr{E}}_0\cong {\mathscr{O}}_X$ as $\gamma$ acts there as the identity. Outside the branch divisor ${\mathcal{R}}$ this is an isomorphism so we only need to check what is the image along ${\mathcal{R}}$. Let $x \in {\mathcal{R}}$ and call ${{\widetilde{x}}}\in {{\widetilde{\mathcal{R}}}}$ the point above $x$ so that $\widehat{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}},{{\widetilde{x}}}} \cong R[[t]]$, with $\gamma(t)=\zeta^nt$ with $n \in \{1, \dots, p-1\}$. If follows that $(\widehat{{\mathscr{E}}}_i)_x \cong t^{i/n}R[[t^p]]$ and $(\widehat{{\mathscr{E}}}_{p-i})_x \cong t^{(p-i)/n}R[[t^p]]$, where $i/n \in \{1, \dots, p-1\}$. It follows that $(\widehat{{\mathscr{E}}}_i)_x \otimes (\widehat{{\mathscr{E}}}_{p-i})_x \cong t^pR[[t^p]]$ which is isomorphic to the completion of ${\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ at the point $x$. \[lem-decomp\] Denote by ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^i}$ the submodule of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ where $\gamma$ acts by multiplication by $\zeta^i$. The sheaf ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ decomposes as $${{\mathfrak{h}}}= \bigoplus_{i=0}^{p-1}{{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}} \otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_i.$$ As the action of $\gamma$ on ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is diagonalizable with eigenvalues belonging to $\{1,\zeta, \cdots, \zeta^{p-1}\}$, we can decompose ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ as $\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}}$. As ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is the Lie algebra of $\Gamma$-invariants of $q_*({\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}} \otimes_k {{\mathfrak{g}}})= q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}} \otimes_k {{\mathfrak{g}}}$, we can combine this with the description of $q_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}$ provided by Lemma \[lem-decompE\] to obtain the wanted decomposition of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$. Hurwitz stacks {#subsec-Hurwitz} -------------- We define in this section the stack parametrizing $\Gamma$-coverings with fixed Hurwitz data $\xi \in R_+(\Gamma)$. Let $g$ be a non negative integer. Let $f \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S$ be a $\Gamma$-covering of curves and let $\sigma \colon S \to X$ be a section of $\pi$ with $\sigma(S)$ disjoint from the nodes of $X$ and from the branch locus ${\mathcal{R}}$ of $q$. The we say that the covering is *stably marked* by $\sigma$ if $(X, \sigma \cup {\mathcal{R}})$ is a stably marked curve [@bertin2007champs Définition 4.3.4. and Proposition 5.1.3]. We define the *Hurwitz stack* ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ as $${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}(S)=\left\langle f \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \:\{\sigma_j \colon S \to X\}_{j=1}^n \text{ such that i and ii hold}\right\rangle$$ 1. the map $q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ is a $\Gamma$-covering of curves with ramification data $\xi$; 2. $(X,\{\sigma_j\})$ is an $n$-marked curve of genus $g$ with $\sigma_j(S)$ disjoint from the branch divisor ${\mathcal{R}}$ for all $j$ and such that the covering is stably marked by $\{\sigma_j\}$. When $n=0$ we omit the subscript and use the notation ${\overline{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}$. We denote by ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ the open substack of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ parametrizing $\Gamma$-coverings of smooth curves. We want to remark that the role of the ramification data is to guarantee the connectedness of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ [@bertin2007champs Proposition 2.3.9]. In the previous section we explained how to associate to each $\Gamma$-covering $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S) \in {\overline{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}(S)$, a group ${\mathcal{H}}$ (resp. a sheaf of Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$) over $X$. This defines a group ${\mathcal{H}}_{univ}$ (resp. a sheaf of Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{univ}$) on ${{X_{univ}}}$, where we denote by ${{\widetilde{X}_{univ}}}\to {{X_{univ}}}$ the universal covering on ${\overline{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}$. The same construction works on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$, defining then ${\mathcal{H}}_{univ}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{univ}$ on the universal curve ${{X_{univ}}}$ of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$. \[rmk-NCD\] The complement $\Delta_{univ}:= {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}} \setminus {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ is a normal crossing divisor. First of all observe that $\Delta_{{{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g, d}}}} := {{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g, d}}} \setminus {{\mathcal{M}_{g, d}}}$ is a normal crossing divisor: in fact given a nodal curve $X \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k)$ with a reduced divisor $D$ of degree $d$, there exists a versal deformation ${\mathcal{X}}\to S$ where the locus $\Delta \subset S$ consisting of singular curves is a normal crossing divisor of $S$ [@ArbarelloCornalba]. We now want to compare the deformation theory of a $\Gamma$-covering $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \{\sigma_i\})$ to the one of $(X, \{\sigma_i\})$. Following [@bertin2007champs Théorème 5.1.5] we see that the natural map $\delta \colon {\textrm{Def}}({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \{\sigma_i\}) \to {\textrm{Def}}(X, \{\sigma_i\} \cup {\mathcal{R}})$ fails to be an isomorphism only when the intersection between ${\mathcal{R}}$ and $X^{sing}$ is not empty, but since by assumption we impose that ${\mathcal{R}}\cap X^{sing}= \emptyset$, in our contest this map is always an isomorphism. This then allow to obtain, from the versal deformation ${\mathcal{X}}\to S$ of $(X, \{\sigma_i\} \cup {\mathcal{R}})$, the versal deformation $({{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}, \{\varsigma_i\})$ of ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$, and hence deduce from the theory of ${{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g, n+\deg({\mathcal{R}})}}}$ that $\Delta_{univ}$ is a normal crossing divisor. The following statement, which is given by [@bertin2007champs Proposition 2.3.9. and Théorème 6.3.1], describes the properties of the above stacks. The stacks ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ are smooth Deligne-Mumford stacks which are connected and of finite type over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k)$. Instead of marking the curve $X$, we can mark the curve ${{\widetilde{X}}}$, so that we define. For each $S \in {\textbf{Sch}}_k$ we set $${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{n}_{g}}}(S)=\left\langle f \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \:\{\tau_j \colon S \to {{\widetilde{X}}}\}_{j=1}^n \text{ such that i and ii hold}\right\rangle$$ 1. the map $q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ is a $\Gamma$-covering of curves with ramification data $\xi$; 2. $({{\widetilde{X}}},\{\tau_j\})$ is an $n$-marked curve with $q \tau_j(S)$ pairwise disjoint, $\tau_j(S)$ disjoint from ${{\widetilde{X}}}^\Gamma$ for all $j$ and such that the covering $q$ is stably marked by $\{q\tau_j\}$. It follows, from the fact that the image of $\tau$ lies in the étale locus of $q$, that the map $$\textbf{Forg}^n_n \colon {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)^{n}_{g}}} \to {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}, \qquad ({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \:\{\tau_j\}) \mapsto ({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \: \{p\tau_j\})$$ is an étale and surjective morphism of stacks. For any $n \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ and for $g \geq 0$ we also have the forgetful map $\textbf{Forg}_n \colon{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}} \to {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$ and in more generality $\textbf{Forg}_{n+m,n} \colon{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n+m}}} \to {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ for all $n,m \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$. Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \tau) \in {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}(S)$ and write $\sigma:=q \tau$. Fixing $\tau$ allows us to canonically identify ${\mathcal{H}}|_{\sigma(S)}$ with $G \times_k S$ as explained in the proof of the following statement. \[TauIso\] The section $\tau$ induces an isomorphism between ${\sigma}^*{\mathcal{H}}$ and $G \times_k S$. Construct the cartesian diagram $$\xymatrix{\widetilde{S} \ar[r]^{\widetilde{\sigma}} \ar[d]^{q_S}& {{\widetilde{X}}}\ar[d]^q\\ S \ar[r]^{\sigma} & X}$$ and since by assumption the image of $\sigma$ lies in the étale locus of $q$ the left vertical arrow $q_S$ is étale and it has a section given by $\tau$. This implies that $\widetilde{S}$ is isomorphic to $\coprod_{\gamma_i \in \Gamma} S$. Observe that ${q_S}_*\widetilde{\sigma}^*(\widetilde{G})\cong \sigma^*q_*(\widetilde{G})$ and that taking $\Gamma$-invariants commutes with restriction along $\sigma$. It follows that $$\sigma^*\mathcal{H}=\left(\sigma^*q_*(\widetilde{G})\right)^\Gamma =\left({q_S}_*\widetilde{\sigma}^*(\widetilde{G})\right)^\Gamma =\left( {q_{S}}_* \left(\coprod_{\gamma_i \in \Gamma} S\times G\right) \right)^\Gamma = \left(\prod_{\gamma_i \in \Gamma} S \times G \right)^\Gamma$$ where $\gamma_j \in \Gamma$ acts on $\prod_{\gamma_i \in \Gamma} S\times G$ by sending $(s_i,g_i)_{\gamma_i}$ to $(s_i,\gamma_j(g_i))_{\gamma_j\gamma_i}$. It follows that the invariant elements are of the form $(s, \gamma_i(g))_{\gamma_i}$ for any $s\in S$ and $g \in G$, so that the projection on any component of $S\times G$ realized an isomorphism between $\sigma^*\mathcal{H}$ and $G \times S$. The map $\tau$ selects a preferred component, giving in this way a canonical isomorphism. The sheaf of conformal blocks {#sec-ConformalBlocks} ============================= In this section we define the sheaf of conformal blocks ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ attached to a representation ${\mathcal{V}}$ of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{univ}$. To define the sheaf ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$, we will define it for any family $(f \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma)$ over an affine base $S={\textrm{Spec}}(R)$. We assume moreover that $X \setminus \sigma(S) \to S \to S$ is affine. We will see in Remark \[rmk-dropaffine\] how to drop this assumption. For the classical definition of the sheaf of conformal blocks attached to a represendetation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ one can refer to [@tsuchiya1989conformal] or to [@looijenga2005conformal]. We will use the latter as main reference. The word *conformal block* has been used in literature to denote either a certain vector bundle or its dual. We use here the word sheaf of conformal blocks to denote what in [@tsuchiya1989conformal] is called the dual of the sheaf of conformal blocks. In [@looijenga2005conformal], the author calls this sheaf the *sheaf of covacua*. Let $X^*:=X \setminus \sigma(S)$ and denote by ${{\mathcal{A}}}$ the pushforward to $S$ of ${\mathscr{O}}_{X^*}$, i.e. $${{\mathcal{A}}}:=\pi_*{j_A}_*{\mathscr{O}}_{X^*}$$ where $j_A$ denotes the open immersion $X^* \to X$. Since the map $\pi$ restricted to $X^*$ is affine we have that $X^*={\textbf{Spec}}({{\mathcal{A}}})$ and that ${{\mathcal{A}}}=\pi_* \varinjlim_n \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-n} = \varinjlim_n \pi_* \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-n}$ where $\mathcal{I}_\sigma={\mathscr{O}}_X(-\sigma(S))$ is the ideal defining $\sigma(S)$. We denote by ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}$ the formal completion of ${\mathscr{O}}_X$ along $\sigma(S)$: by definition $\sigma$ gives a short exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{I}_\sigma \to {\mathscr{O}}_X \to {\mathscr{O}}_{\sigma(S)} \to 0$$ of ${\mathscr{O}}_X$-modules. We define $${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}:= \pi_*\varprojlim_{n} {\mathscr{O}}_X {{\, \big/}}(\mathcal{I}_\sigma)^n = \varprojlim_{n} \pi_*{\mathscr{O}}_X {{\, \big/}}(\mathcal{I}_\sigma)^n$$ which is naturally a sheaf of ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-modules. We denote by ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module $${{\mathcal{L}}}:= \varinjlim_{N \in {\mathbb{N}}_0} \pi_* \varprojlim_{n\in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{n}$$ which is equipped with a natural filtration $F^N\!{{\mathcal{L}}}=\pi_* \varprojlim_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N+n}$ for $N \geq 0$ and $F^N\!{{\mathcal{L}}}=\pi_* \varprojlim_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{n}$ for $N \leq -1$ taking into account the order of the poles or zeros along $\sigma(S)$. \[rmk-loccoord\] Recall that when $R=k$, the choice of a local parameter $t$, i.e. of a generator of $\mathcal{I}_\sigma$, gives an isomorphism ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\cong k[[t]]$ and hence ${{\mathcal{L}}}\cong k((t))$ and so $F^n\!{{\mathcal{L}}}\cong t^n k[[t]]$. Since $\mathcal{I}_\sigma$ is locally principal, for every $s \in \sigma(S)$ we can find an open covering $U$ of $X$ containing $s$ and such that $\mathcal{I}_\sigma|_{U}$ is principal. Let denote by $S'$ the open of $S$ given by $\sigma^{-1}(U)$ and by $U'$ the open $U \cap \pi^{-1}{S'}$. Then $\mathcal{I}_\sigma|_{U'}$ is principal and $\varprojlim_n {\mathscr{O}}_{U'} / (\mathcal{I}_\sigma|_{U'})^n$ is isomorphic to ${\mathscr{O}}_{S'}[[t]]$, where $t$ is a generator of $\mathcal{I}_\sigma|_{U'}$. This moreover implies that the completion of ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}$ at a point $s\in S$ is isomorphic to $\widehat{{\mathscr{O}}}_{S,s}[[t]]$, where $\widehat{{\mathscr{O}}}_{S,s}$ denotes the completion of ${\mathscr{O}}_S$ at $s$. Denote by ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ the restriction of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ to the open curve $X^*$ and by ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ the “restriction of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ to the punctured formal neighbourhood around $\sigma(S)$”, and consider both sheaves as ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-modules naturally equipped with a Lie bracket. In other words we set $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}& :=\pi_*{j_A}_* {j_A}^*({{\mathfrak{h}}})= \pi_* (\varinjlim_{N \in {\mathbb{N}}_0} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {{\mathfrak{h}}})= \varinjlim_{N \in {\mathbb{N}}_0} \pi_* ( \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {{\mathfrak{h}}})\\ {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}&:= \varinjlim_{N \in {\mathbb{N}}_0} \pi_* \varprojlim_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{n} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {{\mathfrak{h}}}. \end{aligned}$$ The following observations follow from the definitions. 1. The injective morphism $\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} \to \varprojlim_n \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n$ induces the inclusion ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. 2. The filtration on ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ defines the filtration $F^*{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ as $$F^N({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})= \pi_* \varprojlim_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N+n} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {{\mathfrak{h}}}{\quad \text{and} \quad}F^{-N}({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})= \pi_* \varprojlim_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{n} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X}$$for all $N \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ and we denote $F^0({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$ by ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}}$. 3. We could have equivalently defined ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ as the Lie subalgebra of $\Gamma$-invariants of $f_*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {j_{\widetilde{A}}}_* {\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}*})$ where $j_{\widetilde{A}}$ denotes the open immersion of ${{\widetilde{X}}}^*:={{\widetilde{X}}}\times_X X^* \to {{\widetilde{X}}}$. This follows from the equalities $${j_A}^* {{\mathfrak{h}}}= {j_A}^*(q_*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}))^\Gamma= ({j_A}^*q_*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}))^\Gamma = q_* ({j_{\widetilde{A}}}^*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_X^*))^\Gamma.$$ Similarly ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is the Lie subalgebra of $\Gamma$-invariants of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k \widehat{{{\mathcal{L}}}}$, where $$\widehat{{{\mathcal{L}}}}:=\varinjlim_N f_* \varprojlim_n ({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k q^*(\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N}) / q^*(\mathcal{I}_\sigma^n)).$$ \[rmk-IsomhLgL\] Since $\sigma(S)$ has trivial intersection with ${\mathcal{R}}$, we can find an étale cover of $S$ such that $p^{-1}(\sigma(S))= \coprod_{\Gamma} S$ or in other terms such that the pull back of $\mathcal{I}_\sigma$ to the cover totally splits, i.e. $q^*\mathcal{I}_\sigma= \prod_{\gamma_i\in \Gamma} \mathcal{I}_{\sigma,i}$. This implies that $${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\cong \left( {{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k \bigoplus_{\gamma_i \in \Gamma} (\varinjlim_N f_* \varprojlim_n \mathcal{I}_{\sigma,i}^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_{\sigma,i}^n ) \right)^\Gamma$$ which leads to ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\cong ({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k (\oplus_{\gamma_i \in \Gamma}{{\mathcal{L}}}))^\Gamma$ where the action is given by $$\gamma_j * \left((X_if_i)_{\gamma_i}\right) = (\gamma_j(X_i)f_i)_{\gamma_j \gamma_i} \quad \text{for all } X_i \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}\text{ and } f_i \in {{\mathcal{L}}}.$$ It follows that the invariant elements are combination of elements of the type $(\gamma_i(X)f)_{\gamma_i}$. For every $i \in \{0, \dots, p-1\}$, the projection on the $i$-th component $$\text{pr}_i \colon {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}:={{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {{\mathcal{L}}}, \quad (\gamma_j(X)f)_{\gamma_j} \mapsto \gamma_i(X)f$$ defines a non canonical isomorphism of sheaves of Lie algebras of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. The inverse is the map that sends the element $Xf$ of ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ to the $p$-tuple $(\gamma_{j}(\gamma_{i}^{-1}(X))f)_{\gamma_j}$. The central extension of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ {#subsec-CentralExtensionhL} --------------------------------------------------------- Once we have defined ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$, in order to define ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}}$, we need to extend ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ centrally. Following [@kac1994infinite Chapter 7], [@tsuchiya1989conformal] and [@looijenga2005conformal] we construct this central extension using a normalized Killing form and the residue pairing. ### Normalized Killing form {#normalized-killing-form .unnumbered} We fix once and for all a maximal torus $T$ of $G$ and a Borel subgroup $B$ of $G$ containing $T$, or equivalently we fix the root system $R(G,T)=R({{\mathfrak{g}}},\mathfrak{t}) \subseteq \mathfrak{t}^\vee:={\textrm{Hom}}(\mathfrak{t},k)$ of $G$ and a basis $\Delta$ of positive simple roots, where $\mathfrak{t}=\text{Lie}(T)$. Given a root $\alpha$ we denote by $H_\alpha \in \mathfrak{t}$ the associated coroot. Denote by $(\,|\,)\colon {{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{g}}}\to k$ the unique multiple of the Killing form such that $(H_\theta|H_\theta)=2$ where $\theta$ is the highest root of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. As ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is simple, this form gives an isomorphism $(\,|\,)$ between ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^\vee:={\textrm{Hom}}({{\mathfrak{g}}}, k)$. Pulling back this form to ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ we obtain $\tilde{(\,|\,)} \colon \widetilde{{{\mathfrak{g}}}} \otimes \widetilde{{{\mathfrak{g}}}} \to {\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}}$, where $\widetilde{{{\mathfrak{g}}}}:={\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}} \otimes_k {{\mathfrak{g}}}$. We push forward $\tilde{(\,|\,)}$ along $q$ obtaining $$q_*\tilde{(\,|\,)}\colon q_*(\widetilde{{{\mathfrak{g}}}}) \otimes q_*(\widetilde{{{\mathfrak{g}}}}) \to q_*({\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}})$$ which is $\Gamma$-equivariant as the Killing form is invariant under automorphisms of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Taking $\Gamma$-invariants we obtain the pairing $$(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}}}\colon {{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {{\mathfrak{h}}}\to {\mathscr{O}}_X$$ which however is not perfect because of ramification. Combining this with the multiplication morphism $\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N}/\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N+n} \times \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N}/\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{N+n} \to \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-2N}/\mathcal{I}_\sigma^n$ and taking the limit on $n$ and $N$ we obtain the perfect pairing $(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\colon {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{{\mathcal{L}}}} {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {{\mathcal{L}}}$. ### Residue pairing {#subsubsec-ResiduePairing .unnumbered} We introduce the sheaf $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ of continuous derivations of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ which are ${\mathscr{O}}_S$ linear. Denote its ${{\mathcal{L}}}$-dual by $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$: this is the sheaf of continuous differentials of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ relative to ${\mathscr{O}}_S$. When ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\cong R[[t]]$ we have that $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ is isomorphic to $R((t)) d/dt$ and $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ to $R((t))dt$. The residue map ${\textrm{Res}}\colon \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to {\mathscr{O}}_S$ is computed locally as ${\textrm{Res}}( \sum_{i\geq N} \alpha_it^idt)=\alpha_{-1}$. Composing this with the canonical morphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}^\vee \times {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {{\mathcal{L}}}$ we obtain the perfect pairing $${\textrm{Res}}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}\colon \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}\otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}^\vee \times {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {\mathscr{O}}_S.$$ ### The differential of a section {#the-differential-of-a-section .unnumbered} Let $d \colon {\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}}\to \Omega_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/ S}$ be the universal derivation, which induces the morphism $d \colon {{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}} \to {{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k \Omega_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/ S}$ by tensoring it with ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Let $U = X \setminus \{{\mathcal{R}}\cup X^{\text{sing}}\}$ be the open subscheme of $X$ which is smooth over $S$ and which does not intersect the branch divisor ${\mathcal{R}}$ of $q$ and call $\widetilde{U}=U \times_X {{\widetilde{X}}}$. Once we restrict $d$ to $\widetilde{U}$ and we push it forward along $q$ we obtain the map $$d \colon q_*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{\widetilde{U}}) \to q_*({{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{\widetilde{U}}) \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_U} \Omega_{U/S}$$ by using the projection formula. Taking $\Gamma$-invariants one obtains $d \colon {{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{U} \to {{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{U} \otimes_U \Omega_{U/S}$ and since $\sigma(S) \subset U$, this induces the map $d \colon {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. We can furthermore compose this map with the morphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}^\vee$ given by the normalized Killing form $(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, obtaining $$d_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\colon {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}^\vee.$$ \[rmk-dkill\] Given $X,Y \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, we simply write $(dX|Y)$ for $d_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}(X)(Y) \in \omega_{L/S}$. Note that the following equality holds $d_{{{\mathcal{L}}}}(X|Y)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}= (dX|Y) + (X|dY)$, where $d_{{{\mathcal{L}}}} \colon {{\mathcal{L}}}\to \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ is the universal derivation. ### The central extension of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ {#the-central-extension-of-mathfrakh_mathcall .unnumbered} We have introduced all the ingredients we needed to be able to define the central extension $0 \to c{\mathscr{O}}_S \to {{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to 0$ of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ where $c$ is a formal variable. We define the sheaf of Lie algebras ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ to be ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\oplus c{\mathscr{O}}_S$ as ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module, with $c{\mathscr{O}}_S$ being in the centre of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and with Lie bracket defined as $$[X,Y]:=[X,Y]_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}} + c {\textrm{Res}}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}\left(d_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}}(X) \otimes Y\right)=[X,Y]_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}} + c {\textrm{Res}}\left(dX|Y\right)$$for all $X,Y \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. The Lie algebra ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ comes equipped with the filtration $F^i{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}=F^i{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ for all $i \geq 1$ and $F^i{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}=F^i{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\oplus c{\mathscr{O}}_S$ for $i \leq 0$. As ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\subset {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, one might wonder which is the Lie algebra structure induced on $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{h}}}}_{{\mathcal{A}}}$. The following two lemmas tell us that ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is a Lie subalgebra of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. The image of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ via $d_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is $\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}^\vee$. We can restrict to the case of family of smooth curves, as on the singular points the result follows from [@looijenga2005conformal Lemma 5.1] by identifying ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Recall from Lemma \[lem-decomp\] that ${{\mathfrak{h}}}=\bigoplus_{i=0}^{p-1} {{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_i$, and note that the image of ${\mathscr{E}}_i$ under $d$ is ${\mathscr{E}}_{i}({\mathcal{R}})\otimes \Omega_{X}$. Moreover observe that $(\,|\,)$ gives an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^i}$ and the dual of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}}$. Since ${\mathscr{E}}_i \otimes {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i} \cong {\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ for $i \neq 0$, the normalized killing form $(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ gives an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_i$ and $({{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{i}} \otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i}({\mathcal{R}}))^\vee$. It follows that $$d_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}({{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_i)={{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{i}} \otimes_k ({\mathscr{E}}_{i}({\mathcal{R}}))^\vee \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \Omega_{X}= {{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{i}} \otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_{-i} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \Omega_{X}$$ which yields $d_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}})=\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}^\vee$. \[lem-annullatore\] The annihilator of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ with respect to the pairing ${\textrm{Res}}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$, denoted $\text{Ann}_{{\textrm{Res}}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}}({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}})$, is $\omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}^\vee$. Before starting with the proof, we remark that this lemma holds if we replace ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ with any vector bundle ${\mathscr{E}}$ on $X$ as it is essentially a consequence of Serre duality. We start by giving a description of the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, as the annihilator of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ will be the dual of that quotient with respect to the residue pairing. The double quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}F^n{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ computes $R^1\pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n)$. It follows that the projective limit $\varprojlim_{n \geq 1} R^1\pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n))$ equals $\varprojlim_{n \geq 1} {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}F^n{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which is ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. As the residue pairing gives rise to Serre duality, we know that $R^1\pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n)$ is isomorphic to the dual of $\pi_*(\Omega_{X/S} \otimes ({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n)^\vee)$. It follows that $$\text{Ann}_{{\textrm{Res}}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}}({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}) = \varinjlim_{n\geq 1} \pi_*\left(\Omega_{X/S} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} ({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n)^\vee\right).$$ which equals $\omega_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S} \otimes_{{{\mathcal{A}}}} {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}^\vee$. Conformal blocks attached to integrable representations {#subsec-defHhn} ------------------------------------------------------- We have all the ingredients to define the sheaf of conformal blocks. Let $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ denote the universal enveloping algebra of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and recall that $F^0{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}= \pi_* \varprojlim_n {\mathscr{O}}_X/ \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n$, i.e. it’s the subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which has no poles along $\sigma(S)$. Observe that this implies that it is also a Lie sub algebra of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. \[def-Verma\] For any $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define the *Verma module of level $\ell$* to be the left $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$-module given by $${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({0})}}:= U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}\left(U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\circ F^0{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}, \, c=\ell \right).$$ For what follows we will need a generalization of this module attached to certain representations of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$. An irreducible finite dimensional representation $\mathcal{V}$ of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is a locally free ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module which is equipped with an action of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ which locally étale on $S$, and up to an isomorphism of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\times {\mathscr{O}}_{S}$, is isomorphic to $V \otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{S}$ for an irreducible finite dimensional representation $V$ of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Let $\mathcal{V}$ be an irreducible finite dimensional representation of the Lie algebra $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$: we will see how this induces a representation of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with the central element acting as multiplication by $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$. As first step, note that the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathcal{I}_\sigma \to {\mathscr{O}}_X \to {\mathscr{O}}_S \to 0$$ defining $\sigma(S)$ gives rise to the map of Lie algebras $[\star]_{\mathcal{I}_\sigma} \colon F^0{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to \sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ induced by the truncation map $\varprojlim_n {\mathscr{O}}_X /\mathcal{I}_\sigma^n \to {\mathscr{O}}_X/\mathcal{I}_\sigma$. The action of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ on $\mathcal{V}$ is then extended to the action of $F^0{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}=F^0{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\oplus c {\mathscr{O}}_S$ by imposing, for every $v \in \mathcal{V}$ and for every $X \in F^0{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, the relations $$c * v:=\ell v {\quad \text{and} \quad}X * v:= [X]_{\mathcal{I}_\sigma} v.$$ In view of this, once we fix $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we always view a representation ${\mathcal{V}}$ of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ as a $UF^0{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$-module with the central part acting by multiplication by $\ell$. \[def-VermaV\] For every $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we define the *Verma module of level $\ell$ attached to ${\mathcal{V}}$* to be left $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$-module of level $\ell$ attached to $\mathcal{V}$, meaning $${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({\mathcal{V}})}} := U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\underset{UF^0{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}}{\otimes} \mathcal{V}$$where $F^0{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ acts on $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ by multiplication on the right and $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ acts on ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({\mathcal{V}})}}$ by left multiplication. Note that when $\mathcal{V}$ is the trivial representation of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$, we obtain that ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathscr{O}}_S})}}$ coincides with ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({0})}}$ given in Definition \[def-Verma\]. In the constant case $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}}}$, the properties af ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ have been studied in [@kac1994infinite Chapter 7] when $R=k$ and ${\mathcal{V}}$ an irreducible representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of level at most $\ell$, where it is shown that it has a maximal irreducible quotient ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$. From this, one generalizes the construction to families of curves, but still in the constant case $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}}}$, meaning working on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}$. The new step is to descend ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ from ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}$ to ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. We then first of all recall the construction in the constant case in Section \[subsubsec-IntegrReprLevEllHurs\] and then show how it descends to ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ in Section \[subsubsec-IntegrReprLevEllHur\]. ### Integrable representations of level $\ell$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}$ {#subsubsec-IntegrReprLevEllHurs} The morphism $\textbf{Forg}^1_1 \colon {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}} \to {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ is a finite étale covering, so if we want to define a-module on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$, we could first define it on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}$ and later show that the construction is $\Gamma$-equivariant, hence it descends to a module on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. As already written, the advantage of working on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}$, is the identification of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$, which allows us to use representation theory of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and of the affine Lie algebra ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ [@kac1994infinite Chapter 7]. We recall here some facts about representation theory of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Let $R(G,T)=R({{\mathfrak{g}}},\mathfrak{t})$ be the root system of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ with basis of positive roots $\Delta$. The *dominant weights* of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ are those element $\lambda \in \mathfrak{t}^*$ such that $\lambda(H_\alpha)\in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ for all positive roots $\alpha$. By [@BourbakiLieAlgebra Théorème 1, Chapitre VIII, §7] the set of dominant weights $P_+$ of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ is in bijection with the isomorphism classes of irreducible and finite dimensional representations of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. The representation $V_\lambda$ associated with $\lambda$ is characterized by the property of being generated by a highest weight vector $v_\lambda$ which is annihilated by the elements of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^\alpha$ for every positive root $\alpha$ and such that $H(v_\lambda)=\lambda(H)v_\lambda$ for every $H \in \mathfrak{t}$. Let $\theta$ be the highest root and denote by $H_\theta$ the highest coroot of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Then for every $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we set $$P_\ell := \{\lambda \in P_+ | \lambda(H_\theta)\leq \ell \}.$$ In view of the correspondence $\lambda \leftrightarrow V_\lambda$, the set $P_\ell$ represents the equivalence classes of representations of level at most $\ell$, meaning those representations $V_\lambda$ of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ where $X^{\ell+1}$ acts trivially on $V_\lambda$ for every nilpotent element $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$. In what follows we will use $P_\ell$ to denote either the weights or the representations of level at most $\ell$. Note that the trivial representation corresponds to the trivial weight $\lambda=0$, so that it belongs to $P_\ell$ for every $\ell$. \[rmk-PellGamma\] We note that the action of $\Gamma$ on ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ induces an action of $\Gamma$ on $P_\ell$ in the following way. Let $\rho_\lambda \colon {{\mathfrak{g}}}\times V \to V$ be the representation associated to $\lambda$, then we define the representation $\rho_{\gamma\lambda} \colon {{\mathfrak{g}}}\times V \to V$ as $\rho_{\gamma\lambda}(X,v):=\rho_\lambda(\gamma^{-1}X)v$ for all $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and $v \in V$. The weight $\gamma \lambda$ belongs to $P_\ell$ since $\Gamma$ sends nilpotent elements to nilpotent elements. Let $V_\lambda$ be an irreducible and finite dimensional representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and consider the $U\widehat{{{\mathfrak{g}}}} k((t))$-module ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}}$ constructed as in Definition \[def-VermaV\]. The properties of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}}$ are well known and described for example in [@kac1994infinite], [@rainakac1988lecture], [@tsuchiya1989conformal] and in [@beauville1994conformal]. The main results are collected in the following proposition. \[prop-HhnV\] Let $V_\lambda$ be an irreducible and finite dimensional representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of level at most $\ell$. 1. \[uniquemaxquot\] The module ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}}$ contains a maximal proper $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ submodule ${\mathcal{Z}}_\lambda$, so that it has a unique maximal irreducible quotient ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}:={{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}}/{\mathcal{Z}}_\lambda$. 2. \[VinHV\] The natural map $V_\lambda \to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$ sending $v$ to $1 \otimes v$ identifies $V_\lambda$ with the submodule of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$ annihilated by $UF^1{{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}=U{{\mathfrak{g}}}tk[[t]]$. 3. \[HhnVintegr\] The module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$ is integrable, i.e. for any $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ nilpotent and every $f(t) \in k((t))$, the element $Xf(t)$ acts locally nilpotently on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$. This means that there exists $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $X f(t)^{\circ n}$ acts trivially on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$. It follows that to every $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k), \tau) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k))$ and $\lambda \in P_\ell$, we can associate the irreducible $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$ realized as quotient of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}}$. Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S, \tau) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}(S)$ and call $\sigma$ the composition $p\tau$. An isomorphism of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is fixed by $\tau$, as well as an isomorphism of ${\sigma}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_S$. Denote by ${\mathcal{V}}_\lambda:= V_\lambda \otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_S$ the extension of scalars of $V_\lambda$ from $k$ to ${\mathscr{O}}_S$, so that ${\mathcal{V}}_\lambda$ is naturally a representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_S={\sigma}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$. We show how to construct ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ as quotient of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$. Let us assume first that ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\cong {\mathscr{O}}_S[[t]]$. This implies that ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ is isomorphic to $$U{{\mathfrak{g}}}t^{-1}{\mathscr{O}}_S[t^{-1}] \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_S} {\mathcal{V}}_\lambda=U{{\mathfrak{g}}}t^{-1}k[t^{-1}]\otimes_k V_\lambda \otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_S= {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}} \otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_S.$$ Observe that the isomorphism that we have obtained between ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ and ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({V_\lambda})}} \otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_S$ does not depend on the choice of the parameter $t$. It follows that ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ has a unique maximal $U \widehat{{{\mathfrak{g}}}}\otimes_k k((t))$ proper submodule ${\mathcal{Z}}_S:={\mathcal{Z}}_\lambda \otimes {\mathscr{O}}_S$, where ${\mathcal{Z}}_\lambda$ is the maximal proper submodule of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}}$. We define ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ as the quotient ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}} {{\, \big/}}{\mathcal{Z}}_S$ or equivalently as ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V_\lambda})}} \otimes {\mathscr{O}}_S$. This construction uses a choice of the isomorphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$, but since ${\mathcal{Z}}_\lambda$ and hence ${\mathcal{Z}}_S$ satisfy a maximality condition, they do not depend on the isomorphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$, concluding that that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ is the maximal irreducible quotient representation of $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. In the general case, we want to show that Zariski locally on $S$ we can reduce to ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\cong {\mathscr{O}}_S[[t]]$ so that we can locally define ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ and then show that this gives rise to a global object. Since $\mathcal{I}_\sigma$ is locally principal, we can find an open covering $\{U_i\}$ of $X$ such that $\mathcal{I}_\sigma|_{U_i}$ is principal. This implies that $\varprojlim_n {\mathscr{O}}_{U_i}/ \left(\mathcal{I}_\sigma|_{U_i}\right)^n$ is isomorphic to ${\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}[[t]]$ where $S_i:=\sigma^{-1}(U_i)$. Observe that this does not imply that ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\otimes_S {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i} \cong {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}[[t]]$, but only that ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\,\widehat{\otimes}_S \, {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i} \cong {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}[[t]]$. Consider then the sheaf of Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i:={{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}((t)) \cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}\,\widehat{\otimes}\, {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}$, and construct the $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$-module ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i$. The inclusion ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i} \to {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$ induces an isomorphism of ${\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}$-modules ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}} \otimes_S {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i} \cong {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i$. We need to prove that ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}} \to {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i} \cong {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i$ is surjective. We use induction on the length of the elements of $U{{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$, where the length of an element $u \in U{{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$ is the minimum $n$ such that $u \in \oplus_{j=0}^n {{{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i}^{\otimes j}$. Let $aX \in {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$ with $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and $a=\sum_{i\geq -N} a_i t^i \in {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}((t))$, and take $v \in {\mathcal{V}}_\lambda$. The class of $aX \otimes v$ in ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i$ is the same as the one of $[aX]\otimes v :=[a]X \otimes v$, where $[a]=\sum_{i\geq -N}^{0} a_i t^i$, which then belongs to ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}} \otimes_S {\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}$. Let now $Y=Y_1 \circ \dots \circ Y_n$ be an element of $U{{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$, and note that in ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i$ the element $Y \otimes v$ is equivalent to the class of $([Y_n]\circ \dots \circ [Y_1] + u) \otimes v$ where $u$ has length lower than $n$. Using the induction hypothesis we conclude the proof. We define the ${\mathscr{O}}_{S_i}$-module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}|_{S_i}$ to be ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i={{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i {{\, \big/}}{\mathcal{Z}}_i$. This gives rise to the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ because on the intersection $S_{ij}$ the modules ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_i$ and ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}_j$ are isomorphic via to the transition morphisms defining $\mathcal{I}_\sigma$. Equivalently we could have defined ${\mathcal{Z}}|_{S_i}$ to be the image of ${\mathcal{Z}}_i$ in ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}|_{S_i}$ and so ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}|_{S_i}$ would be the quotient of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}|_{S_i}$ by ${\mathcal{Z}}|_{S_i}$. The modules ${\mathcal{Z}}|_{S_i}$ glue and give rise to a ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}$-module ${\mathcal{Z}}$ on $S$, so that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ is given by ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}} {{\, \big/}}{\mathcal{Z}}$. This construction is invariant under the action of $\Gamma$, hence it defines ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ as a $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$-module. ### Integrable representations of level $\ell$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ {#subsubsec-IntegrReprLevEllHur} We show here how to descend ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ from ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ to ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$, so let consider $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma) \in {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}(S)$. The first issue is that, unless we choose an isomorphism between $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$, we are not able to provide a representation of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ associated to a $\lambda \in P_\ell$. In fact, one obstruction to this, as we noticed in Remark \[rmk-PellGamma\], is that $\Gamma$ does not in general act trivially on $P_\ell$, so it is impossible to identify ${\mathcal{V}}$ as ${\mathcal{V}}_\lambda$, with $\lambda$ independent of the isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. The conclusion is that it seems unreasonable to associate to $\lambda \in P_\ell$ a module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_\lambda})}}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ because $P_\ell$ contains only local information. The following set is what replaces $P_\ell$. A representation ${\mathcal{V}}$ of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is said to be of level at most $\ell$ if for every nilpotent element $X$ of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$, then $X^{\ell+1}$ acts trivially on ${\mathcal{V}}$. Equivalently this means that locally étale we can identify ${\mathcal{V}}$ with $V \otimes {\mathscr{O}}_S$ for a representation $V \in P_\ell$. Define ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\sigma^{{\mathfrak{h}}})$ or by abuse of notation only ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\sigma)$ or ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}$ to be the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible and finite dimensional representations ${\mathcal{V}}$ of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ of level at most $\ell$. The main step towards the definition of the sheaf of conformal blocks attached to ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}$ is the following result. \[prop-DescendtHh\] Let ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}$. Then there exists a unique maximal proper $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ submodule ${\mathcal{Z}}$ of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$. We show that the maximal proper submodule of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)^{1}_{g}}}$ descends along $\textbf{Forg}^1_1$ to the maximal proper submodule of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. Recall that since $\sigma(S)$ does not intersect the branch locus of $q$, we can find an étale covering $S'\to S$ such that the pullback of $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S, \sigma)$ lies in the image of $\textbf{Forg}^1_1$. This implies that to give ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}$ is equivalent to give an irreducible and finite dimensional representation ${\mathcal{V}}'$ of ${\sigma'}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ and an isomorphism $\phi \colon p_1^*{\mathcal{V}}' \to p_2^*{\mathcal{V}}'$ satisfying the cocycle conditions on $S'''$, where $p_i \colon S''=S'\times_S S' \to S'$ is the $i$-th projection. This tells us moreover that ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ is obtained by descending ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}'})}}$ from $S'$ to $S$. Observe that up to the choice of an isomorphism ${\sigma'}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{S'}$, the representation ${\mathcal{V}}'$ is of the form ${\mathcal{V}}_\lambda$, so that ${\mathcal{Z}}'$ and ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}'})}}$ are well defined. We construct ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ by descending ${\mathcal{Z}}'$ to a module ${\mathcal{Z}}$ on $S$, so that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}:= {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}} {{\, \big/}}{\mathcal{Z}}$. Since ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is a module on ${\mathscr{O}}_S$, we have a canonical isomorphism $\phi_{12} \colon {p_1}^*{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}|_{S'} \to {p_2}^*{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}|_{S'}$ satisfying the cocycle conditions on $S''':=S''\times_S S'$. Recall moreover that ${\mathcal{Z}}'$ is the maximal proper $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ submodule of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}'})}}$, which is then $\Gamma$-invariant. This induces an isomorphism between $p_1^*{\mathcal{Z}}'$ and $p_2^*{\mathcal{Z}}'$ which satisfied the cocycle condition on $S'''$ and it is independent of the isomorphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. \[def-HhnV\] Let ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}$. The maximal irreducible quotient of ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ is denoted ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ and defines a sheaf $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X={{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\circ {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}} {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$$ on $S$ which is called the *sheaf of conformal blocks attached to ${\mathcal{V}}$*. When ${\mathcal{V}}$ is the trivial representation of $\sigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$, we denote ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ by ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}$ and its quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}$ is called the *sheaf of covacua.* The collection $\{{{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_X\}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S}$ determines the sheaf of modules ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. In similar way, given compatible families $\{{\mathcal{V}}(\sigma)\}_{\{{{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S,\sigma\}}$ defining an element ${\mathcal{V}}$ of ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\sigma_{univ})$, the collection ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}(\sigma)})}}_X$ defines ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$. Observe that Proposition \[prop-HhnV\] generalizes as follows. \[cor-propHhn\] Let ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\sigma)$, then: 1. \[VinHVtw\] The natural map ${\mathcal{V}}\to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ sending $v$ to $1 \otimes v$ identifies ${\mathcal{V}}$ with the submodule of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ annihilated by $UF^1{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. 2. \[HhnVintegrtw\] The module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ is integrable. Inspired by [@sorger1996formule Section 2.5] we prove the following statement. \[prop-HhnFinGen\] The ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ is coherent. It follows that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is a coherent module on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. This is essentially a consequence of [@sorger1996formule Lemma 2.5.2]. As this is a local statement, we can assume that ${{\mathcal{L}}}\cong R((t))$ and we can fix an isomorphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Observe that the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}F^0{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is a finitely generated $R$-module as it computes $H^1(X,{{\mathfrak{h}}})$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is locally free over $X$. This implies that ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}F^1{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is finitely generated too over $R$ and so we can choose finitely many generators $e_1, \dots, e_n$ so that we can write $${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}=F^1{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}+ {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}+ \sum_{i=1}^n R e_i.$$ which in terms of enveloping algebras becomes $$U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}= \sum_{(N_1, \dots, N_n) \in {{\mathbb{N}}_0}^n} U({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}) \circ {e_1}^{\circ N_1} \circ \cdots \circ {e_n}^{\circ N_n} \circ U(F^1{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$$ thing that can be proven using induction on the length of elements of $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. We can furthermore assume that the elements $e_i$ acts locally nilpotently on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$, meaning that there exists $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $e_i^{\circ M}$ acts trivially on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$. In fact we might use the isomorphism ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and the Cartan decomposition of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}=\mathfrak{t} \oplus_{\alpha \in R({{\mathfrak{g}}},\mathfrak{t})} {{\mathfrak{g}}}_\alpha$. The algebras ${{\mathfrak{g}}}_{\alpha}$’s are nilpotent and generate ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$, so that ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is generated by $\oplus_{\alpha \in R({{\mathfrak{g}}},\mathfrak{t})} {{\mathfrak{g}}}_\alpha{{\mathcal{L}}}$. This means that also the elements $e_i$ are generated by elements of $\oplus_{\alpha \in R({{\mathfrak{g}}},\mathfrak{t})}{{\mathfrak{g}}}^\alpha{{\mathcal{L}}}$ so that, up to replace $e_i$ with a choice of nilpotent generators, we can ensure that all the $e_i$’s live in $\oplus_{\alpha \in R({{\mathfrak{g}}},\mathfrak{t})}{{\mathfrak{g}}}^\alpha{{\mathcal{L}}}$ and so using Corollary \[cor-propHhn\] (\[HhnVintegrtw\]) the $e_i$’s will act locally nilpotently on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$. It follows that $${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{V}}})}}= \sum_{(N_1, \dots, N_n) \in {{\mathbb{N}}_0}^n} U({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}) \circ {e_1}^{\circ N_1} \circ \cdots \circ {e_n}^{\circ N_n} \underset{c=\ell}\otimes {\mathcal{V}}$$ and that $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}} = \sum_{(N_1, \dots, N_n) \in {{\mathbb{N}}_0}^n} U({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}) \circ {e_1}^{\circ N_1} \circ \cdots \circ {e_n}^{\circ N_n} \underset{c=\ell}\otimes {\mathcal{V}}{{\, \big/}}{\mathcal{Z}}$$ Using induction on $n$ and the fact that the $e_i$’s act locally nilpotently, we can conclude that the sum can be taken over finitely many $(N_1,\dots,N_n) \in {{\mathbb{N}}_0}^n$, hence that the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}} = {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ is finitely generated. The projective connection on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ {#sec-ProjConn} ================================================================================= We want to prove that the sheaf of conformal blocks ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is a vector bundle on the Hurwitz stack ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$, so that its rank will be constant. Since we already know that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is coherent, one method to exhibit local freeness is to provide a projectively flat connection on it. In this section we provide a projective action of ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}/ k}(-\log(\Delta))$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$, showing its freeness when restricted to ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. The tangent to ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ {#subsec-tangHur} ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \sigma) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k))$ and recall that in Remark \[rmk-NCD\] we saw that the tangent space of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ at $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \sigma)$ is isomorphic to the tangent space of ${{\mathcal{M}_{g, (1+\deg(\xi))}}}$ at $(X, \sigma \cup {\mathcal{R}})$. The latter, which is the space of infinitesimal deformations of $(X, \sigma \cup {\mathcal{R}})$, can be explicitely described as the space ${\textrm{Ext}}^1(\Omega_{X/k}, {\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}}-\sigma(S))$ [@ArbarelloCornalba Chapter XI] which sits in the short exact sequence $$0 \to H^1(X, {\mathcal{T}}_{X/k}(-{\mathcal{R}}-\sigma(S)) \to {\textrm{Ext}}^1(\Omega_{X/k}, {\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}}-\sigma(S)) \to H^0( X, {\mathscr{E}\!\textit{xt}}^1(\Omega_{X/k}, {\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}}-\sigma(S))) \to 0$$ where the last term is supported on the singular points of $X$. We now use the assumption that the curve $(X, \sigma \cup {\mathcal{R}})$ is stably marked to assume that there exists a versal family ${\mathcal{X}}\to S$ with a reduced divisor $\sigma_{\mathcal{X}}+ {\mathcal{R}}_{{\mathcal{X}}}$ deforming it and such that the subscheme of $S$ whose fibres are singular is a normal crossing divisor $\Delta$. Call $s_0$ the point of $S$ such that ${\mathcal{X}}|_{s_0}$ is $X$. The versality condition means that the Kodaira-Spencer map $$\texttt{KS} \colon {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k} \to {\mathscr{E}\!\textit{xt}}^1(\Omega_{{\mathcal{X}}/S}, {\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}}_{{\mathcal{X}}}-\sigma_{{\mathcal{X}}}))$$ is an isomorphism, so that we identify the tangent space of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ at $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \sigma)$ with the tangent space of $S$ at $s_0$. The conclusion is that to provide a projective connection on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is equivalent to provide an action of ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{X}$ for every versal family ${{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S$. As aforementioned, we will however not be able to provide a projective action of the whole ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$, but only of the submodule ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$, which via the Kodaira-Spencer map is identified with $R^1\pi_*({\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{\mathcal{R}}-\sigma(S)))$. Tangent bundles and the action of $\Gamma$ {#subsec-tangent} ------------------------------------------ In view of the previous observations, we assume that $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}(S)$ is a versal family, so that the locus of points $s$ of $S$ such that the fibres $X_s$ (or equivalently ${{\widetilde{X}}}_s$) are non smooth is a normal crossing divisor $\Delta$ of $S$. We give in this section a description of ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$ and ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$, by realizing it as a quotient of certain sheaves of derivations. Consider, to begin with, the following situation described by Looienga [@looijenga2005conformal Section 2]. Let $R \in {k\textbf{-Alg}}$ and $L=R((t))$, then we can consider the following two modules: $\theta_{L/R}$ consisting of continuous $R$-linear derivations of $L$ and $\theta_{L,R}$ consisting of continuous $k$-linear derivations of $L$ which restrict to derivations of $R$ into itself. The quotient $\theta_{L,R}/\theta_{L/R}$ is canonically identified with the module of $k$-linear derivations of $R$. Take $(f \colon{{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}(S)$. We already introduced in Subsection \[subsubsec-ResiduePairing\] the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ of continuous ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-linear derivations of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ and we define now $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ as the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module of continuous $k$-linear derivations of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ which restrict to derivations of ${\mathscr{O}}_S$. Observe that $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ depend only on the marked curve $(X \to S, \sigma)$, so the following well known result belongs to the classical setting. \[prop-exseq\] The sequence of ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-modules $$0 \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S} \to {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k} \to 0$$ is exact. As exactness can be checked on formal neighbourhoods, we can assume that ${{\mathcal{L}}}\cong R((t))$ so that the result follows from the example presented above. In similar fashion we now describe the subsheaf ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$ as quotient of appropriate sheaves of derivations. ### The sheaves $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ and $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ {#the-sheaves-theta_mathcalas-mathcalr-and-theta_mathcalas-mathcalr .unnumbered} Following Looijenga’s notation, we denote by $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}$ the sheaf of derivations $f_*{\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}$. Recall that in Lemma \[lem-tang\] we have showed that there is an isomorphism between $(q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S})^\Gamma$ and ${\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$. This implies that $f_*({\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}^*/S}))^\Gamma \cong \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}\otimes_S \pi_*{\mathscr{O}}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ and by abuse of notation we will denote this sheaf by $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$. In a similar way we consider the action of $\Gamma$ on the pushforward to $S$ of ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}^*,S}$, the sheaf of $k$-linear derivations of ${\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}^*}$ which restrict to derivations of $f^{-1}{\mathscr{O}}_S$ and we call $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ the sub module of $\Gamma$-invariants. Recall that we defined $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{L}}}}$ as $\varinjlim_N f_* \varprojlim_n (q^*\mathcal{I}_\sigma)^{-N} / (q^*\mathcal{I}_\sigma)^n$ and define now $$\theta_{\widetilde{{{\mathcal{L}}}}/S} := \varinjlim_N \pi_*q_* \varprojlim_n {\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S} \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}}} q^*\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / q^*\mathcal{I}_\sigma^n$$ or equivalently $\theta_{\widetilde{{{\mathcal{L}}}}/S}$ is the module of continuous derivations of $\widetilde{{{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which are ${\mathscr{O}}_S$ linear. Thanks to Lemma \[lem-tang\], the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-submodule of $\Gamma$-invariants is identified with $\varinjlim_N \pi_* \varprojlim_n {\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n$ which equals $\varinjlim_N \pi_* \varprojlim_n {\mathcal{T}}_{X/S}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} \mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_\sigma^n$ as ${\mathcal{R}}$ and $\sigma(S)$ are disjoint. The latter is the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module of continuous and ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-linear derivations of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$, which is $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. The previous remark implies moreover that $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}$ is a submodule of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. \[rmk-coeffder\] Observe that the action of ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S}$ (resp. of ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}},S}$) on ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{O}}_{{\widetilde{X}}}$ by coefficientwise derivation is $\Gamma$-equivariant. This implies that $(q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}/S})^\Gamma$ (resp. $(q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}},S})^\Gamma$) acts on ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ and we will say that the action is by coefficientwise derivation. By restricting ourselves to ${{\widetilde{X}}}^*$ this implies that $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ (resp. $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$) acts on ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ by coefficientwise derivation. The same holds for $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ acting on ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. \[eg-Log\] We recall in this example the local description of the quotient $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S} {{\, \big/}}\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}$ at nodal points [@looijenga2005conformal Section 5]. Let $R$ be a local complete $k$-algebra with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ and let $A:=R[[x,y]]/xy-t$ for some $t \in \mathfrak{m}$. We are interested in the following $R$-modules: $\theta_{A/R}$, the module of $R$-linear derivations of $A$, which lives inside $\theta_{A,R}$, the module of $k$-linear derivations of $A$ which restrict to derivations of $R$. We are interested in understanding the quotient $\theta_{A,R} / \theta_{A/R}$ and we claim that this gets identified with $\theta_{R/k}(-\log(t))$, the module of $k$-linear derivations of $R$ which send the element $t$ to an element of the ideal $tR$. We in fact note that from the relation $xy=t$, each derivation $D \in \theta_{A,R}$ should send $t$ to a multiple of itself inside $R$, hence the natural map $\theta_{A,R} \to \theta_{R/k}$, whose kernel is $\theta_{A/R}$, has image landing inside $\theta_{R/k}(-\log(t))$ and what we need to prove is that this is exactly the image. Given in fact a derivation $D \in \theta_{R/k}(-\log(t))$ , we claim that it is possible to extend it to a derivation of $A$, i.e. to define $D(x)$ and $D(y)$ satisfying $xD(y)+yD(x)=D(t)$. Since $D(t)=tr=2 xy r$ for some $r \in R$, it will be enough to set $D(y)=yr$ and $D(x)=xr$. \[prop-exseqALog\] The sequence $$0 \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \to {\mathcal{T}}_{S}(-\log(\Delta)) \to 0$$is exact. As taking $\Gamma$-invariants is an exact functor ($\text{char}(k)=0$) and $\Gamma$ acts trivially on ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$, it suffices to prove that the sequence $$0 \to f_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}^*/S} \to f_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}^*,S} \to {\mathcal{T}}_S(-\log(\Delta)) \to 0$$is exact. This statement does not depend on the covering, and appears in [@sorger1996formule] and [@looijenga2005conformal]. We give the proof of it, by starting observing that in the case ${{\widetilde{X}}}^* = \mathbb{A}^1_S$, the result follows by using the same argument of the proof of Proposition \[prop-exseq\]. Let $U=S \setminus \Delta$ and denote by ${{\widetilde{X}}}_U:={{\widetilde{X}}}\times_S U$. As ${{\widetilde{X}}}_U$ is smooth over $S$, there exists an affine covering $\{{\textrm{Spec}}(A_i)={{\widetilde{X}}}_i\}$ of ${{\widetilde{X}}}_U$ and $\{{\textrm{Spec}}(R_i)=U_i\}$ of $U$ such that the map $f_i=f|_{{{\widetilde{X}}}_i} \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}_i \to S_i$ factors through $\mathbb{A}^1_{R_i}$ via an étale map $\phi_i$ as in the diagram: $$\xymatrix{ {{\widetilde{X}}}\ar[d]^f&& \ar[ll]{{\widetilde{X}}}_i \ar[d]^{f_i} \ar[r]^{\phi_i}& \mathbb{A}^1_{R_i}\ar[dl]^q \\S&& \ar[ll]U_i }$$ It follows that the sequence $0 \to q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathbb{A}^1_{R_i}/U_i} \to q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathbb{A}^1_{R_i},U_i} \to {\mathcal{T}}_{U_i|k} \to 0 $ is exact. The étaleness of $\phi_i$ provides an isomorphism between ${f_i}_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}_i/S_i}$ and $q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathbb{A}^1_{R_i}/U_i}$ and similarly for ${f_i}_*{\mathcal{T}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}_i,U_i}$ and $q_*{\mathcal{T}}_{\mathbb{A}^1_{R_i},U_i}$, concluding the argument for the smooth points. Let $s$ be a geometric point of $\Delta$ and ${{\widetilde{x}}}\in {{\widetilde{X}}}_s$ a nodal point. This means that there exists an isomorphism $$\widehat{{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}},{{\widetilde{x}}}}} \cong \widehat{{\mathscr{O}}_{S,s}}[[x,y]]/xy-t$$ for some $t \in \widehat{\mathfrak{m}}_s$. It follows that the Example \[eg-Log\] represents the local picture of the situation, where the result holds, concluding the proof. The Virasoro algebra of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ {#subsec-VirasoroAlgebra} ----------------------------------------- Now that we can express ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$ as $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) {{\, \big/}}\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$, we will define a projective action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ which factors through that quotient. In order to achieve this result, we will follow the methods of [@looijenga2005conformal] and define as first step the Virasoro algebra $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ as a central extension of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. We report in this section the construction of $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ as explained in [@looijenga2005conformal Section 2], for which we will use the same notation. As mentioned before, the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ does not depend on the covering, and the same holds for its central extension $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. We will see in Section \[subsec-Sugawara\], how $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ acts on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ and how it induces a central extension of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$. ### The Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ and its central extension $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$. {#the-lie-algebras-mathfrakl-and-its-central-extension-widehatmathfrakl. .unnumbered} We denote by ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ the sheaf of abelian Lie algebras (over $S$) whose underlying module is ${{\mathcal{L}}}$. The filtration $F^*\!{{\mathcal{L}}}$ gives the filtration $F^*{{\mathfrak{l}}}$. Denote by $U{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ the universal enveloping algebra, which is isomorphic to ${\textrm{Sym}}({{\mathfrak{l}}})$ since ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ is abelian. This algebra is not complete with respect to the filtration $F^*{{\mathfrak{l}}}$, so we complete it on the right obtaining $$\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}:= \varprojlim_n U{{\mathfrak{l}}}/ U{{\mathfrak{l}}}\circ F^n{{\mathfrak{l}}}.$$ Note that in this case the completions on the right $\varprojlim_n U{{\mathfrak{l}}}/ U{{\mathfrak{l}}}\circ F^n{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ and on the left $\varprojlim_n F^n{{\mathfrak{l}}}\circ U{{\mathfrak{l}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}U{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ coincide because ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ is abelian. The element $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} t^{-i} \circ t^i$ belongs to $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$, as well as $\sum_{i\in{\mathbb{N}}} t^{-(i)^m} \circ t^i$ for every $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$. However $\sum_{i \in {\mathbb{N}}}t^{-i} \circ t$ is not an element of $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$. We extend centrally ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ via the residue pairing described in Section \[subsubsec-ResiduePairing\] defining the Lie bracket on $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}={{\mathfrak{l}}}\oplus \hslash{\mathscr{O}}_S$ as $$[f + \hslash r, g + \hslash s] = \hslash {\textrm{Res}}(gdf)$$ for every $f,g \in {{\mathfrak{l}}}$ and $r,s \in {\mathscr{O}}_S$. The filtration of ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ extends to a filtration of $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ by setting $F^i\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}=F^i{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ for $i \geq 0$ and $F^i\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}=F^i{{\mathfrak{l}}}\oplus \hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S$ for $i \leq 0$. The universal enveloping algebra of $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ is denoted by $U\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ and $\overline{U} \widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ denotes its completion on the right with respect to the filtration $F^*\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$. Note that since $\hslash$ is a central element, we have that $\overline{U} \widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ is an ${\mathscr{O}}_S[\hslash]$ algebra so that we will write $\hslash^2$ instead of $\hslash \circ \hslash$ and similarly $\hslash^n$ for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Since $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ is no longer abelian, completion on the right and on the left differ. Take for example the element $\sum_{i \in {\mathbb{N}}} t^i \circ t^{-i}$ which belongs to $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$. It does not belong to $\overline{U\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}}$: an element on the completion on the right morally should have zeros of increasing order on the right side, but in this case, in order to “bring the element $t^i$ on the right side”, we should use the equality $t^i \circ t^{-i}=t^{-i} \circ t^i + \hslash i$ infinitely many times, which is not allowed. ### The Virasoro algebra of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ {#subsubsec-Virasoro} We want to use the residue morphism ${\textrm{Res}}\colon \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to {\mathscr{O}}_S$ to view $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ as an ${\mathscr{O}}_S$ submodule of $\overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ and induce from this a central extension. Let $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$, and since $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ are ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ dual we identify $D$ with the map $$\phi_D \colon \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \times \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to {\mathscr{O}}_S, \quad (\alpha, \beta) \mapsto {\textrm{Res}}(D(\alpha)\beta).$$ Notice that since ${\textrm{Res}}(D(\alpha)\beta)={\textrm{Res}}(D(\beta)\alpha)$, we have that $\phi_D$ is an element of $({\textrm{Sym}}^2(\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}))^\vee$. Moreover, since the latter is canonically isomorphic to the closure of ${\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})$ in $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ (see Remark \[rmk-proof\]), we will consider $\phi_D$ as an element of $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$. We define $C \colon \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ by setting $2C(D)=\phi_D$. \[rmk-proof\] The fact that $({\textrm{Sym}}^2(\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}))^\vee$ is canonically isomorphic to the closure of ${\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})$ in $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ is essentially a consequence of the fact that ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ is defined as a limit of finitely generated ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-modules $\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{-n}/\mathcal{I}_\sigma^{m+1}$. We assume, for simplicity, that ${{\mathcal{L}}}={\mathscr{O}}_S((t))$. Write $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ as $\varinjlim_n \varprojlim_m \omega^n_m$ where $\omega^n_m$ is the free ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module generated by $\{t^{-n}dt, \cdots, t^mdt\}$. The maps defining the projective system are truncation maps, while the ones for the inductive limit are inclusions. As the direct limit is given by unions, we deduce that $({\textrm{Sym}}^2(\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}))^\vee$ is isomorphic to $\varprojlim_n \varinjlim_m {\textrm{Hom}}_{{\mathscr{O}}_S}(\omega^n_m \circ \omega^n_m, {\mathscr{O}}_S)$. The residue pairing gives the isomorphism between ${\textrm{Hom}}_{{\mathscr{O}}_S}(\omega^n_m, {\mathscr{O}}_S)$ and the sub ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module of ${{\mathfrak{l}}}$ generated freely by $\{ t^{-m-1}, \cdots , t^{n-1}\}$ which we denote by ${{\mathfrak{l}}}^{m+1}_{n-1}$. As these are free modules of finite dimension we get canonical identification with $$\varprojlim_n \varinjlim_m \left( {{\mathfrak{l}}}^{m+1}_{n-1} \circ {{\mathfrak{l}}}^{m+1}_{n-1}\right)= \varprojlim_n \left( t^{n-1}{\mathscr{O}}_S[t^{-1}] \circ t^{n-1}{\mathscr{O}}_S[t^{-1}] \right).$$ As the product is symmetric, this is identified with $\varprojlim_n \left( {\mathscr{O}}_S((t)) \circ t^{n-1} {\mathscr{O}}_S[t^{-1}]\right)$. By decomposing ${\mathscr{O}}_S((t))$ as $t^{n-1} {\mathscr{O}}_S[t^{-1}] \oplus t^n {\mathscr{O}}_S[[t]]$ this module equals $\varprojlim_n \dfrac{{\mathscr{O}}_S((t)) \circ {\mathscr{O}}_S((t))}{{\mathscr{O}}_S((t)) \circ t^n {\mathscr{O}}_S[[t]]}$, which is the closure of ${\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})$ in $\overline{U{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$. \[rmk-explicitCDF\] Assume for simplicity that $R=k$ and identify ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ with $k((t))$. For every $i \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ we set $\alpha_i=t^{-i-1}dt$ and $a_i=t^{i}$ so that ${\textrm{Res}}(a_i, \alpha_j)=\delta_{ij}$ and $\{\alpha_i\}$ and $\{a_i\}$ are linearly independent generators of $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and ${{\mathcal{L}}}$. Then we can write explicitly $$C(D)=\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i\in {\mathbb{Z}}} D(t^{-i-1}dt) \circ t^i .$$ In general, let $\{\alpha_i\}$ and $\{a_i\}$ be linearly independent generators of $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ with the property that ${\textrm{Res}}(a_i, \alpha_j)=\delta_{ij}$. Then we can write $$C(D)=\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}} D(\alpha_i) \circ a_i$$ which is a well defined object of $\overline{U}{{\mathfrak{l}}}$ thanks to the previous remark. As explained in [@looijenga2005conformal Section 2], the central extension $\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ and the inclusion $C \colon \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ induce a central extension $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. We recall here how this is achieved. Consider now ${{\mathfrak{l}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{l}}}$, and call ${{\mathfrak{l}}}_2$ its image in $U\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$. This means that ${{\mathfrak{l}}}_2={{\mathfrak{l}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{l}}}\oplus \hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S$ modulo the relation $f \otimes g= g\otimes f + \hslash {\textrm{Res}}(gdf)$. Denote by $\overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2}$ its closure in $\overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ and observe the following diagram $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S \ar[r] & \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2} \ar[r]^-{[-]_\hslash} & \overline{{\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})} \ar[r] & 0\\ &&& \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u]_C}$$ where $[-]_\hslash$ is the reduction modulo the central element $\hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S$ so that the short sequence is exact. We define $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ to be the pullback of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ along $[-]_\hslash$. Equivalently its elements are pairs $(D,u) \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \times \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2}$ such that $C(D) = u \mod \hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S$. Denote by $\widehat{C} \colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ the injection $\widehat{C} (D,u)=u$ and we write $[-]^\theta_\hslash$ for the pullback of $[-]_\hslash$ along $C$ so that we have the commutative diagram with exact rows $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & \hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S \ar[r] & \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2} \ar[r]^-{[-]_\hslash} & \overline{{\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})} \ar[r] & 0\\ 0 \ar[r] & \hslash \ar@{=}[u]{\mathscr{O}}_S \ar[r] & \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u]_{\widehat{C}} \ar[r]\ar[r]^{[-]^\theta_\hslash} & \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u]_C \ar[r] &0.}$$ Observe, for example using Remark \[rmk-explicitCDF\], that the map $C$ is not a Lie algebra morphism, and so $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ does not arise naturally as a Lie algebra which centrally extends $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. We however want to induce a Lie bracket on $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ from the one of $\overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ by conveniently modifying $\widehat{C}$. To understand how to do this, local computations are carried out. \[def-ord\] Choose a local parameter $t$ so that locally ${{\mathcal{L}}}\cong {\mathscr{O}}_S((t))$. Define the *normal ordering* $: \star : \colon \overline{{\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})} \to \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}^2}$ by setting $$: t^n \otimes t^m: = \begin{cases} t^n \otimes t^m &n \leq m\\ t^m \otimes t^n &n \geq m \end{cases}$$ and extend it by linearity to every element of $\overline{{\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})}$. The map $: \star :$ defines a section of $[-]_\hslash$, so that $(\text{Id}, : \star : C)$ is a section of $[-]_\hslash^\theta$. Once we make the choice of a local parameter defining the ordering $:\star:$, we will denote by $\widehat{D}$ the element $(D, :C(D):) \in \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. Consider the following relations which hold in $\overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ and which are proved in [@looijenga2005conformal Lemma 2.1]. \[lem-LemLie\] Let $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and $D_i=t^{i+1}d/dt \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$, Then we have 1. $[\widehat{C}(\widehat{D}), f]=-\hslash D(f)$ for every $f \in {{\mathfrak{l}}}\subset \widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$; 2. $[\widehat{C}(\widehat{D}_k), \widehat{C}(\widehat{D}_l)]=-\hslash (l-k) \widehat{C}(\widehat{D}_{k+l}) + \dfrac{k^3-k}{12} \hslash^2 \delta_{k,-l}$. This suggests to rescale the morphism $\widehat{C}$ and to define $$T:= -\dfrac{\widehat{C}}{\hslash} \colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}\left[ \dfrac{1}{\hslash}\right]$$ which is injective and its image is a Lie subalgebra of the target. Denote by $c_0$ the element $(0, -\hslash)$ which is sent to $1$ by $T$. By construction we obtain the following result. [@looijenga2005conformal Corollary-Definition 2.2] The Lie algebra structure induced on $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ by $T$ is a central extension of the canonical Lie algebra structure on $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ by $c_0 {\mathscr{O}}_S$. This is called the *Virasoro algebra* of ${{\mathcal{L}}}$. Sugawara construction {#subsec-Sugawara} --------------------- In this section we generalize to our case, i.e. using ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ in place of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}$, the construction of $$T_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \left(\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}[(c+\check{h})^{-1}]\right)^{{\text{Aut}}({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$$ described by Looijenga in [@looijenga2005conformal Corollary 3.2], which essentially represents the local picture of our situation. In the classical case the idea is to use the Casimir element of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ to induce, from $\widehat{C}$ the map $\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{g}}}\colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which, in turn, will give the map of Lie algebras $T_{{\mathfrak{g}}}$. When in place of ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ we have ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, we can run the same argument using the element Casimir $\mathfrak{c}$ of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. This is the content of this section. As in Section \[subsec-CentralExtensionhL\], we consider the normalized Killing form defined on ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Recall that it provides an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^\vee$, hence it gives an identification of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ with $\text{End}_k({{\mathfrak{g}}})={{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{g}}}^\vee$. Moreover, as $\sigma(S)$ is disjoint from the ramification locus, we also have that $(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ provides an isomorphism of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}^\vee$, giving in this way an identification of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with $\text{End}_{{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$. The *Casimir element* of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with respect to the form $(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is the element in ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ corresponding to the identity $\text{Id}_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ via the identification provided by $(\,|\,)$. We denote it by $\mathfrak{c}$. We could have defined the Casimir element of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ via the local isomorphism of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Let $\mathfrak{c}({{\mathfrak{g}}})$ be the Casimir element of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$, and observe that via the inclusion ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\to {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$, we can see it as an element of ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Since $\mathfrak{c}({{\mathfrak{g}}})$ is invariant under automorphisms, it is invariant under $\Gamma$, hence it gives an element ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which equals $\mathfrak{c}$. Since $(\,|\,)$ is a symmetric form, we have that also $\mathfrak{c}$ is a symmetric element of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and moreover $\mathfrak{c}$ lies in the centre of $U_{{\mathcal{L}}}({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$. As ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is simple over ${{\mathcal{L}}}$, this implies that there exists $\check{h} \in k$ such that $\text{ad}(\mathfrak{c})X= 2\check{{{\mathfrak{h}}}} X$ for all $X \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, where $\text{ad}(-)$ denotes the adjoint representation of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. \[rmk-basCas\] Locally, for every bases $\{X_i\}_{i=1}^{\dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ and $\{Y_i\}_{i=1}^{\dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})}$ of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ such that $(X_i|Y_j)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}=\delta_{ij}$ we have the explicit description of $\mathfrak{c}$ as $\sum_{i=1}^{\dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})} X_i \circ Y_i$. It follows that $\check{h}$ is given by the equality $\sum_{i=1}^{\dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})}[ X_i, [Y_i, Z]]=2 \check{h} Z$ for every $Z \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Let denote by $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ the completion on the right of $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with respect to the filtration $F^*{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ given by $F^n{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ for $n \geq 1$. We now construct $\widehat{\gamma}_{\mathfrak{c}} \colon \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}} \to \overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ which composed with $\widehat{C}$ will give $\widehat{C}_{{{\mathfrak{h}}}} \colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U} {{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Let consider the map $\gamma_{\mathfrak{c}} \colon {{\mathfrak{l}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_S} {{\mathfrak{l}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_S} {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\subset U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ given by tensoring with $\mathfrak{c}$. This map uniquely extends to a map of Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{l}}}_2 \to U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ as follows. Using local bases as in Remark \[rmk-basCas\] and the symmetry of ${\mathfrak{c}}$ we deduce the following equality $$\gamma_{\mathfrak{c}}\left(\hslash{\textrm{Res}}(gdf)\right)=\gamma_{\mathfrak{c}}(f \circ g - g \circ f)= c \dim({{\mathfrak{g}}}){\textrm{Res}}(gdf)+ c \sum_{i=1}^{\dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})} {\textrm{Res}}(fg(dY_i|X_i))$$ and recalling that Remark \[rmk-dkill\] implies that $(dX_i|Y_i)=-(dY_i|X_i)$, we conclude that $$\gamma_{\mathfrak{c}}\left(\hslash{\textrm{Res}}(gdf)\right)=c \dim({{\mathfrak{g}}}){\textrm{Res}}(gdf).$$ We then define $\widehat{\gamma}_{\mathfrak{c}} \colon {{\mathfrak{l}}}_2 \to U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ by sending $\hslash$ to $c \dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})$ and acting as $\gamma_{\mathfrak{c}}$ on ${{\mathfrak{l}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{l}}}$. Such a map can be extended to the closure of ${{\mathfrak{l}}}_2$ in $\overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{l}}}}$ once we extend the target to $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, obtaining $\widehat{\gamma}_{\mathfrak{c}} \colon \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2} \to U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. We define $\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ as the composition $$\widehat{\gamma}_{\mathfrak{c}} \widehat{C} \, \colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U} {{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}.$$ As for $\widehat{C}$, also in this case the morphism $\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ does not preserves the Lie bracket, and thanks to local computation we understand how to solve this issue. Following [@tsuchiya1989conformal] we first of all extend the normal ordering defined in \[def-ord\] as as follows. \[def-circord\] Let fix an isomorphism between ${{\mathcal{L}}}$ and $R((t))$ for a local parameter $t \in \mathcal{I}_\sigma$. Let $Xt^n$ and $Yt^m$ be elements of ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}={{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes R((t))$. Then we set $${{_\circ^\circ}}\,X t^n \otimes Y t^m \,{{_\circ^\circ}}= \begin{cases} Xt^n \otimes Yt^m &n < m\\ \dfrac{1}{2} (X t^n \otimes Y t^m + Y t^m \otimes X t^n) &n=m \\ Yt^m \otimes Xt^n &n > m. \end{cases}$$ This definition is $\Gamma$-equivariant, hence defines a normal ordering on ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. This defines a section from the image of $\gamma_c$ to the image of $\widehat{\gamma}_c$ which makes the diagram to commute: $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r] & c {\mathscr{O}}_S \ar[r] & \text{Im}(\widehat{\gamma}_c) \ar[r]^-{[-]_c} & \text{Im} (\gamma_c) \ar@/^1.5pc/[l]^{{{_\circ^\circ}}\star{{_\circ^\circ}}}\ar[r] & 0\\ 0 \ar[r] & \hslash {\mathscr{O}}_S \ar[r] \ar[u] & \overline{{{\mathfrak{l}}}_2} \ar[r]^-{[-]_\hslash}\ar[u]_{\widehat{\gamma}_c} & \overline{{\textrm{Sym}}^2({{\mathfrak{l}}})} \ar[r] \ar[u]_{\gamma_c} \ar@/^1.5pc/[l]^{:\star:}& 0\\ && \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u]_{\widehat{C}} \ar[r]& \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u]_C}$$ For any $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$, we write $\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D})$ to denote the element ${{_\circ^\circ}}\, \gamma_\mathfrak{c} C (D)\, {{_\circ^\circ}}\, = \widehat{\gamma}_\mathfrak{c} : C(D) :$. \[rmk-explLoc\] As we have done in Remark \[rmk-explicitCDF\] we can write locally the element $\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D})$ in a more explicit way. Consider the morphism $1 \otimes (\,|\,) \colon \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}^\vee$ and, after tensoring it with ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, compose it with ${\textrm{Res}}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ to obtain the pairing ${\textrm{Res}}_{(\,|\,)} \colon \omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes_{{\mathcal{L}}}{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\times {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {\mathscr{O}}_S$. Let $\{A_i\}$ and $\{B_i\}$ be orthonormal bases of $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ with respect to ${\textrm{Res}}_{(\,|\,)}$. Then for every $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ we have $$\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D})= \frac{1}{2} \sum {{_\circ^\circ}}D(A_i) \circ B_i {{_\circ^\circ}}$$ where we see $D$ as a linear map $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to {{\mathcal{L}}}$, so that $D(A_i) \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. As in [@looijenga2005conformal Lemma 3.1] we have the following result. \[lem-Lemdue\] The following equalities hold true in $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$: 1. $[\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D}), X]=-(c+\check{h})D(X)$ for all $X \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$; 2. $[\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D}_k),\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D}_l)]=(c+ \check{h})(k-l) \widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D}_{k+l}) + c \dim({{\mathfrak{g}}})(c+\check{h}) \dfrac{k^3-k}{12}\delta_{k,-l}$ where $D_i=t^{i+1}d/dt$. As Lemma \[lem-LemLie\] also Lemma \[lem-Lemdue\] suggests to rescale $\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ and consider instead the map $$T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}:= -\dfrac{\widehat{C}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}}{c+\check{h}} \colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\left[ \dfrac{1}{c+\check{h}}\right]$$ which is compatible with the Lie brackets of $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ and $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}[(c+\check{h})^{-1}]$, proving the following statement. \[prop-Sugawara\] The map $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is a homomorphism of Lie algebras which sends the central element $c_0=(0, -\hslash)$ to $(c \dim({{\mathfrak{g}}}))/(c+ \check{h})$. We call $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ the *Sugawara representation* of $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. ### Fock representation {#subsubsec-fockg} We induce the representation $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ to the quotient ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$ of $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ defined as $${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}):=\left( U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\circ F^1{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\right) \left[ \dfrac{1}{c +\check{h}} \right] = \left( \overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}{{\, \big/}}\overline{U} {{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\circ F^1{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\right) \left[ \dfrac{1}{c +\check{h}} \right]$$ By abuse of notation call $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ the composition of $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ with the projection of $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ to ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$, so that ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$ is a representation of $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. We can depict the result as follows $$\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] &{\mathscr{O}}_S \cdot \text{Id} \ar[r] &{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})) \ar[r] & {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})) \ar[r] &0 \\ 0 \ar[r] &{\mathscr{O}}_S c_0 \ar[u] \ar[r] & \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u]^{{T}_{{\mathfrak{h}}}} \ar[r] & \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \ar[u] \ar[r] &0 }$$ where the first vertical arrow maps $c_0$ to $c \dim({{\mathfrak{g}}}) (\check{h}+c)^{-1} \cdot \text{Id}$ and by abuse of notation we wrote $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ instead of $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(-) \circ$. \[rmk-fockgexplicit\] We give a local description of how the action looks like. Choose for this purpose a local parameter $t$ of $\mathcal{I}_\sigma$ so that we can associate to $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ the element $\widehat{D} \in \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. Let $X_r \circ \cdots \circ X_1$ be representatives of an element of ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$ whith $X_i \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. Then the action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ is described as follows $$T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D}) \circ X_r \circ \cdots \circ X_1 = \sum_{i=1}^r X_r \circ \cdots \circ D(X_i) \circ \cdots \circ X_1 + X_r \circ \cdots \circ X_1 \circ T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D})$$ where $D(X_i)$ denotes the image of $X_i$ under coefficientwise derivation by $D$ (Remark \[rmk-coeffder\]). ### Projective representation of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ {#subsubsec-extendcentralext} We want to define in this section a map of Lie algebras ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S} \colon \theta_{L,S} \to {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}})$ which is induced by $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ and which will lead, in a second time, to a projective connection on the sheaves of conformal blocks. The construction of ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S}$ in the classical case is the content of [@looijenga2005conformal Corollary 3.3]. Let $F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ be the subsheaf of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ given by those derivations $D$ such that $D(F^1\!{{\mathcal{L}}}) \in F^1\!{{\mathcal{L}}}$, and similarly we set $F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ to be the subsheaf of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ whose elements $D$ satisfy $D(F^1\!{{\mathcal{L}}}) \in F^1\!{{\mathcal{L}}}$. \[rmk-coeffcasimiroobstr\] Assume that ${{\mathcal{L}}}={\mathscr{O}}_S((t))$ so that every element of $F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ is written as $D=\sum_{i \geq 0} a_i t^i d/dt$. The element $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D})$ acts on ${\mathcal{V}}$ as the operator $\dfrac{a_0}{-2(\ell+\check{h})}c_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ where $c_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ is the Casimir element of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$, hence the action is by scalar multiplication. Combining this with Remark \[rmk-fockgexplicit\], we obtain that $F^0(\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S})$ acts on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ by coefficientwise derivation up to scalars. As in the classical case, also in our context this observation is the key input to define ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S}$. In fact we let $F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ act on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ by coefficientwise derivation so that we obtain a map $$F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S} \times \theta_{L/S} \to {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}})$$ which uniquely defines the Lie algebra homomorphism $${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S} \colon \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S} \to {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}})$$ and hence the central extension $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S} \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ and the map $T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S} \colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S} \to {\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}})$. We only have to prove that the Lie algebra generated by $F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ and $\theta_{L/S}$ is $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$. This can be checked locally, where the choice of a local parameter $t$ allows us to split the exact sequence $$0 \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S} \to {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k} \to 0,$$ hence to write $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ as $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}|S} \oplus {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$. We can in fact decompose every element $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ as $D_{ver} \oplus D_{hor}$ which are uniquely determined by the conditions $$(\star) \quad D_{ver} \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}|S}, D_{hor}(t) = 0 {\quad \text{and} \quad}D_{hor}(s)=D(s) \text{ for all }s \in {\mathscr{O}}_S.\quad$$ This implies that $F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}=F^0\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \oplus {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$, concluding the argument. \[rmk-bracketDerive\] Assume that ${{\mathcal{L}}}=R((t))$ so that we can write every element $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ as $D=D_{ver}+D_{hor}$ satisfying $(\star)$. Then Remark \[rmk-fockgexplicit\] tells us that the action of $D$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ is given by componentwise derivation by $D$ plus right multiplication by $T(\widehat{D}_{ver})$. We want to remark that in the case in which ${\mathcal{V}}$ is the trivial representation, then the central extension $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ is isomorphic to $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \oplus {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$, viewed as a Lie subalgebra of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}})$, where the action of ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}$ is by coefficientwise derivation. In fact in the previous proof we saw that locally on $S$, and up to the choice of a local parameter this is the case. By looking at Remark \[rmk-coeffcasimiroobstr\] and the previous proof, we note that the obstruction to deduce this statement globally lies in the action of the Casimir element $c_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ on ${\mathcal{V}}$. When ${\mathcal{V}}$ is the trivial representation $c_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ acts as multiplication by zero, hence there is no obstruction. In particular, the central charge $c_0=(0, -\hslash) \in \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ acts by multiplication by $\dim({{\mathfrak{g}}}) \ell/ (\ell+\check{h})$. The projective connection on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ {#subse-projconn} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The aim of this section is to induce, from ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S}$, the projectively flat connection $\nabla \colon {\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta)) \to {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X)$. In Proposition \[prop-exseqALog\] we realised ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$ as the quotient $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) / \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$, so that the content of this section can be summarized in the following statement. \[thm-connect\] The actions of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}$ and of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ induce a projective action of ${\mathcal{T}}_S(-\log(\Delta))$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_X$. In particular ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ is locally free if restricted to $S \setminus \Delta$. As a consequence of it, we obtain that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is locally free on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. \[cor-ConnectionLocFree\] \[cor-HhnVLocFree\] The sheaf ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ is equipped with a projective connection with logarithmic singularities along the boundary $\Delta_{univ}$. In particular ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is locally free on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. As pointed out in Subsection \[subsec-tangHur\] the tangent space of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ at a versal covering $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma)$ is identified via the Kodaira-Spencer map with the tangent bundle ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$. The previous theorem gives the projective action of the latter on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$, concluding in this way the argument. ### Proof of Theorem \[thm-connect\] {#proof-of-theorem-thm-connect .unnumbered} We first of all prove that the action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ descends to ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$. The projective action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ preserves the space ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\circ {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$, hence induces a projective action on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$. By the local description of the action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \subset \theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ explained in Remark \[rmk-bracketDerive\], it suffices to show that the action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ on ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ by coefficientwise derivation is well defined. This follows from Remark \[rmk-coeffder\]. We denote by ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}},S}$ the morphism $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ induced by ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}},S}$. To conclude the proof of Theorem \[thm-connect\] we are left to show the following proposition. \[prop-aquot\] The morphism ${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}},S} \colon \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \to {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X)$ factorizes through $${\mathbb{P}}T_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}},S} \colon {\mathcal{T}}_S(-\log(\Delta)) = \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})/\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \to {\mathbb{P}}{\textrm{End}}({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X).$$ We need to prove that $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ acts on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ by scalar multiplication. As this can be checked locally, we can assume to have a local parameter, so that we can associate to $D \in \theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}}/S}$ the element $\widehat{D} \in \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$. We need to prove that, up to scalars, $T_{{{\mathfrak{h}}}}(\widehat{D})$ lies in the closure of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\circ {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ in $\overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}[(c+\check{h})^{-1}]$. For this purpose we use the description of $\widehat{C}_{{{\mathfrak{h}}}}(\widehat{D})$ provided in Remark \[rmk-explLoc\]. Let consider the orthonormal bases with respect to ${\textrm{Res}}_{(\,|\,)}$ given by elements $\{\alpha_i, \beta_j\}$ and $\{a_i, b_j\}$ of $\omega_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and with $a_i \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$. From Remark \[rmk-explLoc\] we can write $$T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}(\widehat{D}) = \sum {{_\circ^\circ}}\, D(\alpha_i) \circ a_i \, {{_\circ^\circ}}+ \sum {{_\circ^\circ}}\, D(\beta_j) \circ b_j \,{{_\circ^\circ}}.$$ Observe that up to an element in $c{\mathscr{O}}_S$ we have the equality $\sum {{_\circ^\circ}}\, D(\alpha_i) \circ a_i \, {{_\circ^\circ}}= \sum a_i \circ D(\alpha_i)$, so that to conclude it is enough to show that $D(\beta_j) \in {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$. To do this, we first need to identify where $\beta_j$’s live. Since the basis is ${\textrm{Res}}_{(\,|\,)}$-orthonormal we know that $(1 \otimes(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}})(\beta_j) \in \omega_{{\mathcal{A}}}\otimes {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}^\vee$. Recall that in Lemma \[lem-decomp\], we decomposed ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ as $\oplus g^{\zeta^{-i}}\otimes {\mathscr{E}}_{i}$. Using this decomposition, and the fact that $(\,|\,)_{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ provides an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{-i}}\otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_i$ and $({{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{i}} \otimes_k {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i}({\mathcal{R}}))^\vee$ for $i \neq 0$, we deduce that $$\beta_j \in \left({{\mathfrak{g}}}^\Gamma \pi_*{\mathscr{O}}_{X^*} \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{p-1} \left({{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{i}} \otimes_k \pi_* {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i}({\mathcal{R}})|_{X^*}\right) \right)\otimes \omega_A$$ It follows that $$D(\beta_j) \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}^\Gamma \pi_*{\mathscr{O}}_{X^*}(-{\mathcal{R}}) \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{p-1} ({{\mathfrak{g}}}^{\zeta^{i}} \otimes_k \pi_* {\mathscr{E}}_{p-i}|_{X^*})$$ and hence is contained in ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$. The semi local case {#subsec-SemiLocalCase} ------------------- We extend the notions introduced so far to the stack ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ with $n \geq 1$. In fact, as in the classical case one needs to work with curves with many marked points, also in our contest we will need to fix more sections of the covered curve. This is explained in the classical contest in the last paragraphs of [@looijenga2005conformal Section 3]. Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}{\to} X \overset{\pi}{\to} S, \sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_n)$ be an $S={\textrm{Spec}}(R)$ point of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$. For all $i \in \{1, \dots , n\}$ we denote by $S_i$ the divisor of $X$ defined by $\sigma_i$ and by $\mathcal{I}_i$ its ideal of definition. We denote by $X^*$ the open complement of $S_1 \cup \cdots \cup S_n$ in $X$ and we denote by ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ the pushforward to $S$ of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}$ restricted to $X^*$, in other words ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}:= \pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {\mathscr{O}}_{X^*})$. As in the case $n=1$, we assume that $X^* \to S$ is affine. In the same way as we defined ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}$ in the case $n=1$, we set now ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_i$ to be the formal completion of ${\mathscr{O}}_X$ at $S_i$, i.e. ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_i=\pi_*\varprojlim_n {\mathscr{O}}_X / (\mathcal{I}_i)^n$. We set ${{\mathcal{L}}}_i= \varinjlim_{N} \pi_* \varprojlim_{n} \mathcal{I}_i^{-N} / \mathcal{I}_i^n$ and $${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}:=\varinjlim_N \pi_* \varprojlim_n \mathcal{I}_i^{-N} /\mathcal{I}_i^n \otimes_{{\mathscr{O}}_X} {{\mathfrak{h}}}$$ for all $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$. The direct sum ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{1}}}} \oplus \cdots \oplus {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{n}}}}$ is denoted by ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and ${{\mathcal{L}}}=\oplus {{\mathcal{L}}}_i$. We extend centrally ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}$ in the same way as we did in the case $n=1$ obtaining ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}$ with central element $c_i$. We denote by ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ the direct sum of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}$ modulo the relation that identifies all the central elements $c_i$’s so that $$0 \to c {\mathscr{O}}_S \to {{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}\to 0$$ is exact. The Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is still a sub Lie algebra of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$. ### Sheaves of conformal blocks Let $i \in \{ 1, \dots, n\}$. We denote by ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(i)$ the set of irreducible and finite dimensional representations of ${\sigma_i}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ of level at most $\ell$. As we have done in Section \[subsubsec-IntegrReprLevEllHur\] we attach to any ${\mathcal{V}}_i \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(i)$ the irreducible $U {{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}$-module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_i})}}$. Taking their tensor product we obtain $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} := {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_i})}} \otimes \cdots \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$$ which then is an irreducible $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$-module with central charge $c$ acting by multiplication by $\ell$. Since ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is a sub Lie algebra of ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$, it acts on the left and we are interested in the sheaf of coinvariants. The *sheaf of conformal blocks attached to $({\mathcal{V}}_i)_{i=1}^n$* is the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_X := {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\circ {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}.$$ For every $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$, we consider ${\mathcal{V}}_i$ as a representation of ${\sigma_{i,un}}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ defined by a compatible family $\{{\mathcal{V}}_i(\sigma_i)\}_{\{{{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S, \{\sigma_j\} \}}$ of representations of ${\sigma_i}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$. The collection of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1(\sigma_1), \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n(\sigma_n)})}}_X$ defines ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$, the *universal sheaf of conformal blocks attached to $\{{\mathcal{V}}_i\}$*. ### The projectively flat connection on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$. Also the construction of projectively flat connection extends to the semilocal case. Observe first of all that the identification of the tangent space of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ at a versal covering $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \{\sigma_i\})$ with ${\mathcal{T}}_{S/k}(-\log(\Delta))$ still holds. Since Proposition \[prop-exseqALog\] still holds, this implies that we are allowed to provide the projective connection on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_X$ in terms of a projective action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{A}}},S}(-{\mathcal{R}})$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_X$. We denote by $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ the direct sum of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_i/S}$, and we obtain a central extension $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S}$ thereof as the quotient of the direct sum of $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_i/S}$ which identifies $(0,\hslash_i) \in \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_i/S}$ with $(0,\hslash_j) \in \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_j/S}$. The Sugawara representation $T_{{\mathfrak{h}}}\colon \widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}/S} \to \overline{U}{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}[(c+\check{h})^{-1}]$ is induced from the Sugawara representations of $\widehat{\theta}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_i/S}$ and gives the projective action of $\theta_{{{\mathcal{L}}},S}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$. Combining all these elements with the case $n=1$ we obtain the following generalization of Theorem \[thm-connect\] and Corollary \[cor-HhnVLocFree\]. \[cor-HhnLog\] For every $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ let ${\mathcal{V}}_i \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({\sigma_{i,un}}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}})$. The module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is a coherent module over ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ which is equipped with a projective action of ${\mathcal{T}}_{{{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}}(-\log(\Delta))$. In particular it is locally free over ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$. Factorization rules and propagation of vacua {#sec-FusionRulesS} ============================================ In this section we prove the properties of the sheaves of conformal blocks mentioned in the introduction. More precisely we show that the sheaf ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ descends to ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$ by means of the propagation of vacua, and we provide the factorization rules which compare the fibre of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ over a nodal curve $X$ with the fibres of the sheaves ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{{X_{univ}}}}$ on its normalization $X_N$. We will proceed following the approach of [@looijenga2005conformal Section 4]. Independence of number of sections ---------------------------------- In this section we want to show that the sheaf ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ actually descends to a vector bundle on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$ as a consequence of Proposition \[prop-PropVacua\]. Following [@beauville1994conformal Proposition 2.3] we state and prove the aforementioned proposition, called also *propagation of vacua*, because it shows that we can modify the sheaf of conformal blocks by adding as many sections as we want to which we attach the trivial representation to obtain a sheaf isomorphic to the one we started with. In this section we fix the following objects. - Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}{\to} X \overset{\pi}{\to} S={\textrm{Spec}}(R),\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_n, \sigma_{n+1}, \dots, \sigma_{n+m})$ be an element of ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n+m}}}(S)$. - Denote by ${\mathcal{B}}:={\mathscr{O}}_{X\setminus \{S_1, \dots, S_n\}}$ and by ${\mathcal{A}}:={\mathscr{O}}_{X\setminus \{S_1, \dots, S_n, S_{n+1}, \dots, S_{n+m}\}}$ and set ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}:=\pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes {\mathcal{B}})$ which is contained in ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}:=\pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes {\mathcal{A}})$. - For every $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ fix ${\mathcal{V}}_i \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(i):={{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\sigma_i^*{{\mathfrak{h}}})$ and for every $j \in \{1, \dots, m\}$ we fix ${\mathcal{W}}_j \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(n+j)$. Under these conditions we notice that ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}$ acts on each ${\mathcal{W}}_j$ since ${\sigma_{n+j}}^*\pi^*{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}$ maps naturally to ${\sigma_{{n+j}}}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$ and the latter acts on ${\mathcal{W}}_j$ by definition. \[prop-PropVacua\] The inclusions ${\mathcal{W}}_j \to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{W}}_j})}}$ induce an isomorphism $${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes \bigotimes_{j=1}^m {\mathcal{W}}_j\right) \cong {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n, {\mathcal{W}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{W}}_m})}}$$of ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-modules. We sketch here the main ideas of the proof, using the same techniques of the original one [@beauville1994conformal Proof of Proposition 2.3]. By induction it is enough to prove the assertion for $m=1$, so that we need to prove that the inclusion ${\mathcal{W}}\to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{W}}})}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\phi \colon {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes {\mathcal{W}}\right) \overset{\cong}\longrightarrow {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n, {\mathcal{W}}})}}.$$ The morphism is well defined on the quotients as the inclusion of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}$ in ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}_{n+1}$ factors through ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$. Since the inclusion ${\mathcal{W}}\to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{W}}})}}$ factors through ${{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{W}}})}}$, we prove the proposition in two steps. ***Claim 1.** The inclusion ${\mathcal{W}}\to {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{W}}})}}$ induces an isomorphism* $$\widetilde{\phi} \colon {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes {\mathcal{W}}\right) \longrightarrow {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}\left( {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{W}}})}}\right).$$ ***Claim 2.** The projection map $${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}\left( {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{W}}})}}\right) \longrightarrow {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}\left( {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n,{\mathcal{W}}})}}\right)$$ is an isomorphism.* We give the proof of **Claim 1**, as for **Claim 2** one can refer to [@beauville1994conformal (3.4)]. We just remark that in the proof of Claim 2 it is used that the level of ${\mathcal{W}}$ is bounded by $\ell$. Since checking that $\widetilde{\phi}$ is an isomorphism can be done locally on $S$, there is no loss in generality in assuming that the $\mathcal{I}_{i}$’s are principal so that ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}\cong \bigoplus R[[t_i]]$ and that there are isomorphisms ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$. Observe that the exact sequence of $R$-modules $$0 \to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}/ {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}\to 0$$ splits because the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}}}^-:={{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}/ {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{B}}}}$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{n+1}}}} / {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_{n+1}}$ which can be identified with ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k R[t_{n+1}^{-1}]t^{-1}_{n+1}$. We then are left to prove that $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes {\mathcal{W}}\longrightarrow {{\mathfrak{h}}}^- {{\, \big\backslash}}\left( {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes {{\widetilde{\mathcal{H}_\ell}({{\mathcal{W}}})}}\right)$$ is an isomorphism. Observe that this statement no longer depends on the covering ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$, so once we choose isomorphisms ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{i}}}}\cong {{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}_i$, this follows from the classical case. As previously announced, this proposition has important corollaries. Let ${{X_{univ}}}\overset{\pi}\to {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ be the universal curve over ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$ with sections $\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_n$. For every $i \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ we denote by $X_{univ,i}$ the open curve ${{X_{univ}}}\setminus \{\sigma_1, \dots, \sigma_i\}$ and whenever ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_i}:= \pi_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}\otimes {\mathscr{O}}_{X_{univ,i}})$ acts on a module $M$, we denote the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_i} {{\, \big\backslash}}M$ by $M_{X_{univ,i}}$. In particular, for $i=n$ we can use the notation ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{X_{univ,n}}$ instead of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{{X_{univ}}}}$ to stress that the action takes into account all the sections. For all $n$ and $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there is a natural isomorphism $$\left(\left(\textbf{Forg}_{n+m,n}\right)^*\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}\right) \otimes \bigotimes_{j=1}^m{\mathcal{W}}_j \right)_{X_{univ,n}} \cong {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n, {\mathcal{W}}_1, \dots {\mathcal{W}}_m})}}_{{X_{univ,n+m}}}$$ of vector bundles on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n+m}}}$. In particular if we assume that the ${\mathcal{W}}_j$’s are trivial representations, we obtain the so called *propagation of vacua*. \[cor-PropVacua\] For all $n$ and $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there is a natural isomorphism $$\left(\textbf{Forg}_{n+m,n}\right)^*\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{X_{univ,n}}\right) \cong {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n, 0, \dots 0})}}_{X_{univ,n+m}}$$ of vector bundles on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n+m}}}$. Which leads to the following result. \[cor-descent\] The vector bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}$ defined on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ descends to a vector bundle on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$. We can construct the sequence $$\xymatrix{ {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 3}}} \ar@<-.6ex>[r] \ar[r] \ar@<+.6ex>[r] & {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 2}}} \ar@<-.3ex>[r]_{f_1} \ar@<+.3ex>[r]^{f_2} & {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}\ar[r] &{{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}}$$ where the horizontal morphisms, which are faithfully flat, are given by forgetting one of the sections. The vector bundle ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{X_{univ,1}}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ then descends from ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$ to ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g}}}$ because Corollary \[cor-PropVacua\] provides a canonical isomorphism $\phi_{12}$ between $f_1^*{{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{X_{univ,1}}$ and $f_2^*{{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_{X_{univ,1}}$. The compatibility of the isomorphisms $\phi_{ij}$ on ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 3}}}$ holds by construction. \[rmk-dropaffine\]When we defined ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_X$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$, we assumed that $X \setminus \sigma$ was affine. Corollary \[cor-PropVacua\] allows us to remove this assumption: in fact if this is not the case, we can add finitely many sections, say $M$, to which we attach the trivial representation and set ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{X,1}$ to be ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}, 0, \dots,0})}}_{X,M+1}$. The same holds for ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_X$ on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$. Nodal degeneration and fusion rules {#subsec-NodDeg} ----------------------------------- In this section we want to compare the sheaf of covacua ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_X$ attached to a covering of nodal curves ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$, to the sheaves of the form ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{X_N}$, attached to the normalization ${{\widetilde{X}}}_N \to X_N$ of the covering we started with. We will consider the following objects. - Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to {\textrm{Spec}}(k), \mathfrak{p}_1, \dots, \mathfrak{p}_n) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k))$ and assume that $X$ is irreducible and has only a double point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\in X(k)$. - Let $X_N$ be the normalization of $X$ and set $q_N \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}_N:={{\widetilde{X}}}\times_X X_N \to X_N$. The points of $X_N$ mapping to ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ are denoted ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_-$. Observe that $q_N$ is a $\Gamma$-covering with the action of $\Gamma$ induced by the one on ${{\widetilde{X}}}$, so that it is ramified only over ${\mathcal{R}}$. The Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N := {{\mathfrak{h}}}\times_X X_N$ is then isomorphic to the Lie algebra of $\Gamma$-invariants of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k {q_N}_*{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}_N}$. Furthermore, the normalization provides an isomorphism between the $k$-Lie algebra ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm}$. Let $\pi_N \colon X_N \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k)$ be the structural morphism and consider the Lie algebras $${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N}:={\pi_N}_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}_N \otimes {\mathscr{O}}_{X_N \setminus \{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_n\}})$$ and $${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_N} := \bigoplus_{i=1}^n \varinjlim_N \pi_*\varprojlim_m {{\mathfrak{h}}}_N \otimes \mathcal{I}_i^{-N}/ \mathcal{I}_i^m$$ which are the analogues of ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ for the marked covering $({{\widetilde{X}}}_N \to X_N, \{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_i\})$. Observe that since $X$ and $X_N$ are isomorphic outside of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, the Lie algebras ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_N}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ are isomorphic. As observed in the previous remark, since ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm}$ are isomorphic, every representation ${\mathcal{W}}$ of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$, is also a representation of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm}$. Let denote by ${\mathcal{W}}^*$ the dual of ${\mathcal{W}}$ and view ${\mathcal{W}}\otimes_k {\mathcal{W}}^*$ as a representation of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_+} \oplus {{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_-}$, with ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_+}$ acting on ${\mathcal{W}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_N|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_-}$ on ${\mathcal{W}}^*$. This induces an action of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N}$ on ${\mathcal{W}}\otimes_k {\mathcal{W}}^*$ as $$\alpha *(w\otimes \phi)=[X]_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_+}w \otimes \phi + w \otimes [X]_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_-}\phi$$ where $[\star]_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm}$ denotes the reduction modulo the ideal defining ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm$. Let $b_{\mathcal{W}}$ denote the trace morphism ${\textrm{End}}({\mathcal{W}})={\mathcal{W}}\otimes {\mathcal{W}}^* \to k$ which is compatible with the action of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$. We can formulate the *fusion rules* controlling the nodal degeneration as follows. \[prop-NodalDegenerationH\] The morphisms $\{b_{\mathcal{W}}\}$ induce an isomorphism $$\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{W}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N} {{\, \big\backslash}}\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes ({\mathcal{W}}\otimes {\mathcal{W}}^*) \right) \to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$$ The proof of this result is a mild generalization of the proof of [@looijenga2005conformal Proposition 6.1], which in turn is a consequence of Schur’s Lemma. We give an overview of it. Fix an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$ so that ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}})$ is identified with $P_\ell$. Denote by ${\textrm{Spec}}({{\mathcal{A}}})=X\setminus\{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_n \}$ and ${\textrm{Spec}}({{\mathcal{A}}}_N)=X_N \setminus \{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_n \}$ and let $I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\subset {{\mathcal{A}}}$ be the ideal defining ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, so that the normalization gives the diagram $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r]& I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\ar[r] \ar@{=}[d]& {{\mathcal{A}}}\ar[r]\ar[d]& k \ar[r] \ar[d]^\Delta& 0\\ 0 \ar[r]& I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\ar[r] & {{\mathcal{A}}}_N \ar[r]& k\oplus k \ar[r] & 0 }$$ whose rows are exact. As in the classical case, we consider a similar diagram of Lie algebras. Define ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_I$ as the tensor product $I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}\otimes_{{{\mathcal{A}}}} {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$, and observe that the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}/{{\mathfrak{h}}}_{I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ is ${{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$, which is then isomorphic to ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$. Repeating the construction on $X_N$, we obtain the commutative diagram of $k$-Lie algebras $$\xymatrix{ 0 \ar[r]& {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}} \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d]& {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\ar[r]\ar[d]& {{\mathfrak{g}}}\ar[r] \ar[d]^\Delta& 0\\ 0 \ar[r]& {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}} \ar[r] & {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N} \ar[r]& {{\mathfrak{g}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}\ar[r] & 0. }$$ Consider the ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N}$-module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$ and observe that its quotient $M:= {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}} {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$ is a finite dimensional representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}$, because the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$ is finite dimensional and the quotient ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}/ {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ is one dimensional. It is moreover a representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of level less or equal to $\ell$ relative to each factors. Since ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{I_{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ acts trivially on ${\mathcal{W}}\otimes {\mathcal{W}}^*$, the maps $\{b_{\mathcal{W}}\}$ induce the morphism $$\bigoplus_{W \in P_\ell} {{\mathfrak{h}}}_I {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}} \otimes ({\mathcal{W}}\otimes {\mathcal{W}}^*) \to {{\mathfrak{h}}}_I {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$$ Observe that if we consider $M$ as a ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-module via the diagonal action, and we denote this ${{\mathfrak{g}}}$-representation by $M^\Delta$, then ${{\mathfrak{g}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}M^\Delta$ is exactly ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$. After these considerations, the proof of the proposition boils down to showing that if $M$ is a finite dimensional representation of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ of level at most $\ell$, then the morphisms $\{b_{\mathcal{W}}\}$ induce the isomorphism $$\bigoplus_{W \in P_\ell} {{\mathfrak{g}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}(M \otimes (W \otimes W^*)) \to {{\mathfrak{g}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}M^\Delta.$$ Schur’s Lemma ensures that the set of morphisms between irreducible Lie algebra representations is a skew field, and since without loss of generality we might assume $M$ to be an irreducible ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\oplus {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ representation of the form $V_1 \otimes V_2$ for $V_i \in P_\ell$, we conclude. Denote by ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N}^*}$ the Lie algebra ${\pi_N}_*({{\mathfrak{h}}}_N \otimes {\mathscr{O}}_{X_N \setminus \{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_n, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_+, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_-\}})$. Then Proposition \[prop-PropVacua\] allows us to rewrite the previous proposition as an isomorphism $$\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{W}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{{\mathcal{A}}}_N}^*} {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n, {\mathcal{W}}, {\mathcal{W}}^*})}} \to {{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}$$ and in particular implies the isomorphism $$\bigoplus_{{\mathcal{W}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{W}},{\mathcal{W}}^*})}}_{X_N} \to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell(0)}}_X$$ where we see $X_N$ naturally marked by ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_-$. Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to S, \sigma) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}(S)$ and assume that it is possible to normalize the family (for example assuming that the nodes of $X$ are given by a section $\varsigma \colon X \to S$). Then Proposition \[prop-NodalDegenerationH\] still holds by replacing the index set ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ with ${{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\varsigma^*{{\mathfrak{h}}})$. Locally freeness of the sheaf of conformal blocks {#sec-locfree} ================================================= In this section we prove that the sheaves of conformal blocks ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ are locally free also on the boundary of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$. For simplicity only we will assume $n=1$. Canonical smoothing {#subsec-Canonicalsmoothing} ------------------- As previously stated, we want to prove that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is a locally free sheaf on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. For this purpose we describe here a procedure to realise a covering of nodal curves as the special fibre of a family of coverings which is generically smooth. The idea is to induce a deformation of the covering ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ from the canonical smoothing of the base curve $X$ provided in [@looijenga2005conformal]. As already noted in Remark \[rmk-NCD\], it is essential that the branch locus ${\mathcal{R}}$ of the covering $q \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ is contained in the smooth locus of $X$. Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q_0}\to X \overset{\pi_0}\to {\textrm{Spec}}(k),\sigma_0) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k))$ with ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\in X(k)$ the unique nodal point of $X$. The goal of this section is to construct a family ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}$ belonging to ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k[[\tau]]))$ which deforms $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X)$ and whose generic fibre is smooth, i.e. it lies in ${{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k((\tau))))$. ### The intuitive idea. {#subsubsec-intuito} The idea which is explained in [@looijenga2005conformal], is to find a deformation ${\mathcal{X}}$ of $X$ which replaces the formal neighbourhood $k[[{t_+},{t_-}]]/{t_+}{t_-}$ of the nodal point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ with the $k[[\tau]]$-algebra $k[[{t_+},{t_-}, \tau]] /{t_+}{t_-}=\tau$. This can be achieved with the following geometric construction. We first normalize the curve $X$ obtaining the curve $X_N$ with two points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_-$ above ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. We blow up the trivial deformation $X_N[[\tau]]$ of $X_N$ at the points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_-$ and note that the formal coordinate rings at ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm$ in the strict transform are of the form $k[[{t_\pm}, \tau/{t_\pm}]]$. We then obtain the neighbourhood $k[[{t_+},{t_-}, \tau]] /{t_+}{t_-}=\tau$ by identifying ${t_+}$ with $\tau/{t_-}$. The deformation ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}$ of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ is induced from the one of $X$ because the singular point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ does not lie in ${\mathcal{R}}$. ### Construction of ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}$. We will realise the canonical smoothing of ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ it by constructing compatible families $$({{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n \overset{q_n}\to {\mathcal{X}}^n \overset{\pi_n}\to {\textrm{Spec}}(k[\tau]_n) ,\sigma_n) \in {{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k[\tau]_n))$$ where $k[\tau]_{n} := k[\tau]/(\tau^{n+1})$ for $n \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$. As these are infinitesimal deformations, we only need to change the structure sheaf. As we have previously done, we normalize ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ and $X$ obtaining $({{\widetilde{X}}}_N \overset{q} \to X_N \overset{\pi} \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k),\sigma_0,{{\mathfrak{p}}}_+,{{\mathfrak{p}}}_-) \in {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 3}}}({\textrm{Spec}}(k))$ . We fix furthermore local coordinates ${t_+}$ and ${t_-}$ at the points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_-$. Let $U$ be an open subset of $X$ and $n \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$. If $U$ does not contain ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ we set ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U):={\mathscr{O}}_X(U)[\tau]/\tau^{n+1}$. Otherwise, if ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\in U$, we set $$\xymatrix{{\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U):=\ker \left( \dfrac{k[[{t_+},{t_-}]][\tau]}{{t_+}{t_-}=\tau, \tau^{n+1}} \oplus {\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}\}) \ar[rr]^-{\alpha_n-\beta_n}\right. && \left.\dfrac{k(({t_+}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}} \oplus \dfrac{k(({t_-}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}}\right) }$$ where $$\alpha_n \colon \dfrac{k[[{t_+},{t_-}]][\tau]}{{t_+}{t_-}=\tau, \tau^{n+1}} \longrightarrow \dfrac{k(({t_+}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}} \oplus \dfrac{k(({t_-}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}}$$ is the $k[\tau]_n$-linear morphism given by ${t_+}\mapsto ({t_+}, ({t_-})^{-1}\tau)$ and ${t_-}\mapsto (({t_+})^{-1}\tau, {t_-})$, and $$\beta_n \colon {\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}\}) \longrightarrow \dfrac{k(({t_+}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}} \oplus \dfrac{k(({t_-}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}}$$ sends $\psi \in {\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}\})$ to $(\psi_{+}, \psi_{-})$ where $\psi_{\pm}$ is the expansion of $\psi$ at the point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm$ using the identifications ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}\})={\mathscr{O}}_{X}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}\})[\tau]/\tau^{n+1}={\mathscr{O}}_{X_N}(U_N\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}_+, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_-\})[\tau]/\tau^{n+1}$. \[rmk-neightau\] Observe that the completion of ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}$ at the point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is isomorphic to $k[[{t_+},{t_-}]][\tau]/({t_+}{t_-}=\tau, \tau^{n+1}) = k[[{t_+},{t_-}]]/({t_+}{t_-})^{n+1}$. In fact note that once we take the completion of ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}(U\setminus {{\mathfrak{p}}})$ at the point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ we obtain exactly $\dfrac{k(({t_+}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}} \oplus \dfrac{k(({t_-}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}}$, the map $\beta_n$ becoming the identity. The kernel of $\alpha_n-\beta_n$ is then identified with $k[[{t_+},{t_-}]][\tau]/({t_+}{t_-}=\tau, \tau^{n+1})$ as claimed. Observe furthermore that once we take the limit for $n \to \infty$, then the formal neighbourhood of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ will be $k[[{t_+},{t_-},\tau]]/{t_+}{t_-}=\tau$ as asserted in the subsection \[subsubsec-intuito\]. The map $\alpha_n$ describes the process of glueing the formal charts around ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_+$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_-$. Note moreover that for all $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there are natural maps $g^n \colon {\mathcal{X}}^{n-1} \to {\mathcal{X}}^{n}$ induced by the identity on topological spaces and by the projection $k[\tau]_{n} \to k[\tau]_{n-1}$ on the structure sheaves. For every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$ the family ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ is a curve over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k[\tau]_n)$ deforming $X$. We need to prove that ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}$ is flat and proper over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k[\tau]_n)$. Once we show that the ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ is of finite type, we can use the valuative criterion to deduce that ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ is proper over $k[\tau]_n$. Observe that the kernel of the map ${g^n}^* \colon {\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n} \to {\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^{n-1}} \to 0$ is $\tau^n{\mathscr{O}}_{X}$. Outside ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, as the deformation is trivial, this is true. On an open $U$ containing ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, the snake lemma tells us that this is the kernel of $$\xymatrix{\tau^n\dfrac{k[[{t_+},{t_-}]]}{{t_+}{t_-}} \oplus \tau^n{\mathscr{O}}_{X}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}\}) \ar[rr]^-{\alpha_n-\beta_n} && \tau^n k(({t_+})) \oplus \tau^n k(({t_-}))}$$ where $\alpha_n$ and $\beta_n$ are the gluing functions defining $\tau^n{\mathscr{O}}_X$. We can conclude that ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}$ is of finite type by using induction on $n$ and observing that ${\mathcal{X}}^0=X$. This moreover shows the flatness of the family. This deformation of $X$ induces a deformation of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ which is, in rough terms, obtained as the trivial deformation outside the points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_p$ lying above ${{\widetilde{X}}}$ over ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$, and for every $j \in \{1, \dots, p\}$, the formal neigbourhood of ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}_n$ around ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_i$ will be isomorphic to the formal neighbourhood of ${\mathcal{X}}_n$ around ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. To do this, let denote by ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_{j,+}$ and ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_{j,-}$ the two points of ${{\widetilde{X}}}_N$ mapping to ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_j$. We fix local coordinates ${t_{j,+}}$ at ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_{j,\pm}$ so that $${{\widetilde{X}}}_N \times_{X_N} {\textrm{Spec}}(k[[{t_\pm}]]) \cong {\textrm{Spec}}\left(\oplus_{j=1}^p k[[{t_{j,\pm}}]]\right)$$ and let consider $U$ an open subset of ${{\widetilde{X}}}$. If $U$ is disjoint from $q^{-1}({{\mathfrak{p}}})=\{{{\mathfrak{p}}}_1, \dots, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_p\}$, we set ${\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n}(U)={\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}(U)[\tau]/\tau^{n+1}$. Let $i \in \{1, \dots, p\}$ and if $U$ contains ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_i$ but not ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_j$ for all $j \neq i$ we set $$\xymatrix{{\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n}(U):=\ker \left( \dfrac{k[[{t_{i,+}},{t_{i,-}}]][\tau]}{{t_{i,+}}{t_{i,-}}=\tau, \tau^{n+1}} \oplus {\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n}(U\setminus \{ {{\mathfrak{p}}}_i \}) \ar[rr]^-{\widetilde{\alpha}_n-\widetilde{\beta}_n}\right. && \left.\dfrac{k(({t_{i,+}}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}} \oplus \dfrac{k(({t_{i,-}}))[\tau]}{\tau^{n+1}}\right) }$$ where the maps $\widetilde{\alpha}_n$ and $\widetilde{\beta}_n$ are defined as in the case of ${\mathcal{X}}^n$. As was shown for ${\mathcal{X}}^n$, also ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n$ is a curve over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k[\tau]_n)$ deforming ${\mathcal{X}}$. Let denote by ${\mathcal{R}}_n$ the trivial deformation of the branch locus ${\mathcal{R}}$ inside ${\mathcal{X}}^n$. The natural map $q_n \colon {{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n \to {\mathcal{X}}^n$ which extends $q_0 \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ realizes ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n \to {\mathcal{X}}^n$ as a $\Gamma$-covering which is étale exactly outside ${\mathcal{R}}_n$ since the map $q_n$ is étale on ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ by construction. Furthermore, as $\sigma_0$ is disjoint from the singular locus, it follows that for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}_0$ we can set $\sigma_n$ to be the trivial deformation of $\sigma_0$. By taking the direct limit of this family of deformations we obtain the $\Gamma$-covering of formal schemes ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^\infty \to {\mathcal{X}}^\infty$ over $\text{Spf}(k[[t]])$. To prove that ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^\infty \to {\mathcal{X}}^\infty$ is algebraizable, i.e. that is comes from an algebraic object ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}\to {\textrm{Spec}}(k[[\tau]]])$, we can invoke Grothendieck’s existence theorem ([@EGAIII2 Théorème 5.4.5]) so that we are left to prove that the family $({{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n \to {\mathcal{X}}^n)_n$ is equipped with a compatible family of very ample line bundles. This is true because given a smooth point $P$ of $X$ which is not in ${\mathcal{R}}$ and $m$ sufficiently big, we know that ${\mathscr{O}}(mP)$ is a very ample line bundle on $X$ whose pullback to ${\mathscr{O}}_{{{\widetilde{X}}}}$ is also very ample. Since $P$ lies in the smooth locus of $X$ these line bundles extend naturally to very ample line bundles on ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ and on ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}^n$, providing the wanted family of very ample line bundles. We refer to the covering $(q \colon {{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}, \sigma)$ that we have just constructed as the *canonical smoothing* of $(q_0 \colon {{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \sigma_0)$. Observe that the generic fibre of ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}$ is a covering of smooth curves over $k((\tau))$ because, as one can deduce from Remark \[rmk-neightau\], the formal neighbourhood of ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ is given by $k[[{t_+},{t_-}]]((\tau))/{t_+}{t_-}=\tau$. Local freeness {#subsec-localfreeness} -------------- The aim of this section is to show that, in the setting of the previous section, ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is a locally free $k[[\tau]]$-module. We can depict the situation that we described in the previous section in the following diagram $$\xymatrix{ {{\widetilde{X}}}={{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}_0 \ar[r] \ar[d]^{q_0} & {{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\ar[d]^q & \ar[l] {{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}_\eta \ar[d]^{q_\eta}\\ X={\mathcal{X}}_0 \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\pi_0} & {\mathcal{X}}\ar[d]^\pi & \ar[l] {\mathcal{X}}_\eta \ar[d]^{\pi_\eta}\\ {\textrm{Spec}}(k) \ar@/^1.2pc/[u]^{\sigma_0} \ar[r]^0 & {\textrm{Spec}}(k[[\tau]]) \ar@/^1.2pc/[u]^\sigma &\ar[l]_\eta {\textrm{Spec}}(k((\tau))) \ar@/^1.2pc/[u]^{\sigma_\eta} }$$ where the covering ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}_\eta \to {\mathcal{X}}_\eta$ is a $\Gamma$-covering of smooth curves and we denote by ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ the nodal point of $X$. Let ${\mathcal{V}}\in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}(\sigma)$ so that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ is a $k[[\tau]]$-module. We use the subscript $0$ to denote the pullback along $0$, i.e. the restriction to the special fibre, so that ${\mathcal{V}}_0$ denotes the induced representation of ${\sigma_0}^*{{\mathfrak{h}}}$. \[rmk-modulotau\] Observe that there is a canonical injection of $k[[\tau]]$-modules ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}} \to {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}[[\tau]]$ which is an isomorphism modulo $\tau^n$ for every $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover we have by construction that $({{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}})_0$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{{\mathcal{A}}}_0}={{\mathfrak{h}}}_A$ and so $\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}\right)_0$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}_X$. The main result is that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is the trivial deformation of ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}_X$ as stated in the following theorem. \[thm-HhnTrivDef\] There is an isomorphism $${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}\cong {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}_X[[\tau]]$$ of $k[[\tau]]$-modules. In particular ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is a free $k[[\tau]]$-module. ### Proof of Theorem \[thm-HhnTrivDef\] In what follows we denote by ${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_N:=k[[{t_+}]] \oplus k[[{t_-}]]$ the $k$-algebra which is the coordinate ring of the disjoint union of the formal neighbourhoods at the points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm$ in $X_N$. Similarly ${{\mathcal{L}}}_N:=k(({t_+})) \oplus k(({t_-}))$ represents the disjoint union of the punctured formal neighbourhoods at the points ${{\mathfrak{p}}}_\pm$ in $X_N$. Moreover we will write $k[[{t_+},{t_-}]]$ in place of $k[[\tau, {t_+}, {t_-}]] {{\, \big/}}{t_+}{t_-}=\tau$. Recall that this is the completion of ${\mathscr{O}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ at the point ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$. \[Lem43\] The canonical smoothing identifies $k[[{t_+},{t_-}]]$ with the subalgebra of ${{\mathcal{L}}}_N[[\tau]]$ consisting of elements $${\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_{{{\mathfrak{p}}}}:=\left\lbrace \sum_{i,j \geq 0} a_{ij}\left({t_+}^{i-j}\tau^j\,,\,{t_-}^{j-i}\tau^i\right) \, | \, a_{ij} \in k \right\rbrace$$ via the map sending ${t_+}$ to $({t_+}, {t_-}^{-1}\tau)$ and ${t_-}$ to $({t_+}^{-1} \tau, {t_-})$. Taking the limit of the definition of ${\mathscr{O}}_{{\mathcal{X}}^n}$ we identify the formal neighbourhood of ${\mathcal{X}}^\infty$ at ${{\mathfrak{p}}}$ with $$\ker \left( k[[{t_+},{t_-}]] \oplus {{\mathcal{L}}}_N[[\tau]] \overset{\alpha-Id}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal{L}}}_N[[\tau]]\right)$$ where $\alpha({t_+})=({t_+}, {t_-}^{-1}\tau)$ and $\alpha({t_-})=( {t_+}^{-1}\tau, {t_-})$. In view of Proposition \[prop-NodalDegenerationH\] we identify ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}_X[[\tau]]$ with $$\bigoplus_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{A_N} {{\, \big\backslash}}\left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}} \otimes (W \otimes W^*)\right)[[\tau]]$$ or equivalently with $$\bigoplus_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{A_N}^*} {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0, W, W^*})}}[[\tau]].$$ Recall that ${{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ is a filtered Lie algebra, hence this induces a filtration on $U{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and by consequence on ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$. Since for every $W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ the $k$-vector space ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$ is a quotient of ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$, also the latter is equipped with a filtration $F^*{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$ inducing the associated decomposition ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}=\bigoplus_{d \leq 0} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(d)$ where ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(d)=F^{d} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}} {{\, \big/}}F^{d-1} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$. Once we choose local coordinates and an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}{\mathcal{L}}}}$ we observed that the elements of ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}})$ are $k[(c+\hslash)^{-1}]$-linear combinations of elements $X_r t^{-k_r} \circ \cdots \circ X_1t^{-k_1} \circ e_0$ with $k_r \geq \cdots \geq k_1 \geq 0$ and $r \geq 0$, where $e_0$ stands for $1 \in k$. We can explicitly write the graded pieces of ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+{{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}}$ as $${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}})(-d)= \left\langle X_r t^{-k_r} \circ \cdots \circ X_1t^{-k_1} \circ e_0 \, | \, \sum_{i=1}^r k_i=d \right\rangle$$ so that it is not zero only for $d\leq 0$ and in particular ${{\mathcal{F}}}^+({{\widehat{\mathfrak{h}}_{\mathcal{L}}}})(0)=k $ which shows that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(0)=W$. The key ingredient to provide a morphism between ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ and ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({V})}}_X[[\tau]]$ lies in the construction of the element $\epsilon(W)$ given by the following Proposition which we can see as a consequence of [@looijenga2005conformal Lemma 6.5]. \[prop-epsilon\] Let $W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})$ and $b_W^0 \colon W \otimes W^* \to k$ be the trace morphism. Then there exists an element $$\epsilon(W) = \sum_{d \geq 0} \epsilon(W)_d \cdot \tau^d \in \left({{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}} \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}\right)[[\tau]]$$ satisfying the following conditions: 1. \[epsdualb\] the constant term $\epsilon(W)_0 \in W \otimes W^*$ is the dual of $b_W^0$ and for every $d \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}$ we have $\epsilon(W)_d \in {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(-d) \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}(-d)$; 2. $\epsilon(W)$ is annihilated by the image of ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{k[[{t_+}, {t_-}]]}$ in $\overline{U} \widehat{{{\mathfrak{h}}}}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_N}[[\tau]]$. We choose an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{L}_{N}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes {{\mathcal{L}}}_N$, as well as an isomorphism between ${{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_{{\mathfrak{p}}}}$ and ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes {\widehat{\mathcal{O}}}_p$. The construction of $\epsilon(W)$ essentially lies in showing that the pairing $b_W^{(0)} \colon W \otimes W^* \to k$ extends to a unique pairing $$b_{W} \colon {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}} \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}} \to k$$ such that for all $(u,v) \in {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}} \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}$ we have $$\label{eqtlem} b_W(X{t_+}^m u, v)+b_W(u,X{t_-}^{-m}v)=0$$ for all $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $X \in {{\mathfrak{g}}}$ and that $b_W$ is identically zero when restricted to ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(d) \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}(d')$ if $d \neq d'$. This is essentially [@tsuchiya1989conformal Claim 1 of the proof of Proposition 6.2.1] and we report here the proof for completeness. Since we have that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}=\varinjlim_{d \in {\mathbb{N}}_0} F^{-d}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$, it is enough to show that $b^0_W$ extends uniquely to $b_W^{(-d)} \colon F^{-d}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}} \otimes F^{-d}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}} \to k$ satisfying the above conditions. By induction hypothesis, assume that $b_W^{(-j)}$ is already defined for every $j \leq d$, and we show how to extend it to $b_W^{(-d-1)}$. Let $u \in F^{-d}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$ and assume that $X{t_+}^{-m}u \in F^{-d-1}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$ for some $m\geq 1$. Let $v \in F^{-d-1}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}$ and set $$b_W^{(-d-1)}(X{t_+}^{-m}u,v) := -b_W^{(-d)}(u,X{t_-}^{m}v)$$ which is well defined as $X{t_-}^{m}v \in F^{-d-1+m}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}$. As every element of $F^{-d-1}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}$ is obtained as linear combinations of elements of the above type, this defines uniquely the form $b_W^{(-d-1)}$ and hence $b_W$. It follows by construction that $b_W$ is identically zero when restricted ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(-d) \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}(-d')$ if $d \neq d'$ and it is a perfect pairing when $d=d'$. We define $\epsilon(W)_d$ as the dual of $b_W^{-d} \colon {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W})}}(-d) \otimes {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({W^*})}}(-d) \to k$. We prove now the points of the proposition and for simplicity of notation we will write $\epsilon$ instead of $\epsilon(W)$ throughout the rest of the proof. 1. This is true by definition. 2. Since $b_W$ is characterized by the property (\[eqtlem\]) we have that this implies that $$(X{t_+}^m,0) \epsilon_{m+d} + (0,X{t_-}^{-m})\epsilon_d=0$$ for every $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $d\in {\mathbb{N}}_0$. This means that $(X{t_+}^m,X {t_-}^{-m}\tau^m)$ annihilates $\epsilon$, which by Lemma \[Lem43\], is exactly the image of ${{\mathfrak{g}}}\otimes_k k[[{t_+}, {t_-}]]$ in $\overline{U}\widehat{{{\mathfrak{g}}}}_{{{\mathcal{L}}}_N}[[\tau]]$. We saw how to attach to any representation $W$ the element $\epsilon(W)$: we now use these elements to obtain the isomorphism map between ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ and ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}_X[[\tau]]$. The following statement, combined with Proposition \[prop-NodalDegenerationH\] implies Theorem \[thm-HhnTrivDef\]. \[EisIso\] The $k[[\tau]]$ linear map $$\begin{aligned} E \colon {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}} \subset {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}}[[\tau]] &\to \bigoplus_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0 \otimes W \otimes W^*})}}[[\tau]]\\ u=\sum_{i\geq 0} u_i \tau^i &\mapsto \left( u \otimes \epsilon(W)\right)_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} = \left(\sum_{i,d\geq 0} u_i \otimes \epsilon(W)_d\tau^{i+d}\right)_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})}\end{aligned}$$ induces the isomorphism $$E_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}\colon {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}\to \bigoplus_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0 \otimes W \otimes W^*})}}_{X_N}[[\tau]].$$ of $k[[\tau]]$-modules. In order to prove that $E_{{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}}$ is an isomorphism we first mod out by $\tau$ and using the identifications observed in Remark \[rmk-modulotau\] we get the map $$[E_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}]_{\tau=0} \colon {{\mathfrak{h}}}_A {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0})}} \to \bigoplus_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})} {{\mathfrak{h}}}_{{A_N}^*} {{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_0 \otimes W \otimes W^*})}}$$ which sends the class of $u$ to $\left(u_0 \otimes \epsilon(W)_0 \right)_{W \in {{\text{IrRep}_\ell}}({{\mathfrak{h}}}|_{{\mathfrak{p}}})}$. Property \[epsdualb\] of $\epsilon(\lambda)$ tells us that $[E_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}]_{\tau=0}$ is, up to some invertible factors, the inverse of the morphism induced by the $\{b_W\}$, which we showed to be an isomorphism in Proposition \[prop-NodalDegenerationH\]. Since ${{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}{{\, \big\backslash}}{{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}$ is finitely generated, Nakayama’s lemma guarantees that $E_{{\mathfrak{h}_{\mathcal{A}}}}$ is an isomorphism. \[rmk-locfreefamily\]The argument we used run similarly if instead of starting with a covering of curves over ${\textrm{Spec}}(k)$, we would have considered a family of coverings $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma)$ where the singular locus of $X$ is given by one (or more) sections of $\pi$ and whose normalization is a covering of versal pointed smooth curves. Using these assumptions we are able to construct the canonical smoothing ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}$ of ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ over $S[[\tau]]$ which is moreover a versal deformation of $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \overset{\pi}\to S, \sigma)$. Once we have this construction, the analogue of Theorem \[thm-HhnTrivDef\] follows. \[cor-HhnFREEEEE\] The sheaves of conformal blocks ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}_1, \dots, {\mathcal{V}}_n})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ are locally free on ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, n}}}$. We consider only the case $n=1$. Let $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k), \sigma_0)$ be a $k$-point of ${{\overline{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}\setminus {{\mathcal{H}\textrm{ur}(\Gamma,\xi)_{g, 1}}}$. We are left to show that ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{{X_{univ}}}$ is locally free on a neighbourhood of $({{\widetilde{X}}}\overset{q}\to X \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k), \sigma_0)$, i.e. that for one (hence any) versal deformation $({{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}\to {\mathcal{X}}\to S, \sigma)$ of $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X \to {\textrm{Spec}}(k), \sigma_0)$, the ${\mathscr{O}}_S$-module ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell({{\mathcal{V}}})}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is locally free. Assume, for simplicity only, that ${{\mathfrak{p}}}\in X(k)$ is the only nodal point of $X$. Consider the normalization $({{\widetilde{X}}}_N \to X_N, \sigma_0, {{\mathfrak{p}}}_+,{{\mathfrak{p}}}_-)$ of $({{\widetilde{X}}}\to X, \sigma_0)$ and denote by $({{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}_N \to {\mathcal{X}}_N \to S, \sigma, \mathfrak{P}_+, \mathfrak{P}_-)$ its universal deformation. Since we can see ${{\widetilde{X}}}\to X$ as a fibre of the covering obtained from ${{\widetilde{{\mathcal{X}}}}}_N \to {\mathcal{X}}_N$ by identifying $\mathfrak{P}_-$ and $\mathfrak{P}_+$, the previous remark allows us to conclude. The equivalence ${\textrm{Bun}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} \cong {\textrm{Bun}}_{\Gamma,G}^{{\mathcal{P}}}$ {#app-A} ============================================================================================================== This appendix is provides a generalization of some of the results of [@balaji2011moduli] from the case in which $\rho$ is a homomorphism $\Gamma \to G$, to the case in which $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$ can detect also outer automorphisms of $G$. Along the way we clarify an issue in [@balaji2011moduli Lemma 4.1.5] by refining the notion of local type of a $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle. In this section we relax the assumptions on $k$, $\Gamma$ and $G$ as follows. Throughout this appendix we fix the following objects. - A finite group $\Gamma$; - A field $k$ whose characteristic does not divide the order of $\Gamma$; - An algebraic group $G$ over $k$. - A group homomorphism $\rho \colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}(G)$. - A (ramified) Galois $\Gamma$-covering $\pi \colon {{\widetilde{Y}}}\to Y$ of locally Noetherian schemes, i.e. - $\pi$ is a finite flat morphism; - the group of automorphisms of ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ over $Y$ is isomorphic to $\Gamma$: - ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ is a generically étale $\Gamma$-torsor over $Y$ via $\pi$. The *ramification locus* of $\pi$ is the subscheme of ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ which is the support of the sheaf of relative differentials $\Omega_{{{\widetilde{Y}}}/ Y}$. Its image in $Y$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{R}}$ and called, by analogy with the case of the curves, the *reduced branch locus* of $\pi$. Given a $G$-bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ we denote by ${{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$ the automorphisms group scheme ${\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G({\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}})$. For any other $G$-bundle ${\mathcal{P}}'$ on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ the scheme ${\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}:={\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G({\mathcal{P}},{\mathcal{P}}')$ is a ${{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$-bundle. The following statement is a version of [@balaji2011moduli Lemma 4.1.4]. \[lem-bundle\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}'$ be a $G$-bundle over ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$, then $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{{\mathcal{P}}}({\mathcal{P}}')$ is a $\pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$-bundle. It is clear from the theory of Weil restriction (see for instance [@bosch1990neron Section 7.6]) that $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}$ and $\pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$ are smooth schemes over $X$. Since fibred product and Weil restriction commute $\pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$ still acts on $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}$. Similarly we have that $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\times_Y \pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}\cong \pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\times_Y \pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}$ via the canonical map $(f,g) \mapsto (f, fg)$, so we are left to prove that for every point $y \in Y(\overline{k})$ there exists an étale neighbourhood $U$ of $y$ such that $(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})(U) \neq \emptyset$. Since $\pi$ is finite we know that $\pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace$ is a finite scheme over ${\textrm{Spec}}(\overline{k})$ over which both ${\mathcal{P}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}'$ are trivial. It follows that the map $q \colon \pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right) \to Y$ is surjective. We conclude that $q$ is smooth and surjective, so applying [@EGAIV4 Corollaire 17.16.3] for every $y \in Y$ there exists an étale neighbourhood $U$ of $y$ such that $(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})(U) \neq \emptyset$. A *$(\Gamma, G, \rho)$-bundle* or simply a *$(\Gamma, G)$-bundle*, on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ is a $G$-bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ together with an action of $\Gamma$ on its total space lifting the action of $\Gamma$ on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ and which is compatible with the action of $\Gamma$ on $G$ given by $\rho$, i.e. for any $\gamma \in \Gamma$ we require $$\gamma_{{\mathcal{P}}}(p g)=\gamma_{{\mathcal{P}}}(p) \rho(\gamma)(g)$$ for all $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$ and $g \in G$. To every $(\Gamma, G)$ bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$, we attach a group scheme ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$ on $Y$ as follows. Let $\gamma_{\mathcal{P}}$ be the automorphism of the total space of ${\mathcal{P}}$ induced by $\gamma$. Then we define the action of $\Gamma$ on ${{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$ via the map $\rho_{\mathcal{P}}\colon \Gamma \to {\text{Aut}}({{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}})$ given by $$\rho_{\mathcal{P}}(\gamma)(\phi) := \gamma_{\mathcal{P}}\phi \gamma_{\mathcal{P}}^{-1}$$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and $\phi \in {{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$. The group ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$ is defined as $(\pi_*({{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}))^\Gamma$, and by [@Edixhoven1992Neron Proposition 3.4], we know that it is a smooth group over $Y$. Observe that for any $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle ${\mathcal{P}}'$, the scheme ${\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}$ is a $(\Gamma, {{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}, \rho_{\mathcal{P}})$-bundle where the action of $\Gamma$ is given by $$(\gamma, \phi) \mapsto \gamma_{{\mathcal{P}}} \phi \gamma_0^{-1}$$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and $\phi \in {\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}$. It is natural to wonder whether $(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})^\Gamma$ is an ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$-bundle. Before providing the answer (Proposition \[prop-PisHbundle\]), we first give an example showing that this is not always the case. Let $\Gamma={\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}=\{ \pm 1\}$ and $G=\mathfrak{S}_4$, the symmetric group on four elements with $\rho$ given by $\rho(-1)(\alpha)=(34)(12)\alpha(12)(34)$. Let ${\mathcal{P}}_0$ be the trivial $G$ bundle with $\rho_{{\mathcal{P}}_0}=\rho$ and let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be the $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle which is trivial as a $G$-bundle, but with $\Gamma$ acting by $(-1)(\alpha)=(12) \rho(\gamma)(\alpha)$. Assume that $y \in Y$ is a ramification point and $U$ a neighbourhood of $y$. Then we see that $$(\pi_*{\mathcal{P}})^\Gamma(U)=\{\alpha \in \mathfrak{S}_4 \, | \, \alpha=(34)\alpha(12)(34)\} = \emptyset$$ but $$(\pi_*G)^\Gamma(U)=\{\alpha \in \mathfrak{S}_4 \, | \, \alpha=(34)(12)\alpha(12)(34)\} \neq \emptyset.$$ which then tells us that $(\pi_*{\mathcal{P}})^\Gamma$ cannot be locally isomorphic to $(\pi_*G)^\Gamma$, hence cannot be a $(\pi_*G)^\Gamma$-bundle. The failure is essentially due to the fact that the required compatibility of the actions of $\Gamma$ and $G$ on ${\mathcal{P}}$ does not imply that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is locally isomorphic to $G$ as a $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle. This shows that [@balaji2011moduli Lemma 4.1.5] does not hold in general. To correct this problem we will refine the concept of local type. Let ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ be two $(\Gamma,G)$-bundles on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$. Then they have the *same local type* at $y \in Y(\overline{k})$ if one of the equivalent conditions holds 1. ${\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G\left({\mathcal{P}}_1 \times \pi^{-1}\{y\} , {\mathcal{P}}_2 \times \pi^{-1} \{y\} \right)^\Gamma$ is not empty; 2. ${\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G\left({\mathcal{P}}_1 \times (\pi^{-1}\{y\})_{red}, {\mathcal{P}}_2 \times (\pi^{-1}\{y\})_{red}\right)^\Gamma$ is not empty. We say that ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ have the *same local type*, and we write ${\mathcal{P}}_1 \sim {\mathcal{P}}_2$, if they have the same local type at any geometric point of $Y$. We need to prove that the two conditions are equivalent, so that the notion of local type is well defined. We only have to prove that (2) implies (1). Let $\pi^{-1}\{y\}={\textrm{Spec}}(A)$ where $A$ is a finite Artin $k$-algebra. Let $\mathfrak{m}$ be its maximal nilpotent ideal, so that $\left(\pi^{-1}\{ y \}\right)_{red}= {\textrm{Spec}}(A/\mathfrak{m})$. Let ${\textrm{Spec}}(B)= {\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G({\mathcal{P}}_1, {\mathcal{P}}_2)$ and by assumption there exists $\varphi_{0} \colon B \to A/\mathfrak{m}$ which is $\Gamma$-invariant and makes the diagram commute: $$\xymatrix{ && B \ar[dll]_{\varphi_{0}}\\ A/\mathfrak{m}&& \ar[ll] \ar[u]A}$$ The aim is to lift $\varphi_{0}$ to a $\Gamma$-equivariant morphism $B \to A$. We construct this lift by induction, showing first how to find a $\Gamma$-equivariant lift $\varphi_{1} \colon B \to A/\mathfrak{m}^2$ and then repeating this procedure finitely many times we obtain a $\Gamma$-invariant map $\varphi_{n} \colon B \to A/{\mathfrak{m}}^n=A$. We reduce in this way to consider only the case $\mathfrak{m}^2=0$. Since $B$ is smooth over $A$ we know that $\varphi_{0}$ admits a lift $\varphi \colon B \to A$. For any $\gamma \in \Gamma$ the element $\gamma(\varphi)$ is another lift of $\varphi_{1}$, so the association $\gamma \mapsto \varphi-\gamma(\varphi)$ defines a map $h \colon \Gamma \to {\textrm{Der}}_A(B,\mathfrak{m})$. Since $h$ satisfies the cocyle condition, we have that $h \in H^1(\Gamma, {\textrm{Der}}_A(B, \mathfrak{m}))$, which is zero because the characteristic of $k$ does not divide the order of $\Gamma$. This means that there exists a derivation $\partial \in {\textrm{Der}}_A(B, \mathfrak{m})$ such that $h(\gamma)=\gamma(\partial)-\partial$ for every $\sigma \in \Gamma$. This implies that the lift $\varphi_1 :=\varphi + \partial$ is a $\Gamma$-invariant lift of $\varphi_{0}$ and concludes the proof. Let ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ be two $(\Gamma,G)$-bundles on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$. Then ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ have the same local type if and only if they have the same local type at any geometric point of ${\mathcal{R}}$. It is sufficient to show that any two $(\Gamma, G)$ bundles have the same local type on $Y \setminus {\mathcal{R}}$. Thus it is sufficient to prove that for every $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle ${\mathcal{P}}$ and for any open $U \subseteq Y$ disjoint from ${\mathcal{R}}$, there exists an étale covering $V$ of $U$ such that $\left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G(G, {\mathcal{P}})\right)^\Gamma(V) \neq \emptyset$. We can moreover assume that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is the trivial $G$-bundle. As $\pi$ is étale on $Y \setminus {\mathcal{R}}$ we can chose $V \to U$ such that $\pi^{-1}(V)=\coprod_{\gamma \in \Gamma} V$, where the action of $\Gamma$ permutes the points on the different components. We need to show that there always exists an element $$\alpha \in {\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G \left(\coprod_{\gamma \in \Gamma} G\times V,\coprod_{\gamma \in \Gamma}G \times V\right)$$ which is $\Gamma$-equivariant, where the action on $\gamma$ on the source is given by $\rho(\gamma)$ and on the target by $\gamma_{\mathcal{P}}$. Giving $\alpha$ is equivalent to give maps $\alpha_\gamma \in {\mathscr{I}\!\textit{so}}_G\left(G \times V, G \times V \right)=G(V)$ for all $\gamma \in \Gamma$, and $\alpha$ is $\Gamma$-invariant when $\alpha_{\gamma \sigma} \cdot (\rho(\gamma))(g) = \gamma(\alpha_\sigma \cdot g)$ for all $\gamma,\sigma \in \Gamma$. The map $\alpha$ defined by $\alpha_\gamma:=\gamma_{{\mathcal{P}}}(1)$ does the job. \[prop-PisHbundle\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a $(\Gamma,G)$-bundle over ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$. Then the sheaf $(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})^\Gamma$ is an ${\mathcal{H}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}$-bundle if and only if ${\mathcal{P}}'$ has the same local type as ${\mathcal{P}}$. We have already proved in Lemma \[lem-bundle\] that $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right)$ is a $\pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$-bundle, so that we have the isomorphism $$\alpha \colon \pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right) \times_{Y} \pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}\cong \pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right) \times_{Y} \pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right)$$ induced from ${\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right) \times_{{{\widetilde{Y}}}} {{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}\cong {\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right) \times_{{{\widetilde{Y}}}} {\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right)$. This is $\Gamma$-equivariant, hence it induces an isomorphism $$\alpha^\Gamma \colon \left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma \times_Y {\mathcal{H}}_{{\mathcal{P}}} \cong \left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma \times_Y \left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma.$$ In order to finish we need to check that $\left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma$ is locally non trivial if and only if ${\mathcal{P}}'$ has the same local type as ${\mathcal{P}}$. Suppose that for every point $y \in Y$ there exists an étale neighbourhood $f \colon (u,U) \to (y,Y)$ of $y$ such that there exists $\phi \in \left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma(U)$. This implies that the composition $\phi u$ is an element in $\left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma(y)$ which means that ${\mathcal{P}}$ and ${\mathcal{P}}'$ have the same local type. Conversely, assume that ${\mathcal{P}}'$ and ${\mathcal{P}}$ have the same local type. By definition $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right)^\Gamma(y) \neq \emptyset$ for every geometric point $y$. It follows that the map $q \colon \left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}\left({\mathcal{P}}\right)\right)^\Gamma \to Y$ is surjective on geometric points and since it is smooth, then $q$ it is surjective. Invoking [@EGAIV4 Corollaire 17.16.3] we can then conclude that for every $y \in Y$, the map $q$ admits a section on an étale neighbourhood $U$ of $y$, and so $\left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma(U) \neq \emptyset$. Let ${\textrm{Bun}}_{(\Gamma,G)}^{{\mathcal{P}}}$ be the stack over $Y$ parametrizing $(\Gamma, G)$-bundles on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$ which have the same local type as ${\mathcal{P}}$ and let ${\textrm{Bun}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}}$ be the stack parametrizing ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$-bundles over $Y$. The above proposition just showed that the map $$\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{{\mathcal{P}}}(-)^\Gamma \colon {\textrm{Bun}}_{(\Gamma,G)}^{{\mathcal{P}}} \to {\textrm{Bun}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}$$ is well defined. The following theorem generalizes [@balaji2011moduli Theorem 4.1.6]. \[thm-equivstacks\] The map $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{{\mathcal{P}}}(-)^\Gamma \colon {\textrm{Bun}}_{(\Gamma,G)}^{{\mathcal{P}}} \to {\textrm{Bun}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}$ is an equivalence of stacks. As in [@balaji2011moduli Theorem 4.1.6], we construct the inverse to $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{{\mathcal{P}}}(-)^\Gamma$ as $$\pi^*(-) \times^{\pi^*{{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}}} {\mathcal{P}}\colon {\textrm{Bun}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} \to {\textrm{Bun}}_{(\Gamma,G)}^{{\mathcal{P}}}$$ where $\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$ acts on ${\mathcal{P}}$ via the map $\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}\to {{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$, provided by adjunction from the inclusion ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}\to \pi_*{{\mathcal{G}_{{\mathcal{P}}}}}$. To simplify notation we will give our definitions for ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$-bundles over $Y$ instead of families of bundles. First we show that for any ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$-bundle ${{\mathcal{F}}}$, the scheme ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{\mathcal{P}}:= \pi^*({{\mathcal{F}}}) \times^{{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}$ is a $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle. Observe that it has a natural right action of $G$ and a left action of $\Gamma$ induced by the ones on ${\mathcal{P}}$. Let $\gamma \in \Gamma$ and $g \in G$ and consider $(f,p) \in {{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}$. The equalities $$\gamma((f,p)g))=\gamma(f,pg)=(f, \gamma_0(pg))=(f,\gamma_0(p) \rho(\gamma)(g))=\left(\gamma(f,p)\right) \rho(\gamma)(g)$$ tell us that ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}$ is a $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle on ${{\widetilde{Y}}}$. We check that ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}$ has the same local type as ${\mathcal{P}}$. Let $y$ be a geometric point of $Y$, then then the isomorphism $$\begin{aligned} {{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}} \times_{\widetilde{Y}} \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace &= \left(\pi^*{{\mathcal{F}}}\times_{\widetilde{Y}} \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace\right) \times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}\times \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace}\left({\mathcal{P}}\times_{\widetilde{Y}} \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace\right) =\\ &= \pi^*\left({{\mathcal{F}}}\times_T \lbrace y \rbrace\right)\times^{\pi^*({\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}\times_T \lbrace y \rbrace)}\left({\mathcal{P}}\times_{\widetilde{Y}} \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace\right) \cong \\ &\cong \pi^*\left({\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}\times_T \lbrace y \rbrace\right)\times^{\pi^*({\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}\times_T \lbrace y \rbrace)}\left({\mathcal{P}}\times_{\widetilde{Y}} \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace\right) =\\ &= {\mathcal{P}}\times_{\widetilde{Y}} \pi^{-1}\lbrace y \rbrace\end{aligned}$$ is $\Gamma$-invariant because it is induced by the isomorphism between the sheaves ${{\mathcal{F}}}|_y$ and ${{\mathcal{H}_\ell(V_{})}}_{\mathcal{P}}|_y$ on which $\Gamma$ acts trivially. It follows that ${{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}} \sim {\mathcal{P}}$. We now show that this construction provides the inverse of the map $\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{\mathcal{P}}(-)^\Gamma$. The assignment $f \mapsto [\phi_f \colon q \mapsto (f,p)]$ defines a morphism from $\pi^*{{\mathcal{F}}}$ to ${\mathscr{I}\!}_{\mathcal{P}}\left({{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}\right)$. By pushing it down to $Y$ and taking $\Gamma$ invariants we obtain a map $${{\mathcal{F}}}\to \pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{\mathcal{P}}\left({{\mathcal{F}}}_{{\mathcal{P}}}\right)^\Gamma = \pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{\mathcal{P}}\left(\pi^*{{\mathcal{F}}}\times^{\pi^*{{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}}}{\mathcal{P}}\right)^\Gamma .$$ Since ${{\mathcal{F}}}$ is locally trivial, this map is ${\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$-equivariant, hence it is an isomorphism. Conversely, take a $(\Gamma, G)$-bundle ${\mathcal{P}}'$ with the same local type as ${\mathcal{P}}$. Applying $\left(\pi_*{\mathscr{I}\!}_{\mathcal{P}}(-)\right)^\Gamma$ and then $\pi^*(-)\times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}$ to ${\mathcal{P}}'$ we obtain $$\pi^*\left(\pi_*({\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})^\Gamma\right) \times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}.$$ The inclusion $\left(\pi_*({\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\right)^\Gamma \subseteq \pi_*({\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})$ induces by adjunction the map of $\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}$-bundles $$\pi^*\left(\pi_*({\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})^\Gamma\right) \to {\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}, \quad f \mapsto \alpha_f$$ which extends to $$\alpha \colon \pi^*\left(\pi_*({\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})^\Gamma\right) \times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}\to {\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}, \quad (f,p) \mapsto (\alpha_f, p).$$ The map $\beta \colon {\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')}\times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}\to {\mathcal{P}}'$ given by evaluation, $\beta(\phi, p)=\phi(p)$ allows us to obtain the morphism $$\beta \alpha \colon \pi^*\left(\pi_*({\mathscr{I}_{\mathcal{P}}(\mathcal{P}')})^\Gamma\right) \times^{\pi^*{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathcal{P}}} {\mathcal{P}}\to{\mathcal{P}}'.$$ which we are left to show to be equivariant with respect to the actions of $\Gamma$ and $G$. Since both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are $G$-equivariant, also their composition is. The $\Gamma$-invariance translates in showing that $\alpha_f\left(\gamma_{{\mathcal{P}}}(p)\right)$ and $\gamma_{{\mathcal{P}}'}(\alpha_f(p))$ coincide, which holds because $\alpha_f$ is $\Gamma$-equivariant. [*Acknowledgements.* The results of this paper are part of my PhD thesis. I deeply thank my advisor Jochen Heinloth for the constant support and encouragement he gave me during these years. The discussions with him have been essential for me. This work is supported by SFB/TR 45 “Periods, Moduli Spaces and Arithmetic of Algebraic Varieties” of the DFG. ]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Thea-Leymann-Straße 9, 45127 Essen, Germany.</span> *E-mail address:* `[email protected]`

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We show that every non-trivial compact connected group and every non-trivial general or special linear group over an infinite field admits a generating set such that the associated Cayley graph has infinite diameter.' address: 'J.S., Institut für Geomtrie, TU Dresden, 01062 Dresden, Germany' author: - Jakob Schneider title: On groups with unbounded Cayley graphs --- A group $G$ is said to have the *Bergman property* if for any symmetric generating subset $S\subseteq G$ containing the identity of $G$ there exists $k\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $S^{\ast k}=G$, where $S^{\ast k}{\coloneqq}\set{s_1\cdots s_k}[s_1,\ldots,s_k\in S]$. The smallest such $k$ is called the *width* of $S$ or the *diameter* of the associated Cayley graph $\operatorname{Cay}(G,S)$. If there is no such $k$, $S$ is said to have infinite width. Examples of such groups include finite groups, where the study of worst case diameters has a long history, but also infinite groups such as $\operatorname{Sym}({\mathbb N})$ (a result due to Bergman [@bergman2006generating]). The first example of an infinite group with uniformly bounded width with respect to any generating set has been constructed by Shelah [@shelah1980problem Theorem 2.1]. In [@dowerk2018bergman] Dowerk shows that unitary groups of *infinite-dimensional* von Neumann algebras admit *strong uncountable cofinality*. A group $G$ admits this property if for any exhausting chain $W_0\subseteq W_1\subseteq\cdots\subseteq G=\bigcup_{n=0}^\infty{W_n}$ of subsets there exist $n,k\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $W_n^{\ast k}=G$ (see [@rosendal2009topological Definition 1.1]). It is apparent that, setting $W_n{\coloneqq}S^{\ast n}$, where $S$ is any symmetric generating set containing the identity, strong uncountable cofinality implies the Bergman property. Indeed, for uncountable groups it is actually equivalent to admitting both the Bergman property and *uncountable cofinality* (see [@drostegoebel2005uncountable Proposition 2.2] or [@drosteholland2005generating]). Regarding his result, Dowerk asked whether unitary groups of *finite-dimensional* von Neumann algebras have the Bergman property. In this note we answer this question in the negative by showing that any non-trivial compact connected group fails to have this property. We also show this for groups of type $\operatorname{GL}_n(K)$ or $\operatorname{SL}_n(K)\neq{\mathbf{1}}$ ($n\geq 1$), where $K$ is an infinite field. Note that all of the above groups also fail to have uncountable cofinality. This is shown for $\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$ over an uncountable field in [@thomaszapletal2012steinhaus Proposition] and can easily be extended to all groups admitting a finite-dimensional representation with uncountable image. Such groups encompass compact groups by the Peter–Weyl theorem. This was pointed out by Cornulier in private communication. Our main result is the following. \[thm:cpt\_cn\_grps\] The following are true (i) Any non-trivial compact connected group does not admit the Bergman property. (ii) Any group of type $\operatorname{GL}_n(K)$ ($n\geq 1$) or $\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$ ($n\geq 2$), for an infinite field $K$, does not admit the Bergman property. The proofs use a few non-trivial facts from the theory of fields, for which we refer the reader to [@lang2002algebra]. For facts like the existence of a transcendence basis of ${\mathbb R}$ over ${\mathbb Q}$ we need to assume the Axiom of Choice. Proof of Theorem \[thm:cpt\_cn\_grps\] ====================================== This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm:cpt\_cn\_grps\]. Let ${\lvert\bullet\rvert}\colon{\mathbb C}\to{\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}$ be a *norm* such that the following hold (i) ${\lvertx\rvert}=0$ if and only if $x=0$ (identity of indiscernibles); (ii) ${\lverta+b\rvert}\leq{\lverta\rvert}+{\lvertb\rvert}$ (subadditive); (iii) ${\lvertab\rvert}\leq{\lverta\rvert}{\lvertb\rvert}$ (submultiplicative); (iv) ${\lvertx^2\rvert}={\lvertx\rvert}^2$ (compatible with squaring); (v) there exists $x\in[0,1]$ such that ${\lvertx\rvert}>1$ (small elements with large norm). Examples of such norms are presented in Lemma \[lem:cnst\_nrms\] below. We now consider the matrix group $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$. Set $C{\coloneqq}4{\lvert1/2\rvert}$. Then $C\geq 2{\lvert1\rvert}=2$ by (ii) (as ${\lvert1\rvert}=1$; see below). Define $S$ to be the set of elements of $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ with coefficients in $B{\coloneqq}\set{x\in{\mathbb R}}[{\lvertx\rvert}\leq C]$. Observe that $1\in S$, as (i) and (iv) imply that ${\lvert1\rvert}=1$, and $S=S^{-1}$, as the inverse of $g\in \operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ is just $g^\top$. We claim that $S$ is a generating set and that $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ has infinite diameter with respect to $S$. Assume that $g=(\begin{smallmatrix} a&b\\ -b&a \end{smallmatrix})\in \operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ corresponds to an element $z\in \operatorname{U}(1)\subseteq{\mathbb C}$ via the isomorphism $(\begin{smallmatrix} a&b\\ -b&a \end{smallmatrix}) \mapsto a+bi$. Take $k\in{\mathbb N}$ large enough such that $${\lvertz^{1/2^k}\rvert},{\lvertz^{-1/2^k}\rvert}\leq 2.$$ This is possible by (iv). Set $a'{\coloneqq}{{\rm Re}}(z^{1/2^k})$ and $b'{\coloneqq}{{\rm Im}}(z^{1/2^k})$. By property (iv) we have ${\lverti\rvert}=1$ as ${\lverti^4\rvert}={\lverti\rvert}^4={\lvert1\rvert}=1$. From (ii), (iii) we derive that $${\lverta'\rvert}={\left\lvert\frac{1}{2}(z^{1/2^k}+z^{-1/2^k})\right\rvert}\leq{\left\lvert\frac{1}{2}\right\rvert}({\lvertz^{1/2^k}\rvert}+{\lvertz^{-1/2^k}\rvert})\leq C.$$ Similarly, using that ${\lverti\rvert}=1$, we obtain $${\lvertb'\rvert}={\left\lvert\frac{1}{2i}(z^{1/2^k}-z^{-1/2^k})\right\rvert}\leq{\left\lvert\frac{1}{2}\right\rvert}({\lvertz^{1/2^k}\rvert}+{\lvertz^{-1/2^k}\rvert})\leq C.$$ Since $(a'+b'i)^{2^k}=z$, we conclude that $g\in S^{\ast2^k}$. Since $g$ was arbitrary, $S$ follows to be a generating set of $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$. It remains to show that $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ does not have finite diameter with respect to $S$. Indeed, for any $R\in{\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}$ on finds $k$ large enough such that, if $x$ is an element as in (v), ${\lvertx^{2^k}\rvert}={\lvertx\rvert}^{2^k}\geq R$. Now putting $a{\coloneqq}x^{2^n}$ and $b{\coloneqq}\sqrt{1-a^2}$, we obtain an element $g=a+bi\in\operatorname{U}(1)\cong\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ which needs arbitrarily many factors in $S$ to be represented (taking $R$ large enough). Indeed, by induction, all coordinate entries of an element in $S^{\ast k}$ have norm at most $2^{k-1}C^k$ ($k\in{\mathbb Z}_+$). Now let $H$ be a non-trivial compact connected Lie group represented as a matrix subgroup of ${{\rm O}}(n)$ for some $n\in{\mathbb N}$. We observe that finitely many copies $H_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) of $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ in $H$ generate $H$ as a group, e.g., see [@dalessandro2002uniform Theorem 2]. This allows us to extend our argument for $\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ above to the group $H$ as follows. Assume that $H$ is generated by $$H_i= \lrset{g_i^{-1}\left(\begin{pmatrix} a & b\\-b&a \end{pmatrix}\oplus\operatorname{id}_{n-2}\right) g_i}[a,b\in{\mathbb R},\ a^2+b^2=1]$$ for some $g_i\in{{\rm O}}(n)$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$). After conjugating by $g_1^{-1}$ we may assume that $g_1=1$. As a generating set $S$ for $H$ it now suffices to take the set of elements in $H_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) with coefficients $a,b\in B$, where $B$ is defined as above. Apparently, $S$ generates $H_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$) and hence $H$. Let $D$ be the maximum of the norms of the matrix entries of the $g_i$ ($i=1,\ldots,m$; and so it is the maximum of the norms of the entries of the $g_i^{-1}=g_i^\top$). Then any coordinate entry of an element in $S\cap H_i$ has norm bounded by $c{\coloneqq}n^2D^2C$. Thus, by induction, for $g\in S^{\ast k}$, all coordinate entries of $g$ have norm at most $n^{k-1}c^k$ ($k\in{\mathbb Z}_+$). Therefore, $S$ cannot generate $H$ in finitely many steps, since, as above, the coordinate entries of $H_1\cong\operatorname{SO}(2,{\mathbb R})$ are unbounded with respect to the norm. If $H$ is now any non-trivial compact connected group, then by the Peter–Weyl theorem $H$ has a non-trivial finite-dimensional unitary representation, say $\pi \colon H\rightarrow \operatorname{U}(n) \subseteq{{\rm O}}(2n)$. Let $S$ be a generating set in ${{\rm O}}(2n)$ witnessing that $\pi(H)$ does not have the Bergman property. Then $\pi^{-1}(S)$ is a generating set witnessing that $H$ does not have the Bergman property. It remains to construct norms satisfying (i)–(v). This is done in the subsequent lemma. \[lem:cnst\_nrms\] Let $T$ be a transcendence basis of ${\mathbb R}$ over ${\mathbb Q}$. Consider $K{\coloneqq}{\mathbb Q}(T)$ and let $G$ denote the Galois group of the field extension ${\mathbb C}/K$. The following norms ${\lvert\bullet\rvert}\colon{\mathbb C}\to{\mathbb R}_{\geq 0}$ satisfy properties (i)–(v) from the proof Theorem \[thm:cpt\_cn\_grps\] (ii). (i) Since, $K\subseteq{\mathbb C}$ is algebraic, $G$ is a profinite group and each element in ${\mathbb C}$ has a finite orbit under the action of $G$. For $x\in {\mathbb C}$ we define the *Galois radius* of $x$ to be $\rho(x){\coloneqq}\max_{\sigma\in G}{\lvertx^\sigma\rvert}$. Then ${\lvert\bullet\rvert}{\coloneqq}\rho$ defines a norm with the desired properties. (ii) Choose $t\in T$. Set $L{\coloneqq}{\mathbb Q}(T\setminus\set{t})$. Let $\nu\colon K\to{\mathbb Z}$ be the degree valuation corresponding to $t$ on $K$. Extend $\nu$ to a valuation $\omega\colon{\mathbb C}\to{\mathbb Q}$ (by using Zorn’s lemma). Setting ${\lvertx\rvert}{\coloneqq}\exp(-\omega(x))$ gives a norm on ${\mathbb C}$ satisfying the above properties. In both cases, we verify properties (i)–(v). *(i):* Properties (i)–(iv) are immediate from the definition. We now show that also property (v) is fulfilled. Choose arbitrary real numbers $a\in(0,1)$ and $b>1$. Set $p(X){\coloneqq}(X-a)(X-b)\in{\mathbb R}[X]$. We claim that by density of $K\supseteq{\mathbb Q}$ in ${\mathbb R}$ we can find an irreducible polynomial over $K$ with coefficients arbitrarily close to those of $p(X)$. Indeed, by Gauss’ lemma, an irreducible polynomial over ${\mathbb Q}$ remains irreducible over $K$ and hence, it suffices to approximate by irreducible rational polynomials. Using Eisenstein’s criterion, we can find an irreducible monic rational polynomial $q(X)$ which has coefficients arbitrarily close to the coefficients of $p(X)$. Indeed, Eisenstein’s criterion implies that for $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in\mathbb Z$, $\gamma>0$, the polynomial $q(X)=X^2+(\alpha/\gamma)X+(\beta/\gamma)$ is irreducible if $p^2$ does not divide $\beta$, $p$ divides $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and does not divide $\gamma$. Choosing $\gamma$ large enough and coprime to $p$, we can easily find $\alpha$ and $\beta$ with the desired properties such that $\alpha/\gamma$ is close to $-(a+b)$ and $\beta/\gamma$ is close to $ab$. By the implicit function theorem, the zeroes of $q$, say $x$ and $y$, are arbitrarily close to $a$ and $b$, respectively. Hence $\rho(x)$ is close to $b>1$, as desired. *(ii):* Properties (i)–(iv) follow from the definition of a valuation. For property (v) observe that ${\lvertt^{-1}\rvert}=\exp(\nu(t^{-1}))=e>1$. Also, for $y\in{\mathbb Q}$ we have ${\lverty\rvert}=\exp(\nu(y))=1$. Taking $y$ so that $x{\coloneqq}t^{-1}y\in[0,1]$, we obtain that for ${\lvertx\rvert}={\lverty\rvert}{\lvertt^{-1}\rvert}={\lvertt^{-1}\rvert}=e>1$, as wished. In the proof of Theorem 1(i) and Lemma \[lem:cnst\_nrms\] the field ${\mathbb R}$ can be replaced by a Euclidean field $R$ and ${\mathbb C}$ by $R[i]$. Then, if $T=\emptyset$ in Lemma \[lem:cnst\_nrms\](ii) we need to take a $p$-adic valuation, instead of the degree valuation, on $K={\mathbb Q}$ and extend it. Then, for $y$, in the above argument, we have to take a suitable element $r/s\in{\mathbb Q}$ such that $p\nmid r,s$. At first we consider the case $G=\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$. We distinguish two cases. *Case 1:* Assume first that a transcendence basis $T$ of $K$ over its prime field $k$ is not empty. Define for $\lambda\in K^\times$, $\mu\in K$ the matrices $$D(\lambda){\coloneqq}\begin{pmatrix} \lambda^{-1} & 0\\ 0 & \lambda \end{pmatrix} \text{ and } E_{12}(\mu){\coloneqq}\begin{pmatrix} 1 & \mu\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Note that $$\label{eq:el_mats_id} E_{12}(\mu)^{D(\lambda_1)\cdots D(\lambda_n)}=E_{12}(\mu)^{D(\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_n)}=E_{12}((\lambda_1\cdots\lambda_n)^2\mu)$$ for $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_n\in K^\times$, $\mu\in K$. Choose $t\in T$. For $L{\coloneqq}k(T\setminus\set{t})$ we have that $K$ is algebraic over $L(t)$. Take the normed degree valuation on $\nu\colon L(t)\to{\mathbb Z}$ and extend it to a valuation $\omega\colon K\to{\mathbb Q}$. Define $B{\coloneqq}\set{b\in K}[{\lvert\omega(b)\rvert}\leq 1]$. Set $$S{\coloneqq}\set{g\in\operatorname{SL}_n(K)}[\text{all entries of }g\text{ are in }B].$$ Then $S^{\ast k}\neq\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$, since one sees easily by induction that for $g\in S^{\ast k}$ ${\lvert\omega(g_{ij})\rvert}\leq k$ (from the strong triangle inequality). We show that $S$ generates all elementary matrices, and hence $\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$. Indeed, we may assume that $n=2$, via the embeddings $\operatorname{SL}_2(K)\hookrightarrow\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$. We show that $S$ generates any matrix $M{\coloneqq}E_{12}(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in K$. Indeed, if $\alpha=0$, then $M\in S$. In the opposite case $v{\coloneqq}\omega(\alpha)\in{\mathbb Q}$ and we find an integer $n\in{\mathbb Z}$ such that ${\lvertv-2n\rvert}\leq 1$. Then choose $\lambda\in K$ such that $\omega(\lambda)=1$ (which exists even in $L(t)\subseteq K$, since $\nu$ was normed) and set $\mu{\coloneqq}\alpha\lambda^{-2n}$. By construction, we have ${\lvert\omega(\mu)\rvert}\leq 1$, so that $D(\lambda),E_{12}(\mu)\in S$ and $M=E_{12}(\alpha)=E_{12}(\mu)^{D(\lambda)^{2n}}\in\gensubgrp{S}$ by Equation . This completes the proof of Case 1. *Case 2:* In this case $K$ is an algebraic extension of its prime field $k={\mathbb Q}$ or $k={\mathbb F}_p$. In the first case, $K$ embeds into ${\mathbb C}$ and we can define $$S{\coloneqq}\set{g\in\operatorname{SL}_n(K)}[\text{all entries of }g\text{ are in }B],$$ where $B$ is the unit ball of ${\mathbb C}$ intersected with $K\subseteq{\mathbb C}$. Hence we assume that $k={\mathbb F}_p$ and $K$ is an infinite algebraic extension of $k$. In this case, we construct a set $B\subseteq K$ with the following properties (i) $\gensubgrp{B}_{+}=K$, i.e., $B$ generates $K$ as an abelian group; (ii) $P(B){\coloneqq}\set{p(b_1,\ldots,b_m)}[b_1,\ldots,b_m\in B, p\in P]\neq K$ for each finite set $P\subseteq{\mathbb Z}[X_1,\ldots,X_m]$ of polynomials over ${\mathbb Z}$ and $m\in{\mathbb N}$. Indeed, if we have such a set $B$, we can use the same definition for $S$ as above. This is due to the fact that $E_{12}(\mu)E_{12}(\lambda)=E_{12}(\mu+\lambda)$ and the elementary matrices generate $\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$. On the other hand $S^{\ast k}\neq\operatorname{SL}_n(K)$ by condition (ii), as the matrix entries are bounded degree polynomials over ${\mathbb Z}$ in the entries of the matrices. The set $B$ is now inductively constructed in Lemma \[lem:comb\_finflds\] and Corollary \[cor:cnst\_B\] below. In the case $G=\operatorname{GL}_n(K)$ we add matrices $\operatorname{diag}(\lambda,1,\ldots,1)$ to the generating set $S$ with ${\lvert\omega(\lambda)\rvert}\leq 1$. \[lem:comb\_finflds\] Fix a set $P\subseteq{\mathbb F}_p[X_1,\ldots,X_m]$ of non-constant polynomials of total degree at most $n$, i.e., especially $P$ is finite. Consider the inclusion of finite fields ${\mathbb F}_{p^e}\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}$ for $e,f\in{\mathbb Z}_+$ and let $E\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^e}$ be a subset of cardinality $e$. Define $P_E\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^e}[X_1,\ldots,X_m]$ as the set of non-constant polynomials which arise from the polynomials from $P$ by substituting a subset of the variables $X_1,\ldots,X_m$ by elements from $E$. Then for $e$ sufficiently large there exists a set $F\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}$ such that $\gensubsp{F}_{{\mathbb F}_p}$ is a complement to ${\mathbb F}_{p^e}$ in ${\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}$ as ${\mathbb F}_p$-vector spaces and $r(f_1,\ldots,f_m)\not\in{\mathbb F}_{p^e}$ for all $f_1,\ldots,f_m\in F$ and $r\in P_E$. At first note that the set $C$ of $e(f-1)$-tuples with entries in ${\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}$ which span an ${\mathbb F}_p$-complement of ${\mathbb F}_{p^e}$ in ${\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}$ is of cardinality $(p^{ef}-p^e)\cdots(p^{ef}-p^{ef-1})$, so its portion in the set $T$ of all $e(f-1)$-tuples with entries in ${\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}$ is equal to $${\lvertC\rvert}/p^{e^2f(f-1)}=(1-p^{-e(f-1)})\cdots(1-p^{-1})$$ but for $c{\coloneqq}2\log(2)$ we have $e^{-cx}\leq 1-x$ for $0\leq x\leq 1/2$, so that the above expression is bounded from below by $$e^{-c\sum_{i=1}^{e(f-1)}{p^{-i}}}\geq d{\coloneqq}e^{-\frac{c}{p-1}}\in (0,1).$$ Now let us estimate how many tuples $t=(t_1,\ldots,t_{e(f-1)})\in T$ have the property that $r(s_1,\ldots,s_m)\not\in{\mathbb F}_{p^e}$ for all $s_1,\ldots,s_m\in\overline{t}{\coloneqq}\set{t_1,\ldots,t_{e(f-1)}}$ and $r\in P_E$. By the Schwartz-Zippel lemma, for all $x\in{\mathbb F}_{p^e}$ we have $${\mathbf{P}}_{s_1,\ldots,s_n\in{\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}}[r(s_1,\ldots,s_m)=x]\leq n/p^{ef},$$ so that $${\mathbf{P}}_{s_1,\ldots,s_n\in{\mathbb F}_{p^{ef}}}[r(s_1,\ldots,s_m)\in{\mathbb F}_{p^e}]\leq n/p^{e(f-1)},$$ and hence $${\mathbf{P}}_{t\in T}[\exists r\in P_E,s_1,\ldots,s_m\in\overline{t}:r(s_1,\ldots,s_m)\in{\mathbb F}_{p^e}]\leq {\lvertP_E\rvert}(e(f-1))^m n/p^{e(f-1)}.$$ Putting both estimates together, we obtain that the set of $t\in T$ such that $F{\coloneqq}\overline{t}$ satisfies the hypothesis of the lemma has portion bounded from below by $d-{\lvertP_E\rvert}(e(f-1))^m n/p^{e(f-1)}\geq d-(e+1)^m{\lvertP\rvert}(e(f-1))^m n/p^{e(f-1)}$ in $T$. But this term is clearly positive for all $f>1$ when $e$ is large enough. \[cor:cnst\_B\] Let $K\subseteq\overline{{\mathbb F}}_p$ be infinite. There exists a set $B\subseteq K$ satisfying (i) and (ii) in the proof of Theorem \[thm:cpt\_cn\_grps\](ii). Set $P_i{\coloneqq}{\mathbb F}_p[X_1,\ldots,X_i]_{\deg\leq i}$ for $i\in{\mathbb N}$, so that the $P_i$ exhaust the polynomial ring over ${\mathbb F}_p$ in the countably many variables $X_i$ ($i\in{\mathbb Z}_+$). Apply Lemma \[lem:comb\_finflds\] to $P=P_0$, and choose $b_0{\coloneqq}e$ large enough and an ${\mathbb F}_p$-basis $B_0{\coloneqq}E$ of ${\mathbb F}_{p^{b_0}}$ such that for all $f>1$ and an appropriate extension $F\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_0f}}$ to a basis $B_1{\coloneqq}B_0\cup F$ of this field, we have $P_{0,B_0}(F)\not\in{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_0}}$. Then, again using Lemma \[lem:comb\_finflds\], choose $f>1$ large enough, set $b_1{\coloneqq}b_0f$ and $B_1= B_0\cup F$ such that the same as above holds, replacing $P_0$ by $P_1$ and $b_0$ by $b_1$. Proceed by induction to get $B{\coloneqq}\bigcup_{i=0}^\infty{B_i}$. Apparently, $\gensubsp{B}_+=K$. Assume now that for $P\subseteq{\mathbb F}_p[X_1,X_2,\ldots]$ finite, we have $P(B)=K$. Then choose $m$ large enough such that $P\subseteq P_m$. Now note that $$P_m(B)=P_m(B_m)\cup\bigcup_{i=m}^\infty{P_{m,B_i}(B_{i+1}\setminus B_i)}.$$ But $P_m(B_m)\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_m}}$ and $P_{m,B_i}(B_{i+1}\setminus B_i)\subseteq P_{i,B_i}(B_{i+1}\setminus B_i)\subseteq{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_{i+1}}}\setminus{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_i}}$ for $i\geq m$ by construction. Hence for $i\geq m$ we have $P_m(B)\cap{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_i}}=P_m(B_i)$. But the size of this set is bounded by ${\lvertP_m\rvert}{\lvertB_i\rvert}^m={\lvertP_m\rvert}b_i^m$, whereas ${\lvert{\mathbb F}_{p^{b_i}}\rvert}=p^{b_i}$, which is eventually larger than the first. This shows that $P(B)\subseteq P_m(B)\neq K$, as desired. We end up with a question: Does there exist a countably infinite group admitting the Bergman property? Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The author wants to thank Philip Dowerk and Andreas Thom for interesting discussions and Yves Cornulier for a comment concerning a first version of this article. This research was supported by ERC Consolidator Grant No. 681207.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In this paper, we propose an alternating optimization algorithm to the nonconvex Koopman operator learning problem for nonlinear dynamic systems. We show that the proposed algorithm will converge to a critical point with rate $O(1/T)$ or $O(\frac{1}{\log T})$ under some mild assumptions. To handle the high dimensional nonlinear dynamical systems, we present the first-ever distributed Koopman operator learning algorithm. We show that the distributed Koopman operator learning has the same convergence properties as a centralized Koopman operator learning problem, in the absence of optimal tracker, so long as the basis functions satisfy a set of state-based decomposition conditions. Experiments are provided to complement our theoretical results.' author: - 'Zhiyuan Liu, Guohui Ding, Lijun Chen[^1] and Enoch Yeung [^2]' bibliography: - 'reference.bib' title: '**Towards Scalable Koopman Operator Learning: Convergence Rates and A Distributed Learning Algorithm** ' --- Introduction {#sect:intro} ============ In recent years, there is an increasing interest in transferring operator theoretic techniques such as Koopman operator [@koopman1931hamiltonian; @mezic2005spectral] for the analysis of dynamical systems. Such operator based methods differ from classical approaches, in that they define the evolution of observable functions in a function space rather than using state vectors in a state space. The power of these operator theoretic methods is that it provides linear representations of nonlinear time-invariant systems, albeit in higher dimensional spaces that are sometimes countable or uncountable. Various numerical approaches, such as dynamic mode decomposition(DMD), Hankel-DMD, extended dynamic mode decomposition (E-DMD), structured dynamic mode decomposition (S-DMD) have been proposed for discovering the Koopman operator of a nonlinear system, using a series of dictionary functions with spanning or universal function approximation properties [@li2017extended; @kutz2016multiresolution; @mezic2005spectral; @rowley2009spectral; @sinha2019computation]. Recently, researchers have shown it is possible to integrate machine-driven learning representations with dynamic mode decomposition algorithms, using variational autoencoders to achieve phase-dependent representations of spectra [@lusch2018deep] or delay embeddings [@takeishi2017learning], shallow neural networks [@li2017extended], linearly recurrent neural networks for balancing expressiveness and overfitting [@otto2019linearly], and deep RELU feedforward networks for predictive modeling in biological and transmission systems [@yeung2019learning]. E-DMD [@li2017extended] and Deep-DMD [@yeung2019learning] have been utilized in various domains, including nonlinear system identification [@johnson2018class; @liu2018decomposition; @mehta2005stochastic; @yeung2018koopman], image processing [@kutz2016multiresolution; @kutz2015multi] and robotic control [@abraham2017model; @berger2015estimation]. Generally speaking, the learning especially the training phase of Koopman operator is trying to minimize the empirical loss based on the training set, e.g., the data sampled from the real trajectory of dynamic system. Compared to the traditional machine learning problem which learns the unknown mapping from input to output, the Koopman learning has two tasks: 1) Learning the function space that lifts state space to a high even infinite dimensional space. 2) Learning a linear mapping within that function space. These two tasks are highly related to each other, e.g., inappropriate function space learned will lead to poor learning performance even the linear mapping is perfect. However, to the best of our knowledge, the method of Koopman training has not gotten enough attention up to now. Another challenge is that, when parameterized function approximation such as neural network is used, the learning problem is nonconvex. For instance, even for single layer neutral network, it is NP-complete to find the global optimal [@blum1989training]. However, recent works [@soltanolkotabi2018theoretical; @boob2017theoretical; @choromanska2015loss] show that for over-parameterized (wide) shallow neural networks, local optima provide satisfactory performance. Specifically, they show that every local optimum is global optimum if the hidden layer is non-singular; every local minimum of the simplified objective is close to the global minimum. In this paper, we contribute a proof of convergence for Koopman learning algorithms utilizing shallow neural networks, and derive conditions for first-order optimality, the properties of the so-called dictionary functions used in deep and E-DMD that guarantee convergence. We propose alternating optimization algorithm with an optimal tracker for training the Koopman operator. By proving the objective function’s smoothness property, we show that our algorithm admits $O(1/T)$ convergence rate for chosen constant learning rate and $O(1/\log T)$ for diminishing learning rate. We illustrate convergence of the alternating optimization algorithm for single-node training (non-distributed) on two nonlinear systems with oscillatory dynamics. A second major contribution of this paper is the development of a distributed Koopman operator learning algorithm. Most Koopman operator learning algorithms operate under the assumption of full-state measurements. Frequently, in engineered and natural systems represented by data, full-state measurements are not available, or are too expensive to collect. For example, power distribution networks consisting of hundreds of thousands of nodes exhibit real-time dynamics on systems that are poorly modeled, calibrated, or dated. Biological networks operate on thousands of genes to generate transcriptomic reponse profiles as a function of time; full-state measurement via deep sequencing is prohibitively expensive. In many instances, it is much more feasible to collect measurements from select locations, via strategic placement of observers [@hasnain2019optimal], which gives rise to a different form of data — time-series data that is spatially distributed or fragmented across the whole network. We address the challenge of training distributed representations of Koopman operators and develop a [*distributed*]{} Koopman learning algorithm, proving asymptotic convergence, and illustrating predictive accuracy and convergence on several simulated examples. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the Koopman operator learning problem. Section III describes our alternating optimization algorithm for Koopman learning and proves the convergence. Section IV extends our algorithm to a distributed version and shows its convergence. Section V shows the performance of two algorithms validated by two nonlinear systems. Section VI concludes this paper. Koopman operator Learning Problem {#sect:koopman} ================================= In this paper, we consider a discrete time open-loop nonlinear dynamic system of the following form $$\begin{aligned} x_{n+1} &= f(x_{n}), \label{equ:1}\\ y_n &= h(x_n), \end{aligned}$$ where $f: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{d} $ and $h: \mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{p}$ are continuously differentiable. The function $f$ is the state-space model and the function $h$ maps current state $x_n \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$ to a vector of observables or output $y_n \in \mathbb{R}^{p}$. The Koopman operator $\mathcal{K}$ of system , if it exists, is a linear operator that acts on observable functions $\psi(x_k)$ and forward propagates them in time. To be more specific, the Koopman operator for this system must satisfy the equation $$\begin{aligned} \psi(x_{n+1}) &= \mathcal{K}(\psi(x_n)), \\ y_n &= \mathcal{H}(\psi(x_n)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi(x_n) = [\psi_1(x_n),\cdots,\psi_m(x_n)]^{\top}: \mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m} (m \leq \infty)$ is a basis function that defines the lifted space of observables and $\mathcal{K} \in \mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ is a constant matrix. Based on the Koopman operator theory, $\psi$ is the basis function of observables under which $\psi(x_n)$ is $\mathcal{K}$-invariant for all $n$. This implies that the Koopman operator comprehensively interprets the flow of the observable trajectory $(x_1,x_2,\cdots)$. Based on the data-driven method [@yeung2019learning] [@williams2015data], a general model for approximating Koopman operator given the data trajectory $(x_i,x_{i+1}), i \in \{1,\cdots,N\}$ can be formulated as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:lm} \min_{\psi,\mathcal{K}}~ \mathcal{D}(\psi,\mathcal{K}):=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\psi(x_{i+1}) - \mathcal{K}\psi(x_i)\|_2^2. \end{aligned}$$ The above model aims to minimize the empirical loss from the learning perspective. One can slightly change the objective function by adding certain regularized term, e.g., $\|\mathcal{K}\|_1$ for sparse operator or $\|\mathcal{K}\|_2$ for avoiding large training lose, to make the tradeoff between the training and generalization error. While there has been a surge of interest in using neural networks to perform Koopman learning, little is known regarding the convergence and numerical stability of the training process. This motivates us to investigate the property of Koopman learning during its training phase. There are two challenges in solving for the optimization problem in practice. First, the basis function $\psi$ is unknown. This makes it difficult to ascertain what functions and how many functions to include, let alone the minimal number of functions, to ensure $\mathcal{K}$-invariant. Recently, EDMD [@williams2015data] uses an expansive set of orthonomal polynomial basis functions, but this approach does not scale well and suffers from overfitting with an increasing number of basis functions. Deep-DMD [@yeung2019learning] adopts the neutral networks to approximate the basis function based on universal approximation theorem, but it lacks the theoretical guarantee, e.g., the stability and convergence. Second, the objective function is nonconvex. Therefore it is unrealistic to expect an algorithm to converge to global minima. Here we focus on the basis function based on parametric method, specifically, $\psi(x_n)= \psi(\mathcal{W}, x_n)$. A typical example is a fully connected one-layer neutral network since for wide shallow neutral network, local optima provide satisfactory under some mild conditions [@soltanolkotabi2018theoretical; @boob2017theoretical; @choromanska2015loss], where $\mathcal{W}$ is the layer parameter and activation function. With the parametric basis method, problem becomes $$\begin{aligned} \min_{\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K}}~ \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K}):=\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\psi(\mathcal{W},x_{i+1}) - \mathcal{K}\psi(\mathcal{W},x_i)\|_2^2. \end{aligned}$$ Although this problem is nonconvex, there are some interesting structures. For example, if we fix the parameter $\mathcal{W}$ of the basis function, optimizing $\mathcal{K}$ is a quadratic problem that finds the linear mapping $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ to $\mathbb{R}^{m}$. On the other hand, with fixed $\mathcal{K}$, optimizing $\mathcal{W}$ is to adjust the parameter $\mathcal{W}$ to find the function space that satisfies the linear transformation mapping (this is still nonconvex but will reduce the complexity a lot). We thus consider the algorithm that alternatively optimize over $\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{K}$. Alternating Optimization Algorithm {#sect:alternating} ================================== In this section, we first states our alternating algorithm and then investigate its convergence properties. Let $\mathcal{F}_{t} = \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})$ and denote by $\|\cdot\|_{F}$ the Frobenius norm. The detail of the algorithm is shown in Algorithm \[algo:0\]. Here $\mathcal{E}$ measures how far the gradient is from that at the critical point and $\mathcal{K}^{*},\mathcal{W}^{*}$ track the best parameters so far. We make the following assumptions. **Initialization:** randomly initialize $\mathcal{W}^{0}$ and $\mathcal{K}^{0}$, $\mathcal{E}^{0} = \|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}}\mathcal{F}_{0}\|_{F} +\|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}}\mathcal{F}_{0}\|_{F} $,$\mathcal{W}^{*} = \mathcal{W}^{0}$,$\mathcal{K^{*}} = \mathcal{K}^{0}$.\ \[Assumption:1\] The function $\psi(\cdot)$ is bounded and has a bounded gradient and Hessian. \[Assumptipon:2\] The parameters $\mathcal{K}$ and $\mathcal{W}$ are bounded, e.g., there exist two constant $U_{\mathcal{K}}$ and $U_{\mathcal{W}}$ such that $\|\mathcal{K}\|_{F} \leq U_{\mathcal{K}}$ and $\|\mathcal{W}\|_{F} \leq U_{\mathcal{W}}$. Assumption \[Assumption:1\] looks strong. However, it holds for several popular activation functions such as logistic function ($\frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}$), hyperbolic tangent ($\tanh(x)$), and inverse hyperbolic tangent ($\arctan(x))$. By Assumptions \[Assumption:1\] and \[Assumptipon:2\], one can verify that the objective function $\mathcal{F}$ is bounded, i.e., there exists a constant $R$ such that $\mathcal{F} \leq R$. We can show that $\mathcal{F}$ has Lipschitz-continuous gradient with respect to the parameter $\mathcal{W}$ of basis functions. \[lemma:1\] Under Assumptions \[Assumption:1\] and \[Assumptipon:2\] and given the data trajectory $\{(x_i,x_{i+1})\}_{i=1}^{N}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^1,\mathcal{K}) - \nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^2,\mathcal{K}) \|_{F} \leq L_{\mathcal{W}}\|\mathcal{W}^{1} - \mathcal{W}^2\|_{F} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} L_{\mathcal{W}} = \sqrt{2d}U_{\mathcal{K}} L_{\Psi} \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|x_i\|_2 \Delta_i}{N}, \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_i = \sqrt{(1+dU_\mathcal{K}^2)\|x_i\|^2_2 + \|x_{i+1}\|_2^2}$ and $L_{\Psi}$ is the Lipschitz constant for the function $\Psi(x_1,x_2):= \psi(x_1)\psi'(x_2)$. First, denote by $\mathcal{K}[:,i]$ the $i$-th column of matrix $\mathcal{K}$, $\mathcal{W}_j$ the $j$-th row of matrix $\mathcal{W}$, and $x_i[k]$ the $k$-th dimension of $x_i$. We can compute the element $[j,k]$ of $\nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K})$ as: $$\begin{aligned} &\nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K})[j,k] \\ =& \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} -(\psi(\mathcal{W}x_{i+1})-\mathcal{K} \psi(\mathcal{W}x_i))^T\mathcal{K}[:,j]\psi'(\mathcal{W}x_i)x_i[k], \end{aligned}$$ and $\nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K})$ as: $$\begin{aligned} &\nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K}) \\ =& -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathcal{K}^T \underbrace{(\psi(\mathcal{W}x_{i+1}) - \mathcal{K} \psi(\mathcal{W}x_i)) \odot \psi'(\mathcal{W}x_i)}_{\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}}}x_i^T\\ =& -\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\mathcal{K}^T \alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}} x_i^T, \end{aligned}$$ where $\odot$ denotes the element-wise production. We can then write the gradient difference with respect to $\mathcal{W}^1$ and $\mathcal{W}^2$ as $$\begin{aligned} &\| \nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^1, \mathcal{K}) - \nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^2, \mathcal{K}) \|_F\\ =& \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\mathcal{K}^T(\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^1}-\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^2})x_i^T\|_F\\ \leq & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \|\mathcal{K}\|_F\|(\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^1}-\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^2})x_i^T\|_F \\ \leq & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \|\mathcal{K}\|_F\|\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^1}-\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^2} \|_2 \|x_i\|_2. \end{aligned}$$ So if we can show that $\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}}$ is Lipschitz-continuous, the proof is done. We have $$\begin{aligned} &\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^1}[j] - \alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^2}[j] \\ =& \underbrace{\left(\psi(\mathcal{W}_j^1x_{i+1})\psi'(\mathcal{W}_j^1x_i)-\psi(\mathcal{W}_j^2x_{i+1})\psi'(\mathcal{W}_j^2x_i)\right)}_{\beta_j^i} \\ & ~~- \Big(\underbrace{\mathcal{K}_j \psi(\mathcal{W}^1x_i)\psi'(\mathcal{W}_j^1x_i)-\mathcal{K}_j \psi(\mathcal{W}^2x_i)\psi'(\mathcal{W}_j^2x_i)}_{\gamma_j^i}\Big). \end{aligned}$$ Consider function $\Psi(x_1,x_2) = \psi(x_1)\psi'(x_2)$ in $x_1,x_2\in \mathbb{R}$ and its gradient $\nabla \Psi(x_1,x_2) = \left[\begin{matrix} \psi'(x_1)\psi'(x_2)\\ \psi(x_1)\psi''(x_2) \end{matrix} \right].$ By Assumption \[Assumption:1\], $\| \nabla \Psi(\cdot) \|_2$ is bounded by some constant, denoted by $L_{\Psi}$. Let $\beta^i = [\beta_1^i, \cdots, \beta_n^i]^T$, we can bound $\beta^i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \|\beta^i\|_2^2 &=\! \|\psi(\mathcal{W}^1x_{i+1}) \odot \psi'(\mathcal{W}^1x_i) \!-\! \psi(\mathcal{W}^2y_i) \odot \psi'(\mathcal{W}^2x_i) \|_2^2 \\ & \leq 2L_{\Psi}^2\Big(\|\mathcal{W}^1x_{i+1} - \mathcal{W}^2x_{i+1}\|_2^2 + \|\mathcal{W}^1x_i - \mathcal{W}^2x_i\|_2^2 \Big) \\ & \leq 2L_{\Psi}^2 (\|x_i\|_2^2 + \|x_{i+1}\|_2^2)\|\mathcal{W}^1-\mathcal{W}^2\|_F^2, \end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is due to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Similarly, we can bound $\gamma^i$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned} \|\gamma^i \|_2^2 &\!\!\leq \sum_{j=1}^{n} \|\mathcal{K}_j \|_2^2 L_{\Psi}^2\! \Big(\!\sum_{k=1}^{d}(\mathcal{W}_k^1x_i\!-\!\mathcal{W}_k^2x_i)^2 \!+\! (\mathcal{W}_j^1x_i\!-\!\mathcal{W}_j^2x_i)^2\!\Big)\\ & \!\!\leq \sum_{j=1}^{d} \|\mathcal{K}_j \|_2^2 L_{\Psi}^2 \Big(\|\mathcal{W}^1x_i-\mathcal{W}^2x_i\|_2^2 \!+\! d(\mathcal{W}_j^1x_i\!-\!\mathcal{W}_j^2x_i)^2\!\Big) \\ & \!\!\leq (dU_{\mathcal{K}}^2 + d^2\|\mathcal{K}_j^{\max}\|_2^2) L_{\Psi}^2\|\mathcal{W}^1x_i-\mathcal{W}^2x_i\|_2^2\\ & \!\! \leq (dU_{\mathcal{K}}^2 + d^2\|\mathcal{K}_j^{\max}\|_2^2) L_{\Psi}^2 \|x_i\|_2^2 \|\mathcal{W}^1-\mathcal{W}^2\|_F^2 \\ & \!\! \leq 2dU_{\mathcal{K}}^2 L_{\Psi}^2 \|x_i\|_2^2 \|\mathcal{W}^1-\mathcal{W}^2\|_F^2, \\ \end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality is by Assumption \[Assumptipon:2\]. Combining the above results, we have $$\begin{aligned} &\| \nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^1, \mathcal{K}) - \nabla_\mathcal{W} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^2, \mathcal{K}) \|_F\\ \leq & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|\mathcal{K}\|_F\|\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^1}-\alpha_i^{\mathcal{W}^2} \|_2 \|x_i\|_2\\ \leq & \sqrt{2d}\|\mathcal{K}\|_FL_{\Psi} \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\|x_i\|_2 \Delta_i}{N}\|\mathcal{W}^1-\mathcal{W}^2\|_F, \\ \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_i = \sqrt{(1+dU_{\mathcal{K}}^{2})\|x_i\|^2_2 + \|x_{i+1}\|_2^2}$. Similarly, $\mathcal{F}$ has Lipschitz-continuous gradient with respect to the parameter $\mathcal{K}$ of the linear mapping. \[lemma:2\] Under Assumption \[Assumption:1\] and assume that the basis function is bounded by $h$, we have $$\|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{K}^1) - \nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{K}^2) \|_F \leq L_{\mathcal{K}} \|\mathcal{K}^1 - \mathcal{K}^2 \|_F$$ with $L_{\mathcal{K}}=dh^2$. The gradient $$\begin{aligned} \nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N}(\mathcal{K} \psi(\mathcal{W}x_i) - \psi(\mathcal{W}x_{i+1}))\psi(\mathcal{W}x_i)^T, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} &~~~~\|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{K}^1) - \nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}, \mathcal{K}^2) \|_F \\ &= \frac{1}{N}\|\sum_{i=1}^{N} (\mathcal{K}^1 - \mathcal{K}^2) \psi(\mathcal{W}x_i)\psi(\mathcal{W}x_i)^T\|_F \\ &\leq \frac{1}{N} \|\mathcal{K}^1 - \mathcal{K}^2\|_F \|\sum_{i=1}^{N}\psi(\mathcal{W}x_i)\psi(\mathcal{W}x_i)^T\|_F\\ &\leq \frac{1}{N}\|\mathcal{K}^1 - \mathcal{K}^2\|_F \sqrt{d^2(Nh^2)^2}\\ &= dh^2\|\mathcal{K}^1 - \mathcal{K}^2\|_F. \end{aligned}$$ With Lemmas \[lemma:1\] and \[lemma:2\], we now show that Algorithm \[algo:0\] will converge to a critical point with convergence rate $O(\frac{1}{T})$ or $O(\frac{1}{\log T})$. \[theorem:1\] Under Assumptions \[Assumption:1\] and \[Assumptipon:2\], Algorithm \[algo:0\] for Koopman operator learning will converge to a critical point. With constant learning rate $\eta \leq \min(\frac{2}{L_{\mathcal{W}}},\frac{2}{L_{\mathcal{W}}})$, its convergence rate is $O(\frac{1}{T})$; and with diminishing learning rate $\eta_t = \frac{1}{t+1}$, its convergence rate is $O(\frac{1}{\log T})$. Since the objective function is Lipschitz gradient continuous with respect to $\mathcal{K}$, the descent lemma [@nesterov2013introductory] can be applied and we have $$\begin{aligned} &\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1}) \nonumber \\ \leq& \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})+ \operatorname{\textbf{tr}}(\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})^{T}(\mathcal{K}^{t+1} - \mathcal{K}^{t}))\nonumber \\ &~~~~+ \frac{L_{\mathcal{K}}}{2}\|\mathcal{K}^{t+1} \!\!-\! \mathcal{K}^{t}\|_{F}^{2}\nonumber\\ =& \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t}) -\eta_{\mathcal{K}}\operatorname{\textbf{tr}}(\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})^{T}\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})) \nonumber\\ &~~~~+ \frac{L_{\mathcal{K}}}{2}\|\mathcal{K}^{t+1} \!\!-\! \mathcal{K}^{t}\|_F^{2}\nonumber\\ =& \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t}) + \left(\frac{\eta_{\mathcal{K}}^{2}L_{\mathcal{K}}}{2}-\eta_{\mathcal{K}}\right)\|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2}, \label{equ:5} \end{aligned}$$ where $\operatorname{\textbf{tr}}$ denotes the trace of the matrix. The first equality is due to the gradient update of $\mathcal{K}^{t}$ and the second equality is by the fact that $\operatorname{\textbf{tr}}(A^TA) = \|A\|_{F}^{2}$. As for the basis function’s parameter $\mathcal{W}$, we can have the similar result since the objective function is Lipschitz gradient continuous with respect to $\mathcal{W}$. $$\begin{aligned} &\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t+1},\mathcal{K}^{t+1}) \nonumber\\ \leq & \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1}\!) \!+\! \left(\!\frac{\eta_{\mathcal{W}}^{2}L_{\mathcal{W}}}{2}\!-\!\eta_{\mathcal{W}}\!\!\right)\|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t}\!,\!\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2}.\label{equ:6} \end{aligned}$$ So by the equation and , we have the following for each complete update from $(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^t) \rightarrow (\mathcal{W}^{t+1},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})$. $$\begin{aligned} &\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t+1},\mathcal{K}^{t+1}) \nonumber\\ \leq & \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t}) + \left(\frac{\eta_{\mathcal{K}}^{2}L_{\mathcal{K}}}{2}-\eta_{\mathcal{K}}\right)\|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2} \nonumber\\ &~~~+ \left(\frac{\eta_{\mathcal{W}}^{2}L_{\mathcal{W}}}{2}-\eta_{\mathcal{W}}\right)\|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2}. \label{equ:7} \end{aligned}$$ We sum both sides of inequality from $t = 1,\cdots, T$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned} &\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{T+1},\mathcal{K}^{T+1}) \nonumber\\ \leq & \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{0},\mathcal{K}^{0}) + \sum_{t=0}^{T} \left(\frac{\eta_{\mathcal{K}}^{2}L_{\mathcal{K}}}{2}-\eta_{\mathcal{K}}\right)\|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2} \nonumber\\ &~~~+ \sum_{t=0}^{T}\left(\frac{\eta_{\mathcal{W}}^{2}L_{\mathcal{W}}}{2}-\eta_{\mathcal{W}}\right)\|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2} \end{aligned}$$ **(1) Constant learning rate** If we choose the constant stepsize, e.g., $\eta_{\mathcal{W}} = \eta_{\mathcal{K}} = \eta$, $ 0 < \eta < \min(\frac{2}{L_{\mathcal{W}}}, \frac{2}{L_\mathcal{K}})$ and let $L = \max(\eta_{\mathcal{W}},\eta_{\mathcal{K}})$, $S = \eta - \frac{L\eta^2}{2}$, and we can bound the gradients as follows. $$\begin{aligned} &\sum_{t=0}^{T}\|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2} + \|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2} \nonumber\\ \leq & \frac{(\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{0},\mathcal{K}^{0}) - \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{T+1},\mathcal{K}^{T+1}))}{S}. \label{equ:9} \end{aligned}$$ One can see that, each term on the right is non-negative and their summation is bounded by some constant. Based on current analysis, we can conclude that the alternating optimization algorithm will converge asymptotically to one critical point even **without** optimal tracker $\mathcal{K}^*$ and $\mathcal{W}^*$ when $T \rightarrow \infty.$ Based on inequality , one can bound the minimum gradients up to $T$ for Algorithm \[algo:0\]. $$\begin{aligned} &\min_{t= 0,\cdots, T} \|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2} + \|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2} \nonumber\\ \leq& \frac{(\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{0},\mathcal{K}^{0}) - \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{T+1},\mathcal{K}^{T+1}))}{ST} \leq\frac{2R}{ST}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ **(2) Diminishing learning rate** If we choose the diminishing learning rate, e.g, $\eta^{t} = \frac{1}{t+1}$, the result becomes $$\begin{aligned} &\min_{t= 0,\cdots, T} \|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2} + \|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2} \nonumber\\ \leq& \frac{(\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{0},\mathcal{K}^{0}) - \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{T+1},\mathcal{K}^{T+1}))}{\sum_{t=0}^{T}\left( \eta^t - \frac{L(\eta^t)^2}{2} \right)} \nonumber . \end{aligned}$$ We know $$\begin{aligned} &\sum_{t=0}^{T}\left( \eta^t - \frac{L(\eta^t)^2}{2} \right) = \sum_{t=0}^{T} \left( \frac{1}{t+1} - \frac{L}{2(t+1)^2} \right) \nonumber\\ \geq & \ln(T+2) \!-\! \frac{L}{2} \!-\! \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{L}{2t(t+1)} = \ln( T\!+\!2) \!-\! L + \frac{L}{2(T+1)}. \end{aligned}$$ So for diminishing stepsize, we can obtain $$\begin{aligned} &\min_{t= 0,\cdots, T} \|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t})\|_F^{2} + \|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{t},\mathcal{K}^{t+1})\|_F^{2} \nonumber\\ \leq & \frac{2R}{O(\ln T)} \nonumber. \end{aligned}$$ So we can see for this problem, the constant stepsize has the better convergence rate than the diminishing stepsize with the help of optimal tracker. Both cases show that $$\begin{aligned} \|\nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{*},\mathcal{K}^{*})\|_F^{2} + \|\nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^{*},\mathcal{K}^{*})\|_F^{2} \rightarrow 0. \end{aligned}$$ Distributed Koopman Learning {#sect:distributed} ============================ We now develop an algorithm to treat the learning problem for Koopman operators of high dimensional nonlinear dynamical systems. Even if there are only a thousand states in the underlying nonlinear system, the dimension of the dictionary functions explodes exponentially with the number of states. Memory constraints thus make it infeasible to train a Koopman operator using a centralized or stand-alone computing node. This motivates the derivation of a scalable, distributed approximation algorithm to relieve this problem. \[Assup:3\] The basis function $\psi(x)$ can be decomposed or approximated by $[\psi_1(x^1),\cdots, \psi_q(x_q)]^{\top},$ where $\psi_i: \mathbb{R}^{d_i} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m_i}$ is the new basis function for $x^i$ and $x_i$ is a subset of $x$ with $x = [x^1,\cdots,x^q]^{\top}$. Based on Assumption \[Assup:3\], we can reformulate the centralized Koopman objective function as $$\begin{aligned} &\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K}) \nonumber\\ =& \frac{1}{2N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left\|\begin{bmatrix} \psi_1(x_{i+1}^1;\mathcal{W}_1) \\ \vdots\\ \psi_q(x_{i+1}^q;\mathcal{W}_q) \end{bmatrix} \!\!-\!\! \begin{bmatrix} \mathcal{K}_{11} \cdots \mathcal{K}_{1q} \\ \vdots ~~\ddots ~~\vdots \\ \mathcal{K}_{q1} \cdots \mathcal{K}_{qq} \end{bmatrix}\!\! \begin{bmatrix} \psi_1(x_i^{1};\mathcal{W}_1) \\ \vdots\\ \psi_q(x_i^q;\mathcal{W}_q) \end{bmatrix}\right\|_{F}^2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Our distributed Koopman learning’s structure is as follows. Denote by $\mathcal{Q} = [1,\cdots,q]$ the set of computation nodes which can communicate with each other. For each computation node $i \in \mathcal{Q}$, it only store part of the data set $\{(x^i_j,x^i_{j+1})|j = 1,\cdots N\}$, its corresponding row and column of Koopman operator $\{\mathcal{K}_{ij},\mathcal{K}_{ji}|j \in \mathcal{Q}\}$ and its basis function $\psi_i$. For node $i$, its gradient will compose two parts. The first part can be calculated based on its own knowledge. Another part needs the information from other nodes. We first define by $e^i \in \mathbb{R}^{m_i}$ the error term for node $i$ with data point $(x_j^{i},x_{j+1}^{i})$, where $$\begin{aligned} e_j^{i} = \psi_i(x_{j+1}^{i};\mathcal{W}_i) - \begin{bmatrix} \mathcal{K}_{i1},\cdots, \mathcal{K}_{iq} \end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} \psi_1(x_j^{1};\mathcal{W}_1)\\ \vdots\\ \psi_q(x_j^{q};W_q) \end{bmatrix}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and define by $J(\psi_i(;\mathcal{W}_i)) \in \mathbb{R}^{m_i\times d_i}$ the Jacobi matrix of function $\psi_i$, we then have the following distributed Koopman learning algorithm shown in Algorithm \[algo:1\]. **Initialization:**\ \ For our distributed Koopman operator learning Algorithm $\ref{algo:1}$, line 6-8 is the communication stage, each computation node $i$ calculates its result in the lifted dimensional space and broadcast within our communication network. After the communication, the information is enough to compute local error term $e_{j}^{i}$, and node $i$ send $S_{iv}^{'}$ to node $v$ (line 8). Here the communication stage ends and computation stage (line 9-11) begins. $A_i,B_i,C_i$ will sum up all the information for each data point. The last is update stage with gradient descent method (line 14-15). Based on this distributed algorithm and Assumption \[Assup:3\], we can prove this is equivalent to the centralized gradient descent algorithm. \[theorem:2\] Under Assumption \[Assup:3\], the distributed Koopman learning in Algorithm \[algo:1\] is equivalent to the following update: $$\begin{aligned} \label{equ:11} \mathcal{K}^{t+1} &= \mathcal{K}^{t} - \eta_{\mathcal{K}} \nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^t, \mathcal{K}^t), \\ \mathcal{W}^{t+1} &= \mathcal{W}^{t} - \eta_{\mathcal{W}} \nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^t, \mathcal{K}^{k}). \end{aligned}$$ Based on line 9-11 in Algorithm \[algo:1\], one can verify the following after updating all the data points $$\begin{aligned} A_i &= \sum_{j=1}^{N} J(\psi_i(x_{j+1}^{i};\mathcal{W}_i))^{\top}e_j^{i},\\ B_i &= -\sum_{j}^{N}J(\psi_i(x_i;\mathcal{W}_i))^{\top}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{Q}}\mathcal{K}_{iv}^Te_j^i,\\ C_i & = \sum_{j}^{N}e_j^i \operatorname{\textbf{vec}}[S_j^1,\cdots,S_j^q]. \end{aligned}$$ Compared to gradients of $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W},\mathcal{K})$, we can find that $$\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{N}(A_i + B_i) &= \nabla_{\mathcal{W}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^t, \mathcal{K}^{k}),\\ \frac{1}{N}C_i & = \nabla_{\mathcal{K}} \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{W}^t, \mathcal{K}^t).\end{aligned}$$ So the update stage (line 14-15) is the same with equation which finishes the proof. Our alternating Koopman operator learning (Algorithm \[algo:0\]) can be regarded as nonlinear Gauss-Seidel iterations [@vrahatis2003linear], while our distributed Koopman operator learning lies in the model of nonlinear Jacobi iteration [@vrahatis2003linear]. Here we choose nonlinear Jacobi iteration for distributed Koopman operator learning due to that nonlinear Jacobi iteration is **(1)** suitable for parallel computation and **(2)** with less communication overhead. By lemma \[theorem:2\], we can get the convergence result for our distributed Koopman operator learning. Under Assumption \[Assumption:1\], \[Assumptipon:2\] and \[Assup:3\], the distributed Koopman operator learning based on Algorithm \[algo:1\] will converge to one critical point asymptotically. The equation is the case without optimal tracker of Algorithm \[algo:0\]. The proof of theorem \[theorem:1\] can be applied directly here (equation ). The advantages of distributed Koopman learning over centralized one are not only the scalability, e.g., the ability to handle the high dimensional nonlinear dynamics, but also the feasibility to adjust to different complexity of the partial observations. For example, if one partial observation $(x_j^i,x_{j+1}^i)$ is with complexity dynamic, we can increase the number of basis function. On the other hand, algorithm \[algo:1\] for distributed Koopman learning is under the ideal synchronous model. Although the computation of each node $i$ is parallel, the computation will not start until the broadcast process finishes. This can harm heavily on the efficiency of the distributed Koopman learning due to some reason, e.g., if one node has a very low link speed, all the other need wait for this node. Also, one packet loss will lead to all nodes waiting for the resending. However, it is easily to extend Algorithm \[algo:1\] to handle asynchronous model as displayed in Algorithm \[algo:2\]. Each node will store the received information $(S_j^{i}, S_{iv}^{'})$ in its memory keeping updating when new information comes. once the computation node comes to computation stage, it will directly use the information stored in the memory instead of waiting for the newest information. lines 1-7 of Algorithm \[algo:1\].\ node $i$ calculates $e_j^i$ based on the current $S_l$ in the memory, sends $S_{iv}^{'} = \mathcal{K}_{iv}^Te_j^i$ to node $v$, $\forall i,v,l \in \mathcal{Q}$.\ $A_i \leftarrow A_i + J(\psi_i(y_j^{i};\mathcal{W}_i)^{\top}e_i, \forall i \in \mathcal{Q}$\ $B_i \leftarrow B_i - J(h_i(x_i);W_i)^{\top}\sum_{k \in \mathcal{Q}}S_{ki}^{'}$ based on the current $S_{ki}$ in the memory, $\forall i \in \mathcal{Q}$.\ $C_i \leftarrow C_i + e_j^i \operatorname{\textbf{vec}}[S_1,\cdots,S_q]$ based on the current $S_l$ in the memory, $\forall l \in \mathcal{Q}$.\ lines 13-16 of Algorithm \[algo:1\]. For the asynchronous version of gradient descent algorithm, [@low1999optimization] (Theorem 2), [@bertsekas1989parallel] (Proposition 2.1), [@liu2017proportional] (Theorem 7) e.t.c. show that synchronous and asynchronous algorithm will converge to the same point once the communication delay is bounded. Their proof can be applied to our case with slight change. [([@low1999optimization],[@bertsekas1989parallel],[@liu2017proportional])]{} If the communication delay is bounded by some constant, with small enough stepsize, asynchronous algorithm \[algo:2\] will asymptotically converge to the same point with synchronous one. Experiments {#sect:experiment} =========== In our experiment, we evaluate the performance of our alternating optimization and distributed algorithms respectively. At each experiment, we sample some points from the real trajectory to prepare the training set and prediction set. Note that our prediction phase is multi-step prediction, e.g, given one initial state, our algorithm will predict the following trajectory using the $\mathcal{K}$-invariant property: $\psi(x_n) = \mathcal{K}^n \psi(x_0).$ To evaluate the performance of alternating optimization, we consider Van der Pol oscillator shown in Example \[exam:1\]. [Van der Pol oscillator]{} \[exam:1\] $$\begin{aligned} \dot{x}_{1} &= \mu \left( x_1 - \frac{1}{3}x_1^3 - x_2\right) \\ \dot{x_2} &= \frac{1}{\mu}x_1\end{aligned}$$ In this example, we choose $\mu = 0.5$. The number of date points we sampled is 600 with 400 points for training and 200 for prediction. We construct a very simple network with one layer and 3 dimensions to learn the pattern of Van der Pol oscillator. The total training time is around 1.08s (i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20 GHz, 8 GB RAM) with 500 iterations and constant stepsize is 0.23. Fig. \[fig:1\] shows the multi-step prediction result with alternating optimization method. One step prediction error is around $0.16\%$ and 200 step prediction error is around $1.89\%$. [Glycolytic pathway]{} \[exam:2\] $$\begin{aligned} \dot{x_1} &= J - \frac{k_1 x_1 x_6}{1+\left(\frac{x_6}{k_1}\right)^{q}} \\ \dot{x_2} &= \frac{2k_1 x_1 x_6}{1+\left(\frac{x_6}{k_1}\right)^{q}} - k_2x_2(n-x_5) - k_6 x_2 x_5 \\ \dot{x_3} &= k_2 x_2(n-x_5) - k_3 x_3(a-x_6)\\ \dot{x_4} &= k_3 x_3(a-x_6) - k_4 x_4 x_5 - \kappa(x_4 - x_7)\\ \dot{x_5} &= k_2 x_2(n-x_5) - k_4 x_4 x_5 - k_6 x_2 x_5\\ \dot{x_6} &= -\frac{2k_1 x_1 x_6}{1+\left(\frac{x_6}{k_1}\right)^{q}} + 2k_3 x_3(a-x_6) - k_5 x_6\\ \dot{x_7} &= \phi \kappa (x_4 - x_7) - k x_7\end{aligned}$$ {width="60.00000%"} Our distributed Koopman operator learning is implemented on a larger nonlinear dynamical system displayed in Example \[exam:2\], namely the glycolysis network from cellular biology [@daniels2015efficient]. We adopt the parameter setting: $J = 2.5, a= 4, n = 1, k_1 = 0.52, \kappa = 13, \phi = 0.1, q =4, k = 1.8, k_1 = 100, k_2 = 6, k_3 = 16, k_4 = 100, k_5 = 1.28, k_6 = 12$ from [@daniels2015efficient]. 1000 data points are sampled from the real trajectory with 900 points for training and 100 points for prediction. We create 7 threads to simulate the distributed learning and each thread only learn the dynamic pattern of one state by a simple 3-layer neutral network with 15 dimensions. The total training time is 78.4s with 6000 iterations. Results for each state is shown in Fig. \[fig:2\]. One step error is around 0.34% and 100 step prediction error is around 7.6%. As we can see from the experiments, our alternating optimization and distributed algorithms both achieve good performance with multi-step prediction. Even though partial state measurements are provided for training, the trained distributed Koopman operator is able to predict the behavior of the glycolysis network over 100 steps. Further, these results provide a glimmer of hope for whole cell network modeling, using strategically placed reporter libraries that provide partial measurements of an entire transcriptome [@hasnain2019optimal; @ward2009]. Conclusion {#sect:conclusion} ========== In this paper, we have proposed an alternating optimization algorithm to the nonconvex Koopman operator learning problem for nonlinear dynamic systems. We prove that the proposed algorithm will converge to a critical point with rate $O(1/T)$ or $O(\frac{1}{\log T})$ under some mild assumptions. To handle the high dimensional nonlinear dynamical systems, we have further proposed a distributed Koopman operator learning algorithm with appropriate communication mechanism. We show that the distributed Koopman operator learning is of the same convergence property with centralized one if the basis functions are decomposable. Experiments are provided to complement our theoretical results. Acknowledgments =============== We thank Igor Mezic, Nathan Kutz, Robert Egbert, Bassam Bamieh, Sai Nandanoori Pushpak, Sean Warnick, Jongmin Kim, Umesh Vaidya, and Erik Bollt for stimulating conversations. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. This work was supported partially by a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Grant No. DEAC0576RL01830 and an Institute of Collaborative Biotechnologies Grant. [^1]: Z. Liu, L. Chen and G. Ding are with the College of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA (emails: {zhiyuan.liu, lijun.chen, duohui.ding}@colorado.edu). [^2]: E. Yeung is with the Department of Mechanical Engineering, the Center for Control, Dynamical Systems, and the Center for Biological Engineering at the University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA (email: [email protected]).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'The periodic Lorentz gas with external field and iso-kinetic thermostat is equivalent, by conformal transformation, to a billiard with expanding phase-space and slightly distorted scatterers, for which the trajectories are straight lines. A further time rescaling allows to keep the speed constant in that new geometry. In the hyperbolic regime, the stationary state of this billiard is characterized by a phase-space contraction rate, equal to that of the iso-kinetic Lorentz gas. In contrast to the iso-kinetic Lorentz gas where phase-space contraction occurs in the bulk, the phase-space contraction rate here takes place at the periodic boundaries.' address: - 'Deptartamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 487-3, Santiago Chile' - 'Center for Nonlinear Phenomena and Complex Systems, Université Libre de Bruxelles, CP 231, Campus Plaine, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium' author: - Felipe Barra - Thomas Gilbert --- Over the last twenty years, the study of time-reversible dissipative systems with chaotic dynamics as mechanical models of non-equilibrium stationary processes has played an important role in shaping our understanding of the connections between irreversible macroscopic processes and the reversible dynamics that underly them at the microscopic level, see [@D99 and refs. therein]. Among other large deviation relations, the Fluctuation Theorem [@ECM93; @GC95] is a central result of this approach. Related results have appeared since then [@J97; @C99], which have been put to the test experimentally in small circuits and biological molecules, see [@BLR05 and refs. therein]. The forced periodic Lorentz gas with Gaussian iso-kinetic thermostatting was first proposed by Moran and Hoover [@MH87] as such a time-reversible dissipative chaotic model for conduction, where irreversibility manifests itself in the fractality of phase-space distributions. A rigorous analysis of that system was later provided by Chernov [*et al.*]{} [@CELS93], establishing a relation between the sum of the Lyapunov exponents and the entropy production rate of this system. The thermostat is here a mechanical constraint, chosen according to Gauss’ principle of least constraint, which acts so as to remove the energy input from an external field [@EM90]. Under this constraint, the kinetic energy remains constant and thus fixes the temperature of the system; no interaction with a hypothetical environment is needed in order to achieve thermalization. Rather the Gaussian thermostat causes dissipation in the bulk. Due to the presence of a regular array of circular scatterers on which non-interacting particles collide elastically, this system sustains a chaotic regime, at least so long as the external forcing is not too strong. As shown in [@CELS93], this model has a unique natural invariant measure, with one positive and one negative Lyapunov exponents, whose sum is negative –a signature of the fractality of the invariant measure– and identified as minus the entropy production rate [@R96]. The comparison with the corresponding phenomenological expression provides a relation between the phase-space contraction rate and conductivity. As will be reviewed shortly, the trajectories of the iso-kinetic billiard are integrable from one collision to the next. It was shown by Wojtkowski [@W00] that there exists a conformal transformation on the Complex plane that transforms those curved trajectories into straight lines. Formally, this amounts to introducing a metric, specified according to the conformal transformation, which yields an identification between the Gaussian iso-kinetic trajectories and the geodesics of a torsion free connection, called the Weyl connection, for which the metric is preserved under parallel transport. This is a natural generalization of the symplectic formalism for the Gaussian iso-kinetic motion introduced by Dettmann and Morriss [@DM98]. The corresponding billiard, whose trajectories follow the geodesics of the Weyl connection, and undergo elastic collisions when they reach the boundary, is referred to as the billiard W-flow. For our purpose, it will be sufficient to focus our attention on the conformal transformation itself, leaving aside the formal aspects of this geometric construction, which we will henceforth loosely refer to as Weyl geometry. In what follows, we will present the details of this conformal transformation and study the dynamics of the billiard. Our main observation is that the bulk dissipation of the iso-kinetic Lorentz billiard, which accounts for the positive entropy production rate, disappears under the conformal map, after time reparametrization. The phase-space contraction rate and its identification with the entropy production rate are nevertheless recovered because of the periodic boundary conditions, which, under the conformal map, induce a phase-space contraction rate which, in average, is equal to the bulk dissipation of the iso-kinetic Lorentz billiard. We mention that a billiard with a similar mechanism of contraction of phase-space volumes at the borders was considered in [@BR01]. However the connection to iso-kinetic dynamics was not discussed there. We consider the two-dimensional iso-kinetic periodic Lorentz channel with constant external field of magnitude $\epsilon$. Due to the periodicity of this system, the dynamics can be studied in a unit cell with periodic boundary conditions, as displayed on the left panel of Fig. \[fig.gik\]. This cell is an open rectangular domain, centered at the origin, with one disk at the cell’s center, and four others at its summits $(\pm 1/2, \pm\sqrt{3}/2)$. All the disks have identical radii, which we denote by $\sigma$, chosen so as to satisfy the finite horizon condition, [*i. e.*]{} $\sqrt{3}/4 < \sigma<1/2$. The width of the cell is here taken to be unity, and its height $\sqrt{3}$. Periodic boundary conditions apply at $x=\pm1/2$ and reflection at $y=\pm\sqrt{3}/2$. The direction of the external field is taken towards the positive $x$ direction. Thus particles typically tend to move in that direction, winding around the cell from one boundary to the other. {width=".6\textwidth"} Let $(x_t,y_t)$ denote the coordinates of the particle at time $t$, and let $\theta_t$ denote the velocity angle, measured with respect to the $x$-axis. Assume $p^2 \equiv {\dot x_t}^2 + {\dot y_t}^2 \equiv 1$, which we take as the definition of the temperature. In between collisions the equations of motion are specified by $$\begin{aligned} \dot x_t &=& \cos\theta_t,\label{eqx}\\ \dot y_t &=& \sin \theta_t,\label{eqy}\\ \dot \theta_t &=& - \epsilon \sin \theta_t,\label{eqtheta}\end{aligned}$$ with the solutions $$\begin{aligned} x_t &=& x_0 + \frac{1}{\epsilon}\log\frac{\sin\theta_0}{\sin\theta_t}, \label{x}\\ y_t &=& y_0 + \frac{\theta_0-\theta_t}{\epsilon},\label{y}\\ \theta_t &=& 2\arctan\left[ \tan \frac{\theta_0}{2}\exp(-\epsilon t)\right]. \label{theta}\end{aligned}$$ When the trajectory collides with a disk, $\theta_t$ changes according to the rules of elastic collisions. Let $z = x + \imath y$ and $f(z)= -\epsilon (x+\imath y)$. That is, $f$ is a holomorphic function whose real part is specified by the potential associated to the external field. According to Wojtkowski [@W00], the conformal mapping $$F(z) = \int \exp[-f(z)]dz, \label{confmap}$$ takes the trajectories (\[x\], \[y\]) into straight lines. This is to say $F(t) \equiv F(z_t)$ is a straight line in the complex plane. Furthermore, since the transformation is conformal, the elastic collisions are mapped into elastic collisions. The periodic boundary conditions are modified under this map, as will be discussed shortly. The map (\[confmap\]) takes a point with coordinates $(x,y)$ to the point $(u,v)$ in the complex plane, $$\begin{aligned} x + \imath y \mapsto u + \imath v &=& F(x+\imath y),\nonumber\\ &=& \frac{1}{\epsilon} \{\exp[\epsilon(x + \imath y)] - 1\}. \label{confmapexp}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the term $-1/\epsilon$ was introduced so as to keep the origin fixed under the transformation. We show that trajectories are straight lines in the $(u,v)$ plane and identify their slopes. To that end, we compute the time derivative of $F(z_t)$ with $z_t=x_t+\imath y_t$. From Eqs. (\[eqx\]-\[eqtheta\]), $$\begin{aligned} \frac{d}{dt}F(z_t) &=& \exp[ \epsilon (x_t + \imath y_t)] \frac{d}{dt}(x_t+\imath y_t),\nonumber\\ &=& \exp[\epsilon(x_t+\imath y_t)]\exp(\imath\theta_t), \nonumber\\ &=& \exp(\epsilon x_t)\exp[\imath(\theta_t + \epsilon y_t)].\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\phi_t\equiv \theta_t + \epsilon y_t$ is a conserved quantity, as immediately seen from Eq. (\[y\]). If we further change the time variable $t$ to $s$, such that $$ds = \exp(\epsilon x_t)dt, \label{dsdt}$$ we can write $$\frac{d}{ds} (u_s + \imath v_s) = \exp(\imath \phi_0), \label{line}$$ which is to say $(u_s,v_s)$ is a straight line trajectory of slope $\tan(\phi_0)$, as announced, and constant speed. This result may indeed have been anticipated, since the transformation to the new set of variables coincides with the one for which the iso-kinetic trajectories are transformed into geodesics of the metric $\exp(2\epsilon x)(dx^2+dy^2)$, see [@DM98]. Thus, in terms of the $(u,v,\phi)$ variables, the time-evolution of trajectories between collisions is specified according to : $$\begin{aligned} u_s + \imath v_s &=& u_0 + \imath v_0 + e^{\imath\phi_0} s \label{utvt}\\ \phi_s &=& \phi_0. \label{phit}\end{aligned}$$ The time reparametrization Eq. (\[dsdt\]) introduces a new time scale, which is natural in the new geometry. However it depends on the details of the trajectory. For future reference, we will make a distinction between this [*natural*]{} time $s$ and the [*physical*]{} time $t$. We integrate Eq. (\[dsdt\]) in order to express the natural time variable, $s$, in terms of the physical one, $t$ : $$\begin{aligned} s &=& [(u_0 + 1/\epsilon) \cos\phi_0 + v_0\sin\phi_0][\cosh(\epsilon t) - 1]\nonumber\\ &&+\sqrt{(u_0 + 1/\epsilon)^2 + v_0^2}\sinh(\epsilon t). \label{st}\end{aligned}$$ As opposed to the Gaussian iso-kinetic trajectories, the phase-space volumes are obviously preserved along the trajectories Eqs. (\[utvt\]-\[phit\]). The time variables are however different and, as is clear from Eq. (\[st\]), phase-space volumes are not preserved when the trajectories are parameterized according to the physical time $t$. To make the comparison clearer, we first consider the Gaussian iso-kinetic dynamics, which maps trajectories $(x_0, y_0, \theta_0) \mapsto (x_t, y_t, \theta_t)$ according to Eqs. (\[x\]-\[theta\]). This map contracts phase-space volumes, with a rate given by minus the logarithm of the Jacobian of the application, $$\begin{aligned} \Big|\partial_{(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)}(x_t, y_t, \theta_t)\Big| &=& \partial_{\theta_0} \theta_t, \nonumber\\ &=& (\cosh\epsilon t + \cos\theta_0\sinh\epsilon t)^{-1}, \nonumber\\ &=& \exp[\epsilon(x_0-x_t)], \label{pscik}\end{aligned}$$ [*i. e.*]{} $\epsilon(x_t - x_0)$ is the phase-space contraction rate of the trajectory taking $(x_0,y_0,\theta_0)$ to $(x_t,y_t,\theta_t)$. In the Weyl geometry of the billiard, on the other hand, the phase-space contraction rate of the physical time trajectory $(u_0, v_0, \phi_0) \mapsto (u_t, v_t, \phi_t)$ is minus the logarithm of the Jacobian, $$\begin{aligned} \lefteqn{\Big|\partial_{(u_0,v_0,\phi_0)}(u_t,v_t,\phi_t)\Big| = |\partial_{u_0,v_0}(u_t,v_t)|,}&& \nonumber\\ &=& \cosh\epsilon t + \frac{(u_0 + 1/\epsilon) \cos \phi_0 + v_0 \sin \phi_0}{\sqrt{(u_0 + 1/\epsilon)^2 + v_0^2}} \sinh \epsilon t, \nonumber\\ &=& \frac{\sqrt{(u_t+1/\epsilon)^2+v_t^2}} {\sqrt{(u_0+1/\epsilon)^2+v_0^2}}. \label{pscconf}\end{aligned}$$ This is the inverse of Eq. (\[pscik\]), as easily checked. Therefore, so long as the time scales are the same, the phase-space volume contraction changes sign, going from the dynamics of the iso-kinetic billiard to that of the W-flow. Moreover minus the logarithm of the latter expression yields $\epsilon(u_0 - u_t)$ only to first order in $\epsilon$. The reason for this is connected to the transformation law of $x$, Eq. (\[confmapexp\]) : $x = 1/\epsilon \log\sqrt{(u+1/\epsilon)^2 + v^2}$. As remarked by Dettmann and Morriss [@DM98], the periodic boundary conditions break the Hamiltonian structure of the billiard in the Weyl geometry. Indeed, they do not preserve phase-space volumes as we now show. In order to analyze the billiard trajectories in the Weyl geometry, we must first consider the transformation of the unit cell under the conformal map, Eq. (\[confmapexp\]), as shown on the right panel of Fig. \[fig.gik\]. It is straightforward to check the rectangular cell is mapped to a trapezoidal figure with curved lateral sides, and the disks to slightly distorted, flattened ones. Here are the parametric equations of these elements : $$\begin{aligned} \hspace{-1cm}\mathrm{upper/lower\ sides:} &\ & \Big\{ u + \imath v = \epsilon^{-1}[\exp(\epsilon t \pm \imath\sqrt{3}\epsilon/2) - 1], \: -1/2\leq t\leq 1/2 \Big\},\\ \hspace{-1cm}\mathrm{right/left\ sides:} &\ & \Big\{ u + \imath v = \epsilon^{-1} [\exp(\pm \epsilon/2 + \imath \sqrt{3}\epsilon t) - 1], \: -1/2\leq t\leq 1/2 \Big\},\\ \hspace{-1cm}\mathrm{central\ disk:} &\ & \Big\{ u + \imath v = \epsilon^{-1} \{\exp[\epsilon \sigma \exp (\imath \phi)] - 1\},\: 0\leq\phi\leq2\pi\Big\},\\ \hspace{-1cm}\mathrm{outer\ disks:} &\ & \Big\{ u + \imath v = \epsilon^{-1} \{\exp\big[\epsilon\big(\pm 1/2 \pm \imath \sqrt{3}/2 + \sigma \exp (\imath \phi)\big)\big] - 1\},\\ &&\hspace{7cm} 0\leq\phi\leq2\pi\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the upper and lower borders are oblique lines of slopes $\pm \sqrt{3}\epsilon/2$, while the left and right borders are concentric arc-circles of center $(-1/\epsilon, 0)$ and respective radii $\exp(\pm\epsilon/2)/\epsilon$. Thus, the periodic boundary conditions induce phase-space expansion/contraction as the variables $u$ and $v$ are rescaled by a factor $\exp(\pm\epsilon)$ when the trajectory crosses from left to right or right to left. In order to analyze the ergodic properties of the W-flow, we turn to the definition of the Birkhoff coordinates of the Weyl billiard in the periodic cell, which specify the evolution of trajectories from one collision to the next (including collisions with the boundaries). Three coordinates are necessary here : $\varsigma$, which denotes the arc-length along the boundaries of the unit cell (walls and disks), $\omega$, the modulus of the velocity vector, and $\varpi$, by which we denote the sinus of the angle between the outgoing trajectory and the normal to the obstacles’ boundary, that is the tangent component of the unit vector in the direction of the velocity. As a result, in the stationary state, so long as the regime is hyperbolic, there are three Lyapunov exponents which characterize the chaoticity of the Birkhoff map. We denote them by $\lambda_1 > \lambda_2 > \lambda_3$, where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_3$ are associated to the $(\varsigma, \varpi)$-dynamics, and $\lambda_2$ to the $\omega$-dynamics, corresponding to the direction of the flow, and which is zero as it will turn out. We first consider the dynamics of $\omega$. Here we have to make a distinction between the two time parameterizations. If, on the one hand, we integrate trajectories with respect to the physical time $t$, the modulus of the velocity is typically expanded in the bulk according to Eq. (\[pscconf\]), while it is contracted at the opposite rate by the periodic boundary conditions. That the particle’s velocity must be rescaled by a factor $e^{\pm\epsilon}$ at the periodic boundaries can be seen from the expression of the velocity, given by Eq. (\[dsdt\]), here expressed in terms of the variables $u, v, \phi$, $$\begin{aligned} \omega_t = \frac{d}{dt}s &=& \epsilon \Big\{ [(u_0 + 1/\epsilon) \cos \phi_0 + v_0 \sin \phi_0] \sinh(\epsilon t) \nonumber\\ && \phantom{\epsilon} + \sqrt{(u_0 + 1/\epsilon)^2 + v_0^2} \cosh(\epsilon t)\Big\}. \label{v}\end{aligned}$$ This rescaling yields a contribution to $\lambda_2$ equal to[^1] $- \epsilon J_c$, where $J_c$ is the (signed) average number of boundary crossings per collision, [*i. e.*]{} the average drift velocity per collision, a positive quantity. The other contribution occurs from the bulk, because of the dissipation that takes place along the trajectories, and is given by the logarithm of Eq. (\[pscconf\]). As we noted by comparing it to Eq. (\[pscik\]), this contribution is opposite to the phase-space contraction rate of the iso-kinetic billiard along the image trajectory. The latter quantity is equal to the entropy production rate of the iso-kinetic Lorentz gas, given by the product of the applied force by the resulting drift current [@CELS93], [*i. e.*]{} $\epsilon J_c$. Thus the bulk contribution to $\lambda_2$ is identical but opposite to the contribution due to the boundary conditions. Therefore, $$\lambda_2 = 0. \label{lambda2}$$ If, on the other hand, we integrate the trajectories with respect to the natural time, [*i. e.*]{} with respect to $s$, the dynamics of $\omega$ are trivial. Indeed the velocity is constant in the bulk and remains so under the periodic boundary conditions. This is because the $s$ increments are rescaled at the boundaries identically to the length increments, as can be seen from Eq. (\[v\]). Thus, trivially, we again retrieve $\lambda_2 = 0$. As noticed earlier, Eqs. (\[utvt\]-\[phit\]), the dynamics of $\varsigma$ and $\varpi$ preserves the phase-space volumes in the bulk. This remains so whether the time variable is $s$ or $t$. Since the trajectories follow straight lines, the evolution of these two variables from one collision event to the next is the same, whether the velocity changes in the bulk or remains constant. However, as noted earlier, phase-space volumes are not preserved when the periodic boundary conditions apply. The arc-length coordinate is contracted by a factor $e^{\pm\epsilon}$. We can therefore write minus the sum of the two Lyapunov exponents associated to the dynamics of $\varsigma$ and $\varpi$ as $$-\lambda_1 - \lambda_3 = \epsilon J_c, \label{lambda13}$$ The total phase-space contraction rate is the sum of Eqs. (\[lambda2\]) and (\[lambda13\]), equal to the product of the current multiplied by the amplitude of the external field. This is obviously the same result as obtained for the iso-kinetic Lorentz billiard [@CELS93], which we did expect since the winding number, and hence the current $J_c$, are invariant under the conformal map. Table \[tbl.psc\] summarizes our findings. Notice that the current $J_c$ is here measured with respect to the collision dynamics. The identification between the phase-space contraction rate and the entropy production per unit time (in the regime of linear transport) can be done by substituting the average current per collision, $J_c$, by the corresponding average current per unit time, which we denote by $J_t$. This is straightforward since the two quantities differ only by a conversion factor, the average free flight time, or average time between collisions. On the other hand, it should be mentioned the conversion to a current measured in the units of $s$ is not meaningful since this integration variable changes from one trajectory to another. Each trajectory travels with its own clock, which impedes a statistical interpretation. Dissipation Bulk Boundaries Total -------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- GIK LG $\epsilon J_c$ $0$ $\epsilon J_c$ W-flow ($t$) $-\epsilon J_c$ $2\epsilon J_c$ $\epsilon J_c$ W-flow ($s$) $0$ $\epsilon J_c$ $\epsilon J_c$ : Comparison of the different contributions to the phase-space contraction rate for the Gaussian iso-kinetic Lorentz gas and its two equivalent representations in the Weyl geometry, whether the integration variable is $t$, the physical time, or $s$, the natural time, Eq. (\[st\]). In the former case, the contraction of the velocity at the periodic boundaries compensates the expansion of phase-space volumes in the bulk.[]{data-label="tbl.psc"} To conclude, we have shown how the transformation of the Gaussian iso-kinetic Lorentz channel to a Weyl geometry maps the trajectories into straight lines with constant speed, so long as we rescale the time variable according to Eq. (\[dsdt\]). The geometry of the cell is modified under this transformation. The vertical walls of the Lorentz channel are here replaced by concentric circles whose radii differ by a factor given by the exponential of the external field. The disks are also deformed and can even have concavities when the field strength becomes too large ($\epsilon > 1/\sigma$, which corresponds to the transition to non-hyperbolic regime, as shown in [@W00]). The average phase-space contraction rate, equal (at least in the small $\epsilon$ regime) to the entropy production rate, is here due to the application of the periodic boundary conditions. A remarkable consequence of this, is that the calculation of the phase-space contraction, as well as its identification to the entropy production rate, are immediate. It should be pointed out that the expression of the phase-space contraction rate, Eq. (\[lambda13\]), makes no reference to the actual time scale since it relies solely on the collision dynamics. It is in particular transparent to the change of time scales, Eq. (\[dsdt\]). However, as we argued, only the physical time is relevant to statistical averages. In this system the velocities change with the physical time and get rescaled at the periodic boundaries. The velocity dynamics of the natural time are on the other hand trivial. Thus one might wonder what happens when $s$ is taken as the physical time, in which case we lose the connection with the Gaussian iso-kinetic dynamics. This is what we do in [@BG], where we discuss an expanding billiard model similar to this one, but for which the physical time dynamics is trivial between collisions and preserves phase-space volumes in the bulk. In this case, the speed variable must be rescaled at the periodic boundaries, and is associated to a third Lyapunov exponent, here negative. The mobility changes by a factor of two, and one nevertheless retrieves an identification between entropy production and phase-space contraction rates in the linear transport regime. The authors wish to thank N. I. Chernov and C. Liverani for insightful discussions. FB acknowledges financial support from Fondecyt project 1060820 and FONDAP 11980002. TG is financially supported by the Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique. This collaboration was partially supported through grant ACT 15 (Anillo en Ciencia y Tecnologia). [99]{} J. R. Dorfman, [*An Introduction to Chaos in Non-equilibrium Statistical Mechanics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999). D. J. Evans, E. G. D. Cohen, G. P. Morriss, [*Probability of second law violations in shearing steady states*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} 2401 (1993). G. Gallavotti, E. G. D. Cohen, [*Dynamical Ensembles in Non-equilibrium Statistical Mechanics*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} 2694 (1995). C. Jarzynski, [*Non-equilibrium Equality for Free Energy Differences*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{} 2690 (1997). G. E. Crooks, [*Entropy production fluctuation theorem and the non-equilibrium work relation for free energy differences*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{} 2721 (1999). C. Bustamante, J. Liphardt, and F. Ritort, [*The Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics of Small Systems*]{}, Physics Today [**58**]{} (7) 43-48 (2005). Moran B. and Hoover W. G., [*Diffusion in a periodic Lorentz gas*]{}, 1987 J. Stat. Phys [**48**]{}, 709. Chernov N. I., Eyink G. L., Lebowitz J. L., and Sinai Ya. G., [*Derivation of Ohm’s law in a deterministic mechanical model*]{}, 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} 2209; [*Steady state electric conductivity in the periodic Lorentz gas*]{}, 1993 Comm. Math. Phys. [**154**]{} 569. Evans D. J. and Morriss G. P., [*Statistical Mechanics of Non-Equilibrium Fluids*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1990). Ruelle D., [*Positivity of entropy production in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics*]{}, 1996 J. Stat. Phys. [**85**]{} 1; [*Extending the definition of entropy to non-equilibrium steady states*]{}, 2003 Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**100**]{} 30054. Wojtkowski M. P., [*W-flows on Weyl manifolds and Gaussian thermostats*]{}, 2000 J. Math. Pures Appl. [**79**]{} 953. Dettmann C. P. and Morriss G. P., [*Hamiltonian formulation of the Gaussian iso-kinetic thermostat*]{}, 1996 Phys. Rev E [**54**]{} 2495; Morriss G. P. and Dettmann C. P., [*Thermostats: analysis and application*]{}, 1998 Chaos [**8**]{} 321. Benettin G. and Rondoni L., [*A new model for the transport of particles in a thermostated system*]{}, 2001 MPEJ [**7**]{} 3. Barra F. and Gilbert T., [*Steady-state conduction in self-similar billiards*]{}, unpublished. [^1]: For definiteness we assume the particle density to be normalized to unity.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Translating the complex, multi-dimensional data from simulations of biomolecules to intuitive knowledge is a major challenge in computational chemistry and biology. The so-called “free energy landscape" is amongst the most fundamental concepts used by scientists to understand both static and dynamic properties of biomolecular systems. In this paper we use Markov models to design a strategy for mapping features of this landscape to sonic parameters, for use in conjunction with visual display techniques such as structural animations and free energy diagrams.' author: - 'Robert E. Arbon' - 'Alex J. Jones' - 'Lars A. Bratholm' - Tom Mitchell - 'David R. Glowacki' bibliography: - 'refs2018.bib' title: '**Sonifying stochastic walks on biomolecular energy landscapes**' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Richard Feynman famously stated [@Feynman] that “everything that living things do can be understood in terms of the jigglings and wigglings of atoms”. A complete understanding of how these atomic jigglings and wigglings give rise to the structure, dynamics and function of biomolecules remains an outstanding scientific challenge with implications across a wide range of disciplines. For example, dynamical processes like protein folding are implicated in neurological diseases (e.g. Alzheimer’s) [@Hashimoto2003] and conformational changes in enzymes are linked to their biological function [@Singh2015]. Computer simulation is an important tool to understand biomolecular dynamics because of its ability to reveal chemical information at the atomic level with a high degree of temporal and spatial resolution [@Adcock2006; @Antoniou2006]. Its popularity is associated with three developments: accurate and computationally efficient ways of modeling the interactions between atoms (the atomic ‘force-field’)[@Kamp2008; @Mackerell2004], the increasing availability of highly parallel computer architectures such as general purpose graphical processing units (GP-GPUs)[@Stone2010], and a variety of user friendly software packages which exploit both these developments [@Openmm4; @amber]. This has enabled the study of bigger systems at longer timescales, moving the dynamics of biomolecular systems into the ‘big-data’ era [@Graaf2015]. Extracting scientific information from the output of computer simulations is difficult owing to the quantity of data available. Output from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [@alder1959] include time series of atomic positions (known as *trajectories*) and associated data (e.g., system energy, volume, pressure, etc.). Making sense of this data requires reducing the data dimensionality by removing irrelevant features and producing an accurate but understandable model of the process being investigated. Analyzing trajectories is commonly performed through visual display using animations of the molecules (often with atoms rendered as balls and chemical bonds as sticks). However, there is typically far too much data for a researcher to understand. Dimensionality reduction is achieved by only displaying certain atoms while features of the data can be calculated and mapped to visual aesthetics. For example, common structural motifs in proteins, such as alpha-helices, can be drawn as a cartoon helix on top of the molecular structure to highlight their presence. Another example is to map the colour of the rendering to the degree of conformational flexibility of a particular part of the molecule. A particularly important feature of the system is its *free energy*. Any given molecular configuration has an associated free energy, from which several important properties can be calculated [@Atkins]. Often described as a “landscape”, it is commonly represented as a topographical contour map. “Mapping” the free energy landscape of biomolecular systems remains a significant challenge. Nevertheless, understanding how a molecule’s 3D structure relates to its free energy landscape is crucial for scientists to gain an understanding of biomolecular dynamics. The software package MolPX [@molpx] has attempted this by linking two separate visual objects - molecular animations and free energy diagrams. However this strategy has two drawbacks: (1) the free energy landscape is limited to two dimensions and (2) the researcher’s focus is split across the two visual objects. Display of higher dimensional landscapes is possible by combinations of two dimensional projections but this only exacerbates problem (2). Sonification has the ability to overcome problems with displaying high dimensional free energy landscapes: the topography and important features of the landscape can be heard concurrently with visual structural information. However, creating a sonic representation of features of the free energy landscape presents a number of technical and design related challenges which are explored in this paper. Two major techniques for approaching an auditory display challenge are *model-based* and *parameter mapping* sonification (PMSon). Model-based techniques aim to transform datasets into a dynamic model, which one can interact with and aurally examine [@Hermann1999]. In contrast, PMSon exposes parameters that describe the data and maps these to sonic features. Previous sonifications of molecular simulation data seemed to have favoured PMSon and *auditory icons/earcons* rather than model-based techniques. This could be because molecular dynamics simulations already represent a physical model (see section \[ssec:compSim\]) and adapting this dynamical system for the purposes of model-based sonification is challenging. Rau et. al. [@Rau2016] demonstrate a PMSon for interrogating features of a static molecule in the *Megamol* [@Grottel2015] visualization framework. Their approach was to create audio representations of features that are known to be chemically interesting, such as the forming and breaking of hydrogen bonds. *Sumo* [@Grond2008] is a plug-in for the Python based molecular simulation environment *PyMol* [@pymol].This project had the fairly broad aim of providing a general framework for implementing various sonifications within *PyMol*. For example parameterized earcons were utilized to represent pairwise distances and different conformations of amino acids. The designers hypothesized that users should be able to learn to distinguish between a set of 20 earcons (representing different amino acids) and thus perceive conformational differences more readily than when the sonification track is absent. Hermann [@Hermann2001] describes some of the critical issues that arise when designing a PMSon, observing that mappings are not necessarily transparent to a first time listener without some kind of “code book”. This point is reiterated by Wishart [@wishart2013] when describing the design of his piece, *Supernova*, which sonified astronomical observations: “...there is no particular reason to use one mapping rather than another. As a result, the sonic outcome would be entirely dependent on the mapping chosen." The issue of the arbitrariness of the chosen mappings is particularly interesting with regards to atomistic representations. Although they are physical, 3D objects, there is no way for us to experience them directly, either visually or aurally. Therefore there is an inevitable degree of flexibility in the design of any representation at this scale. This is illustrated by looking at the development of visualizations of molecular models which have showed a range of different approaches to representing molecular structure, from Linus Pauling’s paper models of protein helices [@Pauling205], to the metal, wood and plastic Kendrew models of protein structure [@kendrew1958], through to the modern computer generated renderings in which a variety of different drawing schemes can represent the same structural information [@HUMP96]. In terms of sonic design, there is no such established convention for representation. Depicting an atom as a sphere is, in some sense, an arbitrary decision, but there is an intelligible analogue in that they both have some sense in which they are spatially delimited. Attempting to define such a clearly delimited object in the audio realm is not as straightforward, neither spatially nor compositionally. It is difficult to assert what constitutes a single atomistic object in a piece of sound design or music. There are a wide range of “non-local" properties important in biomolecular science (e.g. potential energy, free energy, electrostatic energy, temperature, strain energy, conformational state membership, etc.). Such properties are extremely difficult to visualize using conventional rendering strategies (and even if there were effective strategies, would lead to significant visual congestion) owing to their non-locality. We believe that such properties are the most interesting to explore in a sonification context: hence our focus on free energy in this work. There is a question of the level of intervention that the sonification designer should take. If a dataset is rendered as directly as possible (i.e. converted to audio), then perhaps any audible features present must be features of the data. But this rule may depend on the source and type of data (as well as artifacts of the transform). For example, a set of measurements of how temperature changes over time might be treated differently to a non-local parameter that represents the overall instability of a system. In the latter case, it may be necessary to map the data in a less direct way to convey its provenance. Scaletti [@Scaletti1994] categorises the directness of mappings through the idea of different orders: for $0$^th^ order, the data is directly read as an audio waveform, for $1$^st^ order the data is used to modulate an audio carrier signal. Our sonification uses many 1st order, one-to-many [@Hunt2000] mappings that attempt to create a certain perceptual effect that relates to the significance of a given parameter. This approach may encounter a problem pointed out by [@Murphy2006]: that it is *atheroetical* in that the decisions made are based on some subjective sound design process and the results often represent the designer’s sensibilities and preferences just as much as the underlying data set. The techniques used in this project are primarily parameter mappings, which certainly do encounter some of the issues raised above. Acknowledging these issues is important although addressing them all in detail is out of scope for this paper. This work extends the practice of molecular simulation sonification datasets by seeking an auditory display of the free energy landscape and its relation to fundamental dynamic processes of biomolecules, something which builds on our previous work developing real-time sonification strategies for molecular dynamics simulations ([@C4FD00008K; @ds2016; @glow2013]). To the best of our knowledge the methods outlined herein have not been attempted before. We model the underlying dynamics using two different types of Markov model, observed and hidden, from a set of simulation data of a simple biomolecule, Alanine dipeptide (AD). We extract features of the free energy landscape and the dynamical processes from the models and map these to sonic parameters. Simulated examples of the dynamics can then generate coupled visual and audio display of structural and dynamic information respectively. This paper is organized as follows: section \[sec:biodyn\] explains some of the underlying physical ideas and the modeling of biomolecular dynamics, section \[sec:sonification\] explains our sonification strategy, some details of the implementation are given in section \[sec:impl\], and our conclusions and outlook for further work are given in section \[sec:conclusions\]. An example of the sonification described in this paper can be found at <https://vimeo.com/255391814>. Biomolecular conformational dynamics {#sec:biodyn} ==================================== Free energy landscape --------------------- Biomolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids are dynamic objects comprised of $n$ atoms, each of which interacts with other atoms in the same molecule and to the cellular environment. Any given molecular system has $3n$ degrees of freedom, since any given atom can move in the $x$, $y$, and $z$ direction. Typically biomolecules are comprised of thousands of atoms, leading to high-dimensional dynamics. At any given time, a molecule adopts a particular *conformational* state. Researchers are typically interested in understanding the networks of conformational substates that characterize a particular molecule. Networks of highly connected states in which the system has a relatively long residence time are called *metastable states*. Of particular interest in many applications is understanding how long it takes a molecule to travel between different metastable states. Conformational states are of interest because they are directly linked to the molecule’s function. This picture [@Frauenfelder1598] has been verified extensively through experiments [@Santoso715; @Gebhardt2013] , theoretical and computational studies [@wales_2004; @Buchete2008]. Any given conformational state is defined by its *free energy*. Highly probable conformations have a lower free energy than improbable conformations. This rise and fall of free energy defines a *free energy landscape* over the atomic coordinates which is illustrated in further detail in what follows. Molecular dynamics simulation {#ssec:compSim} ----------------------------- The output of molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are a series of regularly timed snapshots (*frames*) of atomic configurations as the system evolves, called *trajectories*. An animated example trajectory can be viewed at <https://vimeo.com/255526473>. With enough trajectories it is possible to understand the probability that a molecule occupies certain states and to develop a map of the free energy landscape. However, calculating the free energy as a function of the $3n$ atomic coordinates would not provide meaningful insight into the system, owing to its high dimensionality. Researchers have therefore focused on ways to reduce the dimensionality of the system by identifying only those coordinates (or combinations of coordinates) which take the system from one metastable state to another. Understanding which coordinates (among a large number of possibilities) resolve metastable states is an outstanding question in the study of chemical dynamics. Markov Models ------------- Markov state models have found widespread use in recent years as a dimensionality reduction technique for analyzing the metastable dynamics of biomolecules [@CHODERA2014135]. Their popularity stems from their ability to produce predictive and easy to understand results as well as their ability to parallelize the problem of resolving very long timescale processes. There are two related Markov models in widespread use, observed Markov state models [@prinz2011markov] and hidden Markov models [@noe2013projected]. This work makes use of both of these models. Markov models transform a trajectory into a *chain* of $n$ discrete states. These states are called *observed states* (or sometimes *microstates*) and form the data from which both types of Markov model can be estimated. In general we refer to a chain as $x_{t}$ and a specific element by its position in the chain: $x_2 = 3$ denotes that the second frame of the chain is in state $3$. We refer to the set of all possible discrete states as $\mathbf{x}$. An *observed Markov state model* (or simply Markov state model, MSM) assumes the probability of transitioning to observed state $b$ in a time $\tau$ given we are in state $a$, $P(x_{t+\tau}=b|x_{t}=a)$, only depends on the states $a$ and $b$ and not on the states visited at times $t-1, t-2,...,0$. This property is known as the *Markov* property and any chain that satisfies this is known as Markovian. The dynamical information of the MSM is contained within a *transition matrix*, $\mathbf{T}(\tau)$, whose elements are the conditional transition probabilities, i.e. $T(\tau)_{a,b} = P(x_{t+\tau}=b|x_{t}=a)$. The primary problem with observed Markov state models is that they contain too much information and it is typical to cluster the observed states into a smaller number of metastable states in order to make quantitative predictions about their dynamics. A *hidden Markov model* (HMM) represents a sort of *fuzzy* clustering of the observed states into a set of metastable states (or hidden states, $\mathbf{X}$), i.e. instead of describing a particular conformation (observed state) as unambiguously belonging to a metastable state, a probability of membership is given. A HMM consists of a transition matrix for the metastable states and a membership matrix $\mathbf{M}$ whose elements are the conditional probability of being in a metastable state ($A$) given a particular observed state ($a$), i.e. $M_{A,a} = P(X_{t} = A | x_{t} = a )$. HMMs work well in describing biomolecular dynamics in the regime where the underlying dynamics are metastable. In other words the proportion of observed states with membership probabilities intermediate between $0$ and $1$ are small in comparison with the total number of observed states. Alanine Dipeptide Model ----------------------- ![Atomic structure of Alanine dipeptide (AD). The cylinders represent chemical bonds and their intersections represent atoms. Grey, blue, red and white colors are carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms respectively. The atoms involved in the $\phi, \psi$ dihedral angles are labeled and highlighted as spheres. The $\phi$ angle is formed from the intersection of the planes formed by the atoms (C~1~, N, CA) and (N, CA, C~2~). The $\psi$ angle is formed from the planes formed by the atoms (N, CA, C~2~) and (CA, C~2~, O).[]{data-label="fig:ala2"}](./phi_psi_ala-dp.png){width="40.00000%"} {width="\textwidth"} The “hello world” example of a biomolecule exhibiting metastable dynamics is Alanine dipeptide (AD), as shown in figure \[fig:ala2\]. The metastable dynamics of AD are reasonably well described with reference to two dihedral angles made by atoms in the peptide bonds [@Chodera2007], the $\phi$ and $\psi$ angles, also shown figure \[fig:ala2\]. The free energy landscape of AD projected onto these two dimensions is shown in figure \[fig:hmm\]A. The light yellow colour denotes free energy *wells*, i.e. regions with a low value of free energy which define the metastable states. The lighter purple regions are those which are visited only briefly on the way to a metastable well, known as transition regions. The free energy landscape was discretized into $500$ observed states, each of which has a centroid shown by the black circles. Each frame of the trajectory is assigned to the nearest observed state. As the dihedral angles are periodic, conformations with $\phi/\psi=180\degree$ are equal to those with $\phi/\psi=-180\degree$. This means that rather than a 2D plane, the free energy landscape actually resides on a *torus*, i.e. each edge of the chart should be wrapped around to meet the opposite side. For the sake of simplicity we show it here in the form in which it is typically rendered by practitioners in the field. For the purposes of this paper two models were created - an observed MSM and a HMM. Details of the data and calculations used to generate the models can be found in section \[sec:impl\]. The estimated transition matrix for the MSM results in $500$ eigenvectors which describe the various relaxation modes of the dynamics. The first eigenvector $\mathbf{q}^{1}$ is equal to the stationary distribution, $\mu(\mathbf{x})$. The next three eigenvectors are slow relaxation modes ($\mathbf{q}^{2,3,4}$) which define population transfer *between* metastable states. The next five eigenvectors ($\mathbf{q}^{5-9}$) are fast relaxation modes which define population transfer *within* metastable states. Each relaxation mode has an associated timescale (the corresponding eigenvalue). The remaining eigenvectors were discarded as the associated timescales for these modes was faster than the time resolution of the data used to estimate the model and so were not considered statistically robust. The HMM was estimated by assuming four metastable states. The results are shown in figure \[fig:hmm\]. Figure \[fig:hmm\]D shows the metastable state transition matrix, $\mathbf{T}$. Each circle represents a metastable state with the area of the circle proportional to its stationary distribution, $\mu(X_{1,...,4})$. The arrows show the conditional probability of transitioning to each state. For example, the probability of transitioning from state $1$ to state $4$ is $6.79\%$. State $4$ is by far the most stable, followed by $3$, $2$ and then $1$. As there are no transition regions between state $1$ and $3$ and between $2$ and $4$, the probability of transitions between these pairs of states is zero. Figure \[fig:hmm\]C shows an overlay of ten characteristic structures for each metastable state, overlaid over their respective free energy wells. Figures \[fig:hmm\]B1-4 show the rows of the membership matrix. Each circle represents one of the observed states, coloured according to the membership probability to each metastable state. The partitioning of the basins is clearly shown by the regions of black circles (high probability of metastable membership) vs. white circles (low probability of metastable membership). Sonification {#sec:sonification} ============ ![The mapping of static properties of the metastable states to note clusters. Each of the observed states was first assigned to exactly one metastable state. The bottom chart shows the distribution of free energies of observed states which have been assigned to the metastable states $1$ (blue) and $4$ (pink). States $2$ and $3$ are not shown for clarity. The coloured notes of the keyboard are the note clusters used to represent the metastable states. The relative upper and lower bounds of the distributions determine the highest and lowest notes in the cluster (as shown by the vertical connectors). The relative area of each distribution determines the number of notes in the note cluster. The ratio of the areas of state $4$’s distribution to state $1$’s distribution is approximately $3:1$. This determines the $9:3$ ratio of the number of notes in each note cluster.[]{data-label="fig:staticprop"}](./distribution_to_cluster_1+4.png){width="40.00000%"} ![The dynamic parameters of the model. Each panel shows how a model parameter varies over $0.1$ns (100 frames) of the example trajectory. **State 1-4** show the membership probability of each frame’s observed state to each metastable state. The values in each frame across all four panels sum to 1. **Shannon entropy** measures the uncertainty of the assignment of each observed state to the metastable states. High entropy indicates an observed state could be considered to belong to more than one metastable state. **Free energy** is the free energy of each observed state, the lower the free energy the more stable the state. **Mode 5** is the first fast relaxation mode which redistributes population within a metastable state. The other four fast modes are not shown.[]{data-label="fig:dynprop"}](./trajectory_fig.pdf){width="40.00000%"} The purpose of the sonification is to provide information on features of the free energy landscape simultaneously with visual display of structural information, i.e. a molecular animation from an example trajectory. As this trajectory traverses the different parts of the free energy landscape the sonification brings out three of its features with the following distinct layers in the audio design: (1) a continuous pad sound that represents membership of different metastable states and their properties, (2) a pulse sound that represents the stability of the system and, (3) a set of synthesized tones that represent how the system is changing within each metastable state. The sonification therefore requires three objects: a model of AD dynamics, an example trajectory and an animation of the example trajectory. In this work the data used to estimate the model of AD (the input trajectories) are different to the example trajectory although in principle trajectories from the input data could be used as example trajectories. Sonification parameters ----------------------- There are two categories of sonification parameters: *static* and *dynamic*. Static parameters do not change over time and are initialized at time $0$. They are derived from the model parameters alone. Dynamic parameters are those derived from each frame (i.e. from each observed state) of the example trajectory as well as the model parameters. ### Static parameters {#ssec:static} The static parameters are all derived from the shape of the free energy wells associated with each metastable state. Each part of the free energy landscape is assigned a probability of membership to a metastable state so the limits of each well are not well defined. In order to overcome this problem each observed state is assigned to the metastable state for which it has the highest probability of membership. The free energy for each observed state $a$, $F(a) = -kT\ln(\mu([\mathbf{x}]_{a}))$ was calculated and scaled to lie in the range $(0,1)$. Here $k$ refers to the *Boltzmann* constant and $T$ to the temperature. The static parameters for each metastable state were derived from a histogram of the free energies of observed states assigned to that metastable state. We denote the histogram for metastable state $A$ as $h_{A}(F)$ (or $h$ in general). The properties we derive from $h(F)$ are (1) its upper bound, $UB[h]$, (2) its lower bound $LB[h]$ (3) its area $A[h] = \int^{1}_{0}\mathrm{d}F h(F)$. The histograms for states $1$ (blue) and $4$ (pink) are shown in figure \[fig:staticprop\]. The model has four metastable states meaning there are $4\times 3 = 12$ static parameters. The upper and lower bounds are related to the free energy well minima and maxima for each metastable state. The area of the histograms is proportional to the overall volume of the free energy well. ### Dynamic parameters The dynamic parameters change with each observed state in the example trajectory. For each observed state these parameters are: (1) its *probability of membership* to each of the four metastable states, (2) the *Shannon entropy* of its metastable state assignments (3) its absolute *free energy*, (4) its *projection* into the five fast relaxation modes. For each observed state there are $4+1+1+5 = 11$ dynamic parameters. The membership probability describes the probability that a given observed state can be assigned to a given metastable state. For observed state $a$ there are four membership probabilities given by $([\mathbf{M}]_{1,a}, [\mathbf{M}]_{2,a},[\mathbf{M}]_{3,a},[\mathbf{M}]_{4,a} )$. The information or Shannon entropy is a measure of the degree of certainty with which the assignment of an observed state to a particular metastable state can be made. The Shannon entropy for an observed state $a$, $H_{a}$ is given by $ H_{a} = -\sum^{4}_{i=1} [\mathbf{M}]_{i,a} \ln([\mathbf{M}]_{i,a})$. $H_{a} = 0$ indicates the observed state is definitely in one metastable state. $H_{a} = \ln(4) \approx 1.4$ indicates it is equally likely to be in any of the four metastable states. The free energy of observed state $a$, $F(a)$ measures the observed state’s global stability. These were the same free energies used in the calculation of the static parameters in section \[ssec:static\]. The projection of observed state $a$ onto the $i$’th fast relaxation modes is given by $[\mathbf{q}^i]_{a}$. Large oscillations in a projection indicate that the system is relaxing along that mode. The values of these projections were scaled to lie in the range $(-1,1)$. Figure \[fig:dynprop\] shows the dynamic parameters for a section of an example trajectory. Mapping {#ssec:map} ------- As well as categorizing the parameters as static or dynamic, a further distinction is drawn between those that relate to changes within the current metastable state (intrastate) and those that pertain to changes between the metastable states (interstate). Table \[tab:table1\] summarizes these two categorizations. This second classification is useful because it draws the distinction between parameters based on features of the physical dynamics rather than how they were generated. The interstate parameters represent the most physically important features of the dynamics and free energy landscape and so form the core of the mapping strategy. ### Interstate parameters The three static parameters for each metastable state, $UB[h]$, $LB[h]$, $A[h]$ are interstate parameters. These features of the model are principally related to two physical features: the relative stability and conformational flexibility of each metastable state. The focus of the mapping strategy is to find a way to describe these features aurally. Note clusters are chosen to be associated with each metastable state. The reason underlying this choice arises from the fact that transitioning between tonal groupings is a common musical device; it is hypothesized that non-trained listeners should be able to perceive the changes in note density and relative pitch. The maximum note range is predefined to three octaves. The relative values of $A[h]$ for each metastable state defines the number of notes in its corresponding note cluster, these notes are then evenly distributed between the lowest and highest notes. The values of $LB[h]$ and $UB[h]$ define the lowest and highest notes of each cluster respectively. This is shown in figure \[fig:staticprop\] for metastable states $1$ and $4$. State $4$ (pink) has a smaller range, but a larger area resulting in a dense, tightly spaced note cluster at the lower extent of the note range. State $1$ (blue) has a large range but small area resulting in a more sparse note cluster. State $4$ has its lower bound below that of state $1$ and so the lowest note of the cluster is below that of state $1$. An accepted limitation of this mapping is that it does not attempt to classify and choose the note clusters in terms of their harmonic relationships. Instead, it deals with them as distributions of notes within a range, with a given extent and density. It may be possible to use the work of Lewin [@Lewin2007] and others to create a hierarchy of tonal groupings from which to choose but this is highly genre specific. This is an outstanding issue in that listeners may interpret the harmonic relationship of two note clusters as significant when this is not intended as part of the mapping (e.g. stacked whole tones vs. stacked fourths). The membership probabilities ($\mathbf{M}$) control the choice of note cluster by linearly interpolating between the values defined by the static parameters of each state. This means that if $[\mathbf{M}]_{1,a}= 1$ then the cluster defined by the static properties of metastable state $1$ will be used (the same follows for all the states). In the case that $[\mathbf{M}]_{1,a}= [\mathbf{M}]_{2,a}=0.5$ then the lowest and highest notes will lie halfway between those defined by the static parameters of state $1$ and $2$. Large values of the Shannon entropy ($H$) represent observed states which could be assigned to more than one metastable state, physically this means they are in transition regions between two metastable states. $H$ is mapped to the width and rate of frequency modulations of the voices for the note clusters as well as the bandwidth of the filter such that it tends toward noise for higher values of $H$. This is a one-to-many mapping that is designed to create a perceptual effect of instability in the pad sound. $H$ tends to remain at $0$ with occasional spikes in amplitude as the system enters a transition region. This is shown in figure \[fig:dynprop\] where there are spikes between $80.05$ and $80.06$ nanoseconds as transitions occur between all four states. These spikes, although fleeting, are important features. In order to render them as noticeable a smoothing process for decreasing values is employed such that incoming values decrease slowly but can increase quickly. Figure \[fig:synthProcess\] shows the structure and mapping for a single synthesiser voice used in the creation of the pad sound (there are 10 voices used in total). The mappings are designed to distinctly represent each metastable state and to indicate when a transition between states occur. ### Intrastate parameters The absolute free energy ($F(x_t)$) of each observed state measures its stability relative to the global free energy minimum. This parameter allows the sonification to draw a distinction between an observed state being globally unstable and yet part of a relatively stable metastable state (or vice versa). $F(x_t)$ is used to modulate a pulse sound that underpins the whole sound world. The rationale here is that a pulse or kick drum type sound is commonly used as a fundamental of a sound world upon which the other elements are constructed. This mirrors the way the free energy landscape underpins the dynamics of the physical system. The variable is reversed in terms of its polarity and transformed such that decreases in its value create an increase in tempo and a brightening of the tone of the pulse. The fast mode projections are oscillatory signals between -1 and 1 and are exported as PCM wav files (a $0^{\mathrm{th}}$ order mapping in Scaletti’s terminology [@Scaletti1994]). At the 20Hz frame-rate being used the oscillations are subsonic. *Scanned synthesis* is used in order to render the content as audible [@Verplank2001]. This method was developed to allow for the direct manipulation of synthesis timbre using a physical model and is essentially an extension of wavetable synthesis. In this case it allows for a rolling window of the audio buffer to be scanned at a given frequency, with the effect that increased frequency and amplitude of oscillation in the window results in a brighter timbre. These can be heard panned from hard left (mode $\mathbf{q}^{5}$) to hard right (mode $\mathbf{q}^{9}$) and the scanning frequency is defined by the first five notes of the currently defined note cluster. **Type** **Scope** **Parameter** **Mapping** ---------- ----------- ---------------------------------- --------------------- Dynamic Intra Free Energy ($F(a)$) Pulse sound Fast Mode ($[\mathbf{q}^i]_{a}$) Scanned synth tones Inter Shannon Entropy ($H_{a}$) Pad sound Membership Chosen cluster probability ($[\mathbf{M}]_{a}$) Static Inter Well min ($UL[h]$) Lower note Well max ($UB[h]$) Upper note Histogram area ($A[h]$) Number of notes : Simulation parameters exposed via OSC. **Type** refers to whether the parameters are fixed at time $0$ (static) or change with each trajectory frame (dynamic). **Scope** refers to whether the parameters are describing transitions between states (inter) or within a state (intra).[]{data-label="tab:table1"} ![Single synthesis voice as used for each note of a metastable state note cluster. The set of multiple instances (one per note) form the pad sound. The inputs are the frequency of each note in the note cluster and the entropy. The note cluster is determined by the membership probability of the current frame. The entropy is shaped, scaled and offset in various ways in preparation for use as a modulation source.[]{data-label="fig:synthProcess"}](./synthesis_process_2.eps){width="50.00000%"} \[fig:entropymap\] Implementation {#sec:impl} ============== The simulation data was taken from a publicly available repository which accompanies the paper [@Chodera2007] found at <https://simtk.org/projects/alanine-dipeptide/>. A full explanation of the methods used to generate the data are given in the paper. All modeling was done using Python 3.5 programming language, the Markov models were generated by PyEMMA 2.4 [@scherer_pyemma_2015]. Both the HMM and MSM used the same set of 500 observed states and each were estimated with a lag time of $\tau=1.0$ps. The HMM was estimated by specifying four metastable states. This number was chosen so that the approximation of metastability was most accurate at the lag time used. The molecular animations were generated using VMD [@HUMP96]. A $500$ns long example trajectory was used in the sonification. This was generated from the HMM, rather than using an input trajectory as they were all of insufficient length to sample each metastable state regularly. While this trajectory does not strictly obey the original equations of motion used to generate the input data it reproduces all the modeled features (transition probabilities, relaxation timescales, stationary distribution) and so is indistinguishable from a trajectory generated using the original equations of motion. A Python script, using the package OSC 1.6.4, was used to create a client which sent the static and dynamic parameters as messages to the audio processing software. The messages were sent using the OSC protocol. The dynamic parameters were sent at a rate of 20 trajectory frames per second (corresponding to a ratio of $20$ps to $1$s simulation to physical time). The audio processing was implemented in Max/MSP. Everything required to reproduce this work (except the input data which can be downloaded separately) can be found at <https://osf.io/rzp3k/?view_only=b5802dfce6da4dd59dfb6b406ae033f0>. Conclusions and Future work {#sec:conclusions} =========================== We have presented a strategy for mapping important features of the dynamics and the free energy landscape of Alanine dipetide (AD) to sonic parameters to create an auditory display. This auditory display can be used in tandem with visual display techniques to help build an intuitive understanding of how the physical structure of AD relates to the underlying free energy surface and the resulting dynamic processes. Our method and implementation now requires user testing to ascertain how well sonic representations of this sort convey the desired information when used by chemists in a research or teaching context. A further question is whether sonifying additional model parameters adds to our understanding of biomolecular dynamics. In the future we hope to extend this implementation to allow a degree of interactivity in manipulating the example trajectory. Initially, this would take the form of allowing the user to manipulate the playback position, speed and loop points of the trajectory. This would allow them to focus on regions of interest in the dynamics. In the long term, allowing the user to manipulate the example trajectory using interactive molecular dynamics (for example, NanoSimbox [@2018arXiv180102884C]) and hear the resultant sonic effects is an exciting prospect and opens up the possibility of using the system as an instrument for musical expression as well as a data exploration tool. ACKNOWLEDGMENT ============== The authors would like to thank Lars Bratholm for his insightful input in developing a probabilistic approach to the mapping strategy. David Glowacki acknowledges funding from the Royal Society (UF120381), the EPSRC (impact acceleration award and institutional sponsorship award), and the Leverhulme Trust (Philip Leverhulme Prize). Robert Arbon is funded by a studentship from the Royal Society (RG130510), with additional support from the Leverhulme Trust. Alex Jones is jointly supported by a studentship from the EPSRC and Interactive Scientific Ltd. Lars Bratholm acknowledges funding from EPSRC Programme Grant EP/P021123/1. \[sec:ack\]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the problem of constructing a (near) uniform random proper $q$-coloring of a simple $k$-uniform hypergraph with $n$ vertices and maximum degree $\D$. (Proper in that no edge is mono-colored and simple in that two edges have maximum intersection of size one). We show that if $q\geq \max{\left\{C_k\log n,500k^3\D^{1/(k-1)}\right\}}$ then the Glauber Dynamics will become close to uniform in $O(n\log n)$ time, given a random (improper) start. This improves on the results in Frieze and Melsted [@FM].' author: - | Michael Anastos     Alan Frieze[^1]\ Department of Mathematical Sciences,\ Carnegie Mellon University,\ Pittsburgh PA15213.\ [Email:  [email protected]; [email protected];]{} title: '[**Randomly coloring simple hypergraphs with fewer colors**]{}' --- Introduction ============ Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) is an important tool in sampling from complex distributions. It has been successfully applied in several areas of Computer Science, most notably for estimating the volume of a convex body [@DFK], [@KLS], [@LV], [@CV] and estimating the permanent of a non-negative matrix [@JSV]. Generating a (nearly) random $q$-coloring of a $n$-vertex graph $G=(V,E)$ with maximum degree $\Delta$ is a well-studied problem in Combinatorics [@BW] and Statistical Physics [@SS]. Jerrum [@Jerrum] proved that a simple, popular Markov chain, known as the [*Glauber dynamics*]{}, converges to a random $q$-coloring after $O(n\log{n})$ steps, provided $q/\D>2$. This led to the challenging problem of determining the smallest value of $q/\Delta$ for which a random $q$-coloring can be generated in time polynomial in $n$. Vigoda [@vigoda] gave the first significant improvement over Jerrum’s result, reducing the lower bound on $q/\D$ to $11/6$ by analyzing a different Markov chain. There has been no success in extending Vigoda’s approach to smaller values of $q/\D$, and it remains the best bound for general graphs. There are by now several papers giving improvements on [@vigoda], but in special cases. See Frieze and Vigoda [@FriVig] for a survey. In this paper we consider the related problem of finding a random coloring of a simple $k$-uniform hypergraph. A $k$-uniform hypergraph $H=(V,E)$ has vertex set $V$ and $E={\left\{e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_m\right\}}$ are the edges. Each edge is a $k$-subset of $V$. Hypergraph $H$ is simple if $|e_i\cap e_j|\leq 1$ for $i\neq j$. A coloring of $H$ is proper if every edge contains two vertices of a different color. The chromatic number $\chi(H)$ is the smallest number of colors in a proper coloring of $H$. In the case of graphs $k=2$ we have $\chi(G)\leq \D+1$ but for hypergraphs ($k\geq 3$) we have much smaller bounds. For example a simple application of the local lemma implies that $\chi(H)=O(\D^{1/(k-1)})$. In fact a result of Frieze and Mubayi [@FM1], is that for simple hypergraphs $\chi(H)=O((\D/\log\D)^{1/(k-1)})$. The proof of [@FM1] is somewhat more involved. It relies on a proof technique called the “nibble“. The aim of this note is to show how to improve the results of Frieze and Melsted [@FM] who showed that under certain circumstances simple hypergraphs can be efficiently randomly colored when there are fewer than $\D$ colors available. In [@FM] the number of colors needed was at least $n^\a$ for $\a=\a(k)$, in this paper we reduce the number of colors to logarithmic in $n$. Large parts of the proofs in [@FM] are still relevant and so we will quote them in place of re-proving them. We have realised that some minor simplifications are possible. So if the proofs in [@FM] need to be tweaked, we will indicate what is needed in an appendix. Before formally stating our theorem we will define the Glauber dynamics. All of the aforementioned results on coloring graphs (except Vigoda [@vigoda]) analyze the Glauber dynamics, which is a simple and popular Markov chain for generating a random $q$-coloring. Let $\cQ$ denote the set of proper $q$-colorings of $H$. For a coloring $X\in\cQ$ we define $$B(v,X)={\left\{c\in [q]:\;\exists e\ni v\ \text{such that}\ X(x)=c\ for\ all\ x\in e\setminus{\left\{v\right\}}\right\}}$$ be the set of colors unavailable to $v$. Then let $Q=\{1,2,\dots,q\}$ and $$A(v,X)=Q\setminus B(v,X).$$ For technical purposes, the state space of the Glauber dynamics is $\Omega=Q^V\supseteq\cQ$. From a coloring $X_t\in\Omega$, the evolution $X_t\rightarrow X_{t+1}$ is defined as follows: [**Glauber Dynamics**]{} (a) : Choose $v=v(t)$ uniformly at random from $V$. (b) : Choose color $c=c(t)$ uniformly at random from $A(v,X_t)$. If $A(v,X_t)$ is empty we let $X_{t+1} = X_t$. (c) : Define $X_{t+1}$ by $$X_{t+1}(u)=\begin{cases}X_t(u)&u\neq v\\c&u=v\end{cases}$$ We will assume from now on that [$$\label{qd} q\leq 2\D$$]{} If $q>2\D$ then we defer to Jerrum’s result [@Jerrum]. Let $Y$ denote a coloring chosen uniformly at random from $\cQ$. We will prove the following: \[th1\] Let $H$ be a $k$-uniform simple hypergraph with maximum degree $\D$ where $k\geq 3$. Suppose that holds and that [$$\label{vq} q\geq \max{\left\{C_k\log n,10k\e^{-1}\D^{1/(k-1)}\right\}},$$]{} where $C_k$ is sufficiently large and depends only on $k$ and [$$\label{defeps} \e=\frac{1}{50k^2}.$$]{} Suppose that the initial coloring $X_0$ is chosen randomly from $\Omega$. Then for an arbitrary constant $\d>0$ we have [$$\label{rapid} d_{TV}(X_t,Y)\leq \d$$]{} for $t\geq t_\d$, where $t_\d=2n\log(2n/\d)$. The definition of $\e$ has been changed from [@FM]. It results in slightly better bounds for $q$. It would seem that we could absorb it into the expression , but its value is used throughout the paper. Here $d_{TV}$ denotes variational distance i.e. $\max_{S\subseteq \cQ}|{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(X_t\in S)-{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(Y\in S)|$. Note that we do not claim rapid mixing from an arbitrary start. Indeed, since we are using relatively few colors, it is possible to choose an initial coloring from which there is no Glauber move i.e. we do not claim that the chain is ergodic, see [@FM] for examples of blocked colorings. The algorithm can be used in a standard way, [@Jerrum], to compute an approximation to the number of proper colorings of $H$. We can also prove the following. We can consider Glauber Dynamics as inducing a graph $\G_{\cQ}$ on $\cQ$ where two colorings are connected by an edge if there is a move taking one to the other. Note that if Glauber can take $X$ to $Y$ in one step, then it can take $Y$ to $X$ in one step. \[cor1\] The graph $\G_{\cQ}$ contains a giant component $\cQ_0$ of size $(1-o(1))|\cQ|$. Good and bad colorings ====================== Let $X\in \Omega$ be a coloring of $V$. For a vertex $v\in V$ and $1\leq i\leq k-1$ let $$E_{v,i,X}={\left\{e:\;v\in e\ and\ |{\left\{X(w):w\in e\setminus{\left\{v\right\}}\right\}}|=i\right\}}$$ be the set of edges $e$ containing $v$ in which $e\setminus{\left\{v\right\}}$ uses exactly $i$ distinct colors under $X$. Let $y_{v,i,X}=|E_{v,i,X}|$ so that $|B(v,X)|\leq y_{v,1,X}$ for all $v,X$. Let $\e$ be as in . We define the sequence $\bse=\e,\e^2,\ldots,\e^{k-2}$. \[def2\] We say that $X$ is [*$\bse$-bad*]{} if $\exists v\in V, 1\leq i\leq k-2$ such that [$$\label{m1} y_{v,i,X}\geq \m_i\text{ where }\m_i= (\e q)^i.$$]{} Otherwise we say that $X$ is [*$\bse$-good*]{}. In [@FM], $\m_i$ is the minimum of $(\e q)^i$ and a more complicated term. This second term is no longer needed. Given Definition \[def2\], we have [$$\label{mudef} 10k\m_i\leq \m_{i+1}\le\e q\m_i\qquad for\ 1\leq i\leq k-3.$$]{} It is convenient to define [$$\label{mudef0} \m_{k-1}=\D.$$]{} Note that if $X$ is $\bse$-good then $|A(v,X)|\geq (1-\e)q$ for all $v\in V$. In this section we will show that almost all colorings of $\Omega$ are $\bse$-good and almost all colorings in $\cQ$ are $\bse$-good. This is where we are able to improve our results over [@FM]. Consider a random coloring $X\in\Omega$. For a vertex $v\in V$ we let $\cA_v=\cA_\e(v)$ denote the event ${\left\{v\text{ is not $\bse$ good}\right\}}$. For an edge $e\in E$ we let $\cB_e$ denote the event ${\left\{e\ \text{is not properly colored})\right\}}$. Let ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\Omega$ indicate that the random choice is from $\Omega$ and let ${\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\cQ$ indicate that the random choice is from $\cQ$. Now consider a dependency graph, in the context of the local lemma. The events are $\cB_e,e\in E$ and $\cB_e$ and $\cB_f$ are independent if $e\cap f=\emptyset$. Note that for $v\in V$ the event $\cA_v$ is independent of events not in $\cN_v$, where $$\cN_v={\left\{f:e\cap f\neq \emptyset\text{ for some }e\ni v\right\}}.$$ Fix an edge $e\in H$. Clearly, $$p={\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\Omega(\cB_e)=\frac{1}{q^{k-1}}.$$ We will next choose $x_e,e\in E$ to satisfy [$$\label{vp} p\leq x_e\prod_{f\in E,f\cap e\neq \emptyset}(1-x_f).$$]{} We choose [$$\label{xv} x_e=\th_q=\frac{2}{q^{k-1}}\leq \frac12\text{ for }e\in E.$$]{} Then, using and $(1-x)\geq e^{-x/(1-x)}$ for $0<x<1$ we see that [$$\label{} x_e\prod_{f\in E,f\cap e\neq \emptyset}(1-x_f)\geq \th_q\exp{\left\{-\frac{k\D\th_q}{1-\th_q}\right\}} \geq \th_qe^{-2k\D\th_q} =\frac{2}{q^{k-1}}\exp{\left\{-\frac{4k\D}{q^{k-1}}\right\}} \geq \frac{2e^{-1/2}}{q^{k-1}} \geq p.$$]{} This verifies . Theorem 2.1 of Haeupler, Saha and Srinivasan [@HSS] then implies that for $v\in V$ we have [$$\label{LLL} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\cQ(\cA_v)\leq {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\Omega(\cA_v)\prod_{f\in \cN_v}(1-x_f)^{-1}.$$]{} This theorem is the basis of our improvement. As stated in [@HSS], there is a short easy proof of this and for completeness we give an outline in an appendix. Now [@FM] proves that [$$\label{upper} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\Omega(\cA_v)\leq e^{-\e q}.$$]{} The defintion of $\e$ has changed from [@FM] and so we feel obliged to verify in an appendix. So, implies that [$$\label{} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\cQ(\exists v\in V:\cA_v)\leq ne^{-\e q}\prod_{f\in \cN_v}(1-x_f)^{-1}\leq n\exp{{\left\{-\e q+\frac{4k\D}{q^{k-1}}\right\}}}\leq ne^{\frac12-\e q}=o(1),$$]{} since $q\geq 2\e^{-1}\log n$. Thus w.h.p., a $q$-coloring chosen uniformly at random from either $\Omega$ or from $\cQ$ is $\bse$-good. Persistence of goodness ======================= The following two lemmas are proved in [@FM]: [$$\label{first} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(X_t\ is\ 2\bse-good\ for\ t\leq t_0\mid X_0\ is\ \bse-good)\geq 1-2^{-\m_1/2}.$$]{} where [$$\label{t0} t_0=\frac{n}{4k^2e}.$$]{} \[cont\] [$$\label{step2} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(X_{t_0}\ is\ \bse-good\mid X_0\text{ is }\bse-good)\geq 1-e^{-c\m_1}\qquad for\ some\ c>0.$$]{} The constant $c$ in depends only on $k$. Part of the proof of Lemma \[cont\], involves the inequality $\frac{4\e k^2}{1-2\e}\leq \frac{1}{10}$, see (26) of [@FM]. Our choice of $\e$ satisfies the latter inequality. Coupling Argument ================= Now consider a pair $X,Y$ of copies of our Glauber chain. Let $$h(X_t,Y_t)=|{\left\{v\in V:X_t(v)\neq Y_t(v)\right\}}|$$ be the Hamming distance between $X_t,Y_t$. The paper [@FM] describes a simple coupling between the chains and shows that that [$$\label{h1} \E(h(X_{t+1},Y_{t+1})\mid X_t,Y_t)\leq {\left( 1-\frac{1}{2n} \right)}h(X_t,Y_t)$$]{} if $X_t,Y_t$ are both $2\bse$-good. Summarising, we have that with probability at least $1-e^{-c\m_1}$ for some positive constant $c$, we have that both of $X_0$ and $Y_0$ are $\bse$-good, both $X$ and $Y$ are $2\bse$-good for $t_0$ steps and both of $X_{t_0}$ and $Y_{t_0}$ are $\bse$-good. If we run the chain for $t_0t^*$ steps, where $t^*=e^{c\m_1/2}$ then the probability that either chain stops being $2\bse$-good is at most $t^*e^{-c\m_1}= e^{-c\m_1/2}$. Conditional on these events, $\E(h(X_{t_\d},Y_{t_\d})\leq \d/2$ and together with the fact that the variation distance between $X_t$ and $Y_t$ is monotone non-increasing, this implies . (Note that $\d$ includes the probability that either of $X_0,Y_0$ are not $2\bse$-good). Choosing $C_k$ large enough so that $c\e C_k=\frac{cC_k}{50k^2}\geq 4$ completes the proof of Theorem \[th1\]. (This choice of $C_k$ ensures that $t^*\geq n^2$.) Proof of Corollary \[cor1\] --------------------------- The proof of Theorem \[th1\] shows that if $X,Y\in\cQ$ are both $\bse$-good then there is a path from $X$ to $Y$ in $\cQ$ of length $O(n\log n)$. Since almost all of $\cQ$ is $\bse$-good, we are done. [\ \ ]{} [99]{} N. Alon and J. Spencer, The Probabilistic Method, 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken NJ, 2008. G. R. Brightwell and P. Winkler, Random colorings of a Cayley tree. [*Contemporary combinatorics*]{}, 10:247–276, 2002. B. Cousins and S. Vempala, Bypassing KLS: Gaussian Cooling and an $O^*(n^3)$ Volume Algorithm, STOC 2015. M. Dyer, A. Frieze. Randomly coloring graphs with lower bounds on girth and maximum degree. [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{}, 23(2):167-179, 2003. M.E. Dyer, A.M. Frieze and R. Kannan, A random polynomial time algorithm for approximating the volume of convex bodies, [*Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery*]{} 38(1):1–17, 1991. A.M. Frieze and P. Melsted, Randomly coloring simple hypergraphs, [*Information Processing Letters*]{} 11 (2011) 848-853. A.M. Frieze and D. Mubayi, Colouring Simple Hypergraphs, [*Journal of Combinatorial Theoty B*]{} 103 (2013) 767-794. A.M. Frieze and E. Vigoda, A survey on the use of Markov chains to randomly sample colorings, in [*Combinatorics, Complexity and Chance, A tribute to Dominic Welsh*]{}, (G. Grimmett, C. McDiarmid Eds.) (2007) 53-71. B. Haeupler, Saha and Srinivasan, New Constructive Aspects of the Lovász Local lemma, [*Journal of the ACM*]{} 58 (2011) . M.R. Jerrum, A very simple algorithm for estimating the number of $k$-colorings of a low-degree graph, [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{}, 7(2):157–165, 1995. M.R. Jerrum, A. Sinclair and E. Vigoda, A polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the permanent of a matrix with non-negative entries, [*Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery*]{}, 51(4):671-697, 2004. R. Kannan, L. Lovász and M. Simonovits, Random walks and an $O^*(n^5)$ volume algorithm for convex bodies, [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{}, 11(1):1–50, 1997. L. Lovász and S. Vempala, Simulated Annealing in Convex Bodies and an $O^*(n^4)$ Volume Algorithm. In *Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science* (FOCS), 650-659, 2003. J. Salas and A. Sokal, Absence of phase transition for antiferromagnetic Potts models via the Dobrushin uniqueness theorem, [*Journal of Statistical Physics*]{}, 86(3-4):551–579, 1997. E. Vigoda, Improved bounds for sampling colorings, [*Journal of Mathematical Physics*]{}, 41(3):1555-1569, 2000. Proof of ========= $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\cQ(\cA_v)&={\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\cA_v\mid \bigcap_{e\in E}\cB_e)\\ &=\frac{{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\cA_v\cap \bigcap_{e\in \cN_v}\cB_e\mid \bigcap_{e\notin \cN_v}\cB_e)} {{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\bigcap_{e\in \cN_v}\cB_e\mid \bigcap_{e\notin \cN_v}\cB_e)}\\ &\leq \frac{{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\cA_v\mid \bigcap_{e\notin \cN_v}\cB_e)} {{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\bigcap_{e\in \cN_v}\cB_e\mid \bigcap_{e\notin \cN_v}\cB_e)}\\ &=\frac{{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\cA_v)} {{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_{\Omega}(\bigcap_{e\in \cN_v}\cB_e\mid \bigcap_{e\notin \cN_v}\cB_e)}\\ &\leq \frac{{\operatorname{\bf Pr}}_\Omega(\cA_v)}{\prod_{e\in \cN_v}(1-x_e)}. \label{last}\end{aligned}$$ Inequality follows from a standard proof of the Lovász Local Lemma, see for example Alon and Spencer [@AS], 3rd Edition, (5.4). Proof of ========= The proof in [@FM] starts with : $$\begin{aligned} {\operatorname{\bf Pr}}(y_{v,i,X}\geq \m_i) &\leq {\left(\frac{e\binom{k-1}{i}(i/q)^{k-1-i}\D}{\m_i}\right)}^{\m_i}\label{upper1}\\ &={\left(\frac{e\binom{k-1}{i}(i/q)^{k-1-i}\D}{(\e q)^i}\right)}^{\m_i}\\ &\leq {\left(\frac{k^ie^{i+1}i^{k-1}\D}{i^{2i}(\e q)^{k-1}}\right)}^{\m_i}\\ &\leq {\left(\frac{k^ie^{i+1}i^{k-1}}{i^{2i}(500k^2)^{k-1}}\right)}^{\m_i}\\ &\leq 10^{-2\m_i}\\ &\leq 10^{-2\e q}.\label{lastone}\end{aligned}$$ Considering the union of the $k-2$ events that define $\cA_v$, we inflate the bound in by $k-2$ and obtain . [^1]: Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1362785.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Marijn J.H. Heule' bibliography: - 'DRAT.bib' title: 'The DRAT format and DRAT-trim checker' --- The proof checker DRAT-trim [@Wetzler14] can be used to check whether a propositional formula in the DIMACS format is unsatisfiable. Given a propositional formula and a clausal proof, DRAT-trim validates that the proof is a certificate of unsatisfiability of the formula. Clausal proofs should be in the DRAT format which is used to validate the results of the SAT competitions. The format is defined below. The DRAT format and the corresponding checker DRAT-trim are designed based on the following goals: 1) It should be easy to emit clausal proofs to ensure that many SAT solvers will support it; 2) proofs should be compact to reduce the overhead of writing the proof and to make sure that the proof can be stored; 3) proof validation should be efficient; and 4) all techniques used in state-of-the-art SAT solvers should be expressible in the format. Regarding the last point, several techniques used in state-of-the-art SAT solvers cannot be expressed using resolution. The DRAT format is therefore a generalization of Extended Resolution. In short, each step in a clausal proof is either the addition or the deletion of a clause. Each clause addition step should preserve satisfiability, which should be computable in polynomial time. The polynomial time checking procedure is described in detail below. Clause deletion steps are not checked, because they trivially preserve satisfiability. The main reason to include clause deletion steps in proofs is to reduce the computational costs to validate proofs. Syntax of Input Files {#syntax-of-input-files .unnumbered} ===================== The DRAT-trim checker requires two input files: a CNF formula in the DIMACS format and a clausal proof in the DRAT format. Both formats are defined below. The syntax of a CNF formula in DIMACS format is: <formula> = { <comment> } "p cnf " <var-max> " " <num-cls> "\n" <cnf> <cnf> = { <comment> | <clause> } <comment> = "c " <anything> "\n" <clause> = { <blank> }{ <lit> } "0" <lit> = <pos> <blank> | <neg> <blank> <pos> = "1" | "2" | ... | <max-idx> <neg> = "-" <pos> <blank> = " " | "\n" | "\t" where [|]{} means choice, [{ $\dots$ }]{} is equivalent to the Kleene star operation (that is a finite number of repetitions including 0) and is $2^{31} - 1$. In the first line of a DIMCAS formula, should be at least as high as the largest used in the formula, while should equal the number of clauses in the formula. In case there exists a literal or [“-” &lt;pos&gt;]{}, such that &lt;pos&gt; is larger than , then the formula is invalid. The formula is also invalid if the number of clauses is not equal to . The DIMCAS format is the default format used in SAT solvers and has been used as the input format by all SAT Competitions. The syntax of a clausal proof in DRAT format is as follows: <proof> = { <comment> | <clause> | "d" <blank> <clause> } <comment> = "c " <anything> "\n" <clause> = { <blank> }{ <lit> } "0" <lit> = <pos> <blank> | <neg> <blank> <pos> = "1" | "2" | .... | <max-idx> <neg> = "-" <pos> <blank> = " " | "\n" | "\t" Notice that the syntax of the DIMACS and DRAT formats is equivalent for , , , and . However, DIMACS and DRAT files differ in their interpretation. Formulas in the DIMACS files are multi-sets of clauses. Hence, swapping clauses in a DIMACS file preserves the interpretation. On the other hand, DRAT files are a sequence of clause addition and deletion steps. As a consequence, the order of the clauses influences the proof. A clausal proof is valid with respect to a given formula, if 1) all clause addition steps are valid (details are below); and 2) if the proof contains the empty clause ([“0”]{}). The empty clause typically is the last clause of the proof file, because all lines after the empty clause are redundant and ignored. Clause Syntax Restrictions {#clause-syntax-restrictions .unnumbered} ========================== There are two restrictions regarding clauses in both the DIMACS and the DRAT formats. The first restriction is that no clause can be a tautology, i.e., contains a complementary set of literals. Hence if a clause contains it cannot contain [“-” &lt;lit&gt;]{} as well. The second restriction is that clauses cannot contain duplicate literals. On the other hand, formulas are allowed to have duplicate clauses. Hence formulas are multi-sets of clauses. Clause Addition Preconditions {#clause-addition-preconditions .unnumbered} ============================= A clause with only one literal is called a unit clause. Checking whether a clause is redundant with respect to a CNF formula is computed via Unit Clause Propagation (UCP). UCP works as follows: For each unit clause $(l)$ all literal occurrences of $\bar l$ are removed from the formula. Notice that this can result in new unit clauses. UCP terminate when either no literals can be removed or when it results in a conflict, i.e., all literals in a clause have been removed. Let $C$ be a clause. $\overline{C}$ denotes the negation of a clause, which is a conjunction of all negated literals in $C$. A clause C has the redundancy property Asymmetric Tautology (AT) with respect to a CNF formula $F$ iff UCP on $F \land (\overline C)$ results in a conflict. The core redundancy property used in the DRAT format is Resolution Asymmetric Tautology (RAT). A clause $C$ has the RAT property with respect to a CNF formula $F$ if there exists a literal $l \in C$ such that for all clauses $D$ in $F$ with $\lnot l \in D$, the clause $C \lor (D \setminus \{\lnot l\})$ has the property AT with respect to $F$. Notice that RAT property is a generalization of the AT property. The DRAT proof checking works as follows. Let $F$ be the input formula and $P$ be the clausal proof. At each step $i$, the formula is modified. The initial state is: $F_{0} = F$. At step $i > 0$, the $i^{th}$ line of $P$ is read. If the line has the prefix [d]{}, then the clause C described on that line is removed: $F_{i} = F_{i-1} \setminus \{C\}$. Otherwise, if there is no prefix, then C must have the RAT property with respect to formula $F_{i-1}$. This must be validated. Recall that the RAT property requires a pivot literal $l$. In the DRAT formula it is expected that the first literal in $C$ is the pivot. If the RAT property can be validated, then the clause is added to the formula: $F_{i} = F_{i-1} \land C$. If the validation fails, then the proof is invalid. The empty clause at the end of the proof should have the AT property as it does not have a first literal. Clause Deletion Details {#clause-deletion-details .unnumbered} ======================= The only expectation of a clause deletion step is that the to-be-deleted clause is present in the current formula. Clause deletion steps are ignored if the clause is not present in the current formula. DRAT-trim will print a warning to notify the user about such unexpected steps. A clause deletion step removes a single clause (if the clause is present). Since formulas are multi-sets of clauses, duplicate clauses may exist. In order to remove all $k$ copies of a clause, $k$ clause deletion steps are required in a clausal proof. If case a duplicate clause is deleted, then DRAT-trim removes an arbitrary copy. DRAT-trim ignores deletion steps of unit clauses by design. This decision facilities a more efficient implementation and reduces the complexity of the checker. The main reason to add deletion information to a clausal proof is to reduce the computation costs to validate that proof. However, deletion of unit clauses has the opposite effect. Notice that ignoring deletion steps of unit clauses can turn a valid DRAT proof into an invalid one — and the other way around. DRAT-trim therefore prints a warning statement to inform the user about such a modification. Example {#example .unnumbered} ======= Consider the following CNF formula in DIMACS format (with spacing to increase readability): p cnf 4 8 1 2 -3 0 -1 -2 3 0 2 3 -4 0 -2 -3 4 0 -1 -3 -4 0 1 3 4 0 -1 2 4 0 1 -2 -4 0 A valid DRAT proof for the above formula is: -1 0 d -1 2 4 0 2 0 0 The first step is to validate that the first clause in the proof [-1 0]{} has the RAT property with respect to $F_{0}$ (the input formula). This RAT check can be partitioned into three AT checks: there are three clauses containing the literal [1]{}: [1 2 -3 0]{}, [1 3 4 0]{} and [1 -2 -4 0]{}. Following the description above, the RAT checks requires checking the AT check for the clauses [-1 2 -3 0]{}, [-1 3 4 0]{} and [-1 -2 -4 0]{}. For the first AT check, UCP on the formula $F_{0} \land (1) \land (\lnot 2) \land (3)$ should result the empty clause. First, clause [-1 -3 -4 0]{} is reduced to the unit $(\lnot 4)$. Now the clause [-1 2 4 0]{} is reduced to the empty clause. The RAT check of [-1 0]{} succeeds. Now [-1 0]{} will be added to the formula: $F_{1} = F_{0} \land (\lnot 1)$. The second step is the removal of the clause [d -1 2 4 0]{}. Deletion steps are not checked. This results in $F_{2} = F_{1} \setminus (\lnot 1 \lor 2 \lor 4)$. Remarks on Efficient Proof Validation {#remarks-on-efficient-proof-validation .unnumbered} ===================================== In order to efficiently validate a DRAT proof, several optimizations to the checking algorithm are required. Examples of such optimizations are backward checking and core first unit propagation. Details about these techniques are described in [@Heule:2013:trim]. Binary DRAT Format ================== This section describes the “binary format” for input proof files. Mapping DIMACS Literals to Unsigned Integers {#mapping-dimacs-literals-to-unsigned-integers .unnumbered} -------------------------------------------- The first step of the binary encoding is mapping literals in the DIMACS format to unsigned integers. The following mapping function is used: $$map(l) := (l > 0)~?~2 \cdot l : -2 \cdot l + 1.$$ The mapping for some DIMACS literals are shown below. DIMACS literals unsigned integers -63 127 129 258 -8191 16383 -8193 16387 Variable-Byte Encoding of Unsigned Integers {#variable-byte-encoding-of-unsigned-integers .unnumbered} ------------------------------------------- Assume that [w0]{}, $\dots$, [wi]{} are 7-bit words, [w1]{} to [wi]{} all non zero and the unsigned number [x]{} can be represented as x = w0 + 2^7*w1 + 2^14*w2 + 2^(7*i)*wi The variable-byte encoding of DRAT (also used in AIGER) is the sequence of $i$ bytes [b0]{}, ..., [bi]{}: 1w0, 1w1, 1w2, ..., 0wi The MSB of a byte in this sequence signals whether this byte is the last byte in the sequence, or whether there are still more bytes to follow. Here are some examples: unsigned integer byte sequence of encoding (in hexadecimal) x b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 0 00 1 01 2^7-1 = 127 7f 2^7 = 128 80 01 2^8 + 2 = 258 82 02 2^14 - 1 = 16383 ff 7f 2^14 + 3 = 16387 83 80 01 2^28 - 1 ff ff ff 7f 2^28 + 7 87 80 80 80 01 Bringing it together {#bringing-it-together .unnumbered} -------------------- In the binary DRAT format, each clause consists of at least two bytes. The first byte expresses whether the lemma is added (character [a]{} or [61]{} in hexadecimal) or deleted (character [d]{} or [64]{} in hexadecimal). The last byte of each lemma is the zero byte (00 in hexadecimal). In between these two bytes, the literals of the lemma are shown as unsigned integers in the variable-byte encoding. In the example below, the plain DRAT format requires $26$ bytes (including the new line characters and excluding the redundant spaces in the second lemma), while the binary DRAT format of the same proof requires only $12$ bytes. Emitting proofs in the binary format reduces the size on disk by approximately a factor of three compared to the conventional (plain) DRAT format. plain DRAT binary DRAT (in hexadecimal) d -63 -8193 0 64 7f 83 80 01 00 61 82 02 ff 7f 00 129 -8191 0 References:

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We study the formation and destabilization of dark states in a single trapped $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$ ion caused by the cooling and repumping laser fields required for Doppler cooling and fluorescence detection of the ion. By numerically solving the time-dependent density matrix equations for the eight-level system consisting of the sublevels of the $5s\,^2S_{1/2}$, $5p\,^2P_{1/2}$, and $4d\,^2D_{3/2}$ states, we analyze the different types of dark states and how to prevent them in order to maximize the scattering rate, which is crucial for both the cooling and the detection of the ion. The influence of the laser linewidths and ion motion on the scattering rate and the dark resonances is studied. The calculations are then compared with experimental results obtained with an endcap ion trap system located at the National Research Council of Canada and found to be in good agreement. The results are applicable also to other alkaline earth ions and isotopes without hyperfine structure.' author: - 'T. Lindvall' - 'M. Merimaa' - 'I. Tittonen' - 'A. A. Madej' title: 'Dark-state suppression and optimization of laser cooling and fluorescence in a trapped alkaline-earth-metal single ion' --- Introduction ============ A single ion in a radiofrequency (RF) ion trap can be laser cooled to a low temperature and confined to a region in space with dimensions less than an optical wavelength. It thus constitutes a pure and well isolated quantum system that lends itself to applications where control and isolation from the environment are called for: Narrow optical transitions in trapped ions can be used to realize optical frequency standards [@Madej2001a; @Margolis2009a], and ion traps are also promising systems for the implementation of a scalable quantum computer [@Leibfried2003a; @Wineland2011a]. We study even isotopes of the alkaline-earth-metal ions that have no nuclear spin and thus no hyperfine structure, most notably $^{24}$Mg$^+$, $^{40}$Ca$^+$, $^{88}$Sr$^+$, and $^{138}$Ba$^+$, but also including less abundant isotopes of these elements. Numerical calculations and a comparison with experimental results are performed for $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$, the lowest-lying energy levels of which are shown in Fig. \[fig:SrII\]. The $^2S_{1/2} - \,^2P_{1/2}$ transition is used to Doppler-cool the ion. The narrow $^2S_{1/2} - \,^2D_{5/2}$ electric quadrupole transition is used as the clock transition in optical clocks, for sub-Doppler cooling using resolved sideband cooling [@Wineland1975a], and as a qubit candidate for quantum computing [@Nagerl2000a]. The occurrence of a transition to the $^2D_{5/2}$ state is detected using Dehmelt’s electron shelving technique [@Dehmelt1982a; @Dehmelt1975a], i.e., as a dark period in the fluorescence caused by the cooling laser. The $^2P_{1/2}$ excited state has a finite probability of decaying to the metastable $^2D_{3/2}$ state. This requires a repumping laser tuned to the $^2D_{3/2} - \,^2P_{1/2}$ transition that returns the ion to the cooling cycle. A high scattering rate is crucial for both Doppler cooling and fluorescence detection of the trapped ion. It is compromised by the formation of dark states, which can be angular momentum eigenstates or superpositions of Zeeman sublevels of the $^2S_{1/2}$ and/or $^2D_{3/2}$ states (coherent population trapping, CPT [@Alzetta1976a; @Arimondo1996a]). CPT resonances between the $^2S_{1/2}$ and the $^2D_{3/2}$ states can be experimentally observed by sweeping the detuning of one of the laser beams [@Janik1985a; @Klein1990a; @Siemers1992a; @Kurth1995a; @Barwood1998a]. It is also known that optical pumping into dark superposition states between the $^2D_{3/2}$ sublevels can occur when the magnetic field is weak and that this can be prevented for example by modulating the polarization of the repumper [@Barwood1998a; @Berkeland1998b]. ![\[fig:SrII\]Lowest energy levels of $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$. Cooling and repumping transitions are shown as arrows together with their respective wavelengths.](Fig01-SrII-levels-gs){width="0.67\columnwidth"} Berkeland and Boshier [@Berkeland2002a] have theoretically studied how to destabilize dark states in Zeeman degenerate systems using an external magnetic field or by modulating the laser polarization. Both methods rely on making the dark states evolve in time more rapidly than the optical pumping processes. One of the systems they consider is the $^2S_{1/2} - \,^2P_{1/2} - \,^2D_{3/2}$ system. They recommend Rabi frequencies that give a reasonable scattering rate without excessive power broadening and point out that the repumper should have a positive detuning to tune the system away from CPT resonance (the cooling laser is red-detuned for Doppler cooling). The magnetic field or rate of polarization modulation required to destabilize the dark states is then analyzed. This paper expands on the results in Ref. [@Berkeland2002a]. We allow the two laser fields to have different polarizations and take into account the effect of the laser linewidths and correlation properties on the CPT resonances. Furthermore, the effect of the motion of the ion, secular and micromotion, is analyzed. Finally, the theoretical results are compared to experimental spectra from the $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$ endcap trap at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) [@Dube2010a]. Theory ====== The atomic Hamiltonian of the eight-level system shown in Fig. \[fig:8-level\] is $$H_\mathrm{a} = \hbar\omega_g \sum_{i=1}^2 |i\rangle\langle i| + \hbar\omega_m \sum_{i=3}^6 |i\rangle\langle i| + \hbar\omega_e \sum_{i=7}^8 |i\rangle\langle i|,$$ where $\omega_g$, $\omega_m$, and $\omega_e$ are the frequencies of the ground state $|g\rangle$, metastable state $|m\rangle$, and excited state $|e\rangle$, respectively. The interaction with an external magnetic field $\mathbf{B}$, $V_\mathrm{m} = - \bm{\mu}_\mathrm{m} \cdot\mathbf{B}$, where $\bm{\mu}_\mathrm{m}$ is the magnetic dipole moment, is included in the atomic Hamiltonian in the form of (linearly) Zeeman shifted levels, $$H_\mathrm{a,m} = \sum_{i=1}^8 \hbar\omega_i |i\rangle\langle i|.$$ Here $\omega_i = \omega_l + g_l m_{J,i} \mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar$, where $l$ is $g$, $m$, or $e$ and $g_l$ is the corresponding Landé factor, $m_{J,i}$ is the magnetic quantum number of the level $|i\rangle$, and $\mu_\mathrm{B}$ is the Bohr magneton. We have chosen the quantization axis (QA), i.e., the $z$ axis, along the magnetic field. The ion is located at the origin. It is first assumed to be stationary, later its motion is accounted for.  The eight-level system. Fine-structure state designations are given at the left together with the respective Landé $g$ factors. Magnetic quantum numbers are shown at the bottom. Sublevels are labeled consecutively and the allowed transitions between them are shown as arrows together with the corresponding relative transition amplitudes $C_{ij}$.](Fig02-8-level-n){width="1\columnwidth"} The system is interacting with two laser fields that can have arbitrary time-dependent polarizations. The cooling field is slightly red-detuned from the $|g\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle$ transition (for Doppler cooling) and induces the transitions shown as black arrows in Fig. \[fig:8-level\], while the repumping field is near resonant with the $|m\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle$ transition and induces the transitions shown as gray (red) arrows in Fig. \[fig:8-level\]. The electric field of the laser field $i=\mathrm{c}, \mathrm{r}$ is written as $$\label{eq:E_laser} \mathbf{E}_i(t) = \frac{\mathcal{E}_i}{2} \left[ f_0^i(t) \mathbf{u}_0 + f_{+1}^i(t) \mathbf{u}_{+1} + f_{-1}^i(t) \mathbf{u}_{-1}\right] e^{-i\omega_i t} + \text{c.c.},$$ where $\mathcal{E}_i$ is the electric field amplitude, $\omega_i$ is the frequency, c.c. stands for complex conjugate and $f_q^i(t)$ is the time-dependent complex amplitude of the polarization component $q$, obtained as the projection of the unit polarization vector of the field onto the spherical unit vector $\mathbf{u}_q$. These are $$\mathbf{u}_{\pm1} = \mp \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (\mathbf{u}_x \pm i\mathbf{u}_y), \quad \mathbf{u}_{0} = \mathbf{u}_z,$$ and describe $\sigma^\pm$ and $\pi$ polarized light, respectively. In the electric dipole and rotating wave approximations, the interaction Hamiltonians for the two fields become $$\begin{aligned} V_\mathrm{c}(t) = -\frac{\hbar \Omega_\mathrm{c}}{2} \big[&f^\mathrm{c}_0(t)& (C_{71}|7\rangle\langle 1| + C_{82}|8\rangle\langle 2|) \nonumber \\* &+& f^\mathrm{c}_{+1}(t) C_{81}|8\rangle\langle 1| \nonumber \\* &+& f^\mathrm{c}_{-1}(t) C_{72}|7\rangle\langle 2|\big] e^{-i\omega_\mathrm{c}t} + \text{H.c.}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} V_\mathrm{r}(t) = -\frac{\hbar \Omega_\mathrm{r}}{2} \big[&f^\mathrm{r}_0(t)& (C_{74}|7\rangle\langle 4| + C_{85}|8\rangle\langle 5|) \nonumber \\* &+& f^\mathrm{r}_{+1}(t) (C_{73}|7\rangle\langle 3| + C_{84}|8\rangle\langle 4|) \nonumber \\* &+& f^\mathrm{r}_{-1}(t) (C_{75}|7\rangle\langle 5|+C_{86}|8\rangle\langle 6|)\big] \nonumber \\* &\times& e^{-i\omega_\mathrm{r}t} + \text{H.c.},\end{aligned}$$ where H.c. stands for Hermitian conjugate. The coefficients $C_{ji}$ are the relative transition amplitudes of the electric dipole transitions and can be obtained using the Wigner-Eckart theorem, which states how a matrix element depends on the $m_J$ quantum numbers [@Sobelman:ASRT] $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:W-E_theorem} \langle J' m_J' | T^\kappa_q |J m_J\rangle &=& (-1)^{J'-m_J'} \langle J'||T^\kappa ||J\rangle \begin{pmatrix} J' & \kappa & J \\ -m_J' & q & m_J \end{pmatrix} \nonumber \\ &=& C_{J'm_J',Jm_J} T^\kappa_{J',J}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $T^\kappa_q$ is a set of tensor operators of rank $\kappa$ and $T^\kappa_{J',J} = \langle J'||T^\kappa ||J\rangle$ is the reduced matrix element that does not depend on $m_J$, $m_J'$, or $q$. Using Eq. (\[eq:W-E\_theorem\]) for the electric dipole operator ($\kappa=1$; $q = 0$ for $\pi$ and $\pm1$ for $\sigma^\pm$ transitions), one obtains: $C_{82}=-C_{71}=6^{-1/2}$, $C_{72}=-C_{81}=3^{-1/2}$, $C_{73}=C_{86}=2^{-1}$, $C_{74}=C_{85}=-6^{-1/2}$, and $C_{75}=C_{84}=2^{-1}3^{-1/2}$. The “two-level” Rabi frequencies corresponding to the two laser fields are $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \mu_{P_{1/2},S_{1/2}} \mathcal{E}_\mathrm{c} /\hbar$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{r} = \mu_{P_{1/2},D_{3/2}} \mathcal{E}_\mathrm{r} /\hbar$, where $\mu_{L'_{J'},L_J} = \langle L'_{J'}||-e\mathbf{r} ||L_J\rangle$ is the reduced dipole moment. The Rabi frequencies can be assumed to be real. The true Rabi frequency for a certain transition $|i\rangle \rightarrow |j\rangle$ is equal to $C_{ji} \Omega_k$ ($k=c,r$ depending on which laser field drives the transition). Note that Ref. [@Berkeland2002a] uses rms Rabi frequencies defined as $\Omega_\text{rms}^2 = \sum_{m_J,m_J'} |\Omega_{m_J m_J'}|^2$. From the sum rule [@Sobelman:ASRT] $$\label{eq:matrix_sum} \sum_{m_J, m_J'} |\langle J' m_J' | T^\kappa_q |J m_J\rangle|^2 = \frac{1}{2\kappa +1} |T^\kappa_{J',J}|^2,$$ we obtain the relation between the rms and the two-level Rabi frequencies: $\Omega_\text{rms} = 3^{-1/2} \Omega$. The Liouville-von Neumann equation for the density matrix of the eight-level system is $$\label{eq:L-vN} \frac{\mathrm{d}\rho}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{1}{i\hbar}[H_\mathrm{a,m}+V_\mathrm{c}(t)+V_\mathrm{r}(t),\rho] +\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho^\text{relax}}{\mathrm{d}t}.$$ Terms oscillating at optical frequencies are eliminated by the substitutions $$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\rho}_{kl} &=& \rho_{kl} e^{-i\omega_\mathrm{c}t}, \quad 1\leq k\leq 2, \; 7\leq l\leq 8, \\ \tilde{\rho}_{kl} &=& \rho_{kl} e^{-i\omega_\mathrm{r}t}, \quad 3\leq k\leq 6, \; 7\leq l\leq 8, \\ \tilde{\rho}_{kl} &=& \rho_{kl} e^{-i(\omega_\mathrm{c}-\omega_\mathrm{r})t}, \quad 1\leq k\leq 2, \; 3\leq l\leq 6.\end{aligned}$$ Relaxation ---------- The relaxation terms $\mathrm{d}\rho^\text{relax}/\mathrm{d}t$ in Eq. (\[eq:L-vN\]) are added phenomenologically. The excited state populations decay at the rate $\Gamma$. The excited state decays to the ground and metastable states with the probabilities $A_g$ and $A_m=1-A_g$ and the decay probability for a certain magnetic sublevel transition, e.g., $|8\rangle$ to $|6\rangle$ can then be calculated as $$A_{86} = \frac{|C_{86}|^2 A_m}{|C_{86}|^2+|C_{85}|^2+|C_{84}|^2}.$$ The excited state coherence $\rho_{78}$ decays at the rate $\Gamma$ and can be partially transferred to the ground state coherences in the spontaneous emission process [@Cohen-Tannoudji1977a] $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\mathrm{d}\rho_{m_g,m_g'}^\text{relax}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \Gamma_{e\rightarrow g} (2J_e+1) \sum_{q=-1}^1 C_{J_e m_e, J_g m_g} C_{J_e m_e', J_g m_g'} \nonumber \\ \times \rho_{m_e=m_g+q,m_e'=m_g'+q}, \nonumber \\ { }\end{aligned}$$ where the transition amplitudes $C_{J_e m_e, J_g m_g}$ are as defined above. This adds the following relaxation terms to the evolution equations $$\begin{aligned} \frac{\mathrm{d}\rho_{i,i+1}^\text{relax}}{\mathrm{d}t} &=& 2 C_{7i} C_{8,i+1} A_m \Gamma \rho_{78}, \quad i = 3,4,5, \\ \frac{\mathrm{d}\rho_{12}^\text{relax}}{\mathrm{d}t} &=& 2 C_{71} C_{82} A_g \Gamma \rho_{78}.\end{aligned}$$ The optical coherences decay at the rate $\Gamma/2$ (we assume the laser linewidths to be $\ll\Gamma$) and the metastable state populations and coherences decay at the rate $\gamma_m \ll \Gamma$. The transition probabilities for the quadrupole transitions can be obtained from Eq. \[eq:W-E\_theorem\] with $\kappa = 2$ and the branching ratios for decay from the metastable state are then $A_{mg} = |C_{mg}|^2/\sum_g |C_{mg}|^2$: $A_{62}=A_{31}=1/5$, $A_{61}=A_{32}=4/5$, $A_{52}=A_{41}=2/5$, and $A_{51}=A_{42}=3/5$. We have assumed that there are no external processes, such as background gas collisions, that cause transitions between the ground or metastable $m_J$ levels or dephasing of the ground and metastable coherences. The dephasing rate of the coherences between the ground and the metastable levels depends on the laser linewidths [@Arimondo1996a] $$\label{eq:g-m_dephasing} \gamma_{g,m} = \frac{1}{2}\left( \gamma_m + \Delta\omega_\mathrm{c}+\Delta\omega_\mathrm{r} - 2\Delta\omega_\mathrm{c,r} \right),$$ where $\Delta\omega_\mathrm{c}$ and $\Delta\omega_\mathrm{r}$ are the FWHM linewidths of the cooling and repumper lasers and $\Delta\omega_\mathrm{c,r}$ is the cross-correlated linewidth. For perfectly cross-correlated lasers the linewidths cancel, whereas for completely uncorrelated lasers $\Delta\omega_\mathrm{c,r} = 0$ and the linewidths add up. In the low-intensity limit, the linewidth of the CPT resonances is $2\gamma_{g,m}$. Solution of density matrix equations ------------------------------------ The time-dependent density matrix is solved by direct numerical integration of Eq. (\[eq:L-vN\]) with the initial condition $\rho_{11}=\rho_{22}=1/2$, i.e., a thermally populated ground state. This describes the situation well when the cooling and repumping beams are turned on after a probe-laser interrogation on the $^2S_{1/2} - \,^2D_{5/2}$ quadrupole transition. When the ion is first trapped, the situation is more complicated, as it is hot and there might be another far-detuned cooling field present [@Brownnutt2007a]. However, also in this case the treatment should be valid for the “final” state, i.e., when the ion has cooled down and reached quasi-steady state (when the only time dependence is due to the possible polarization modulation of the repumper). As the density matrix describes ensemble averages, the time-dependent solution should be interpreted as the average over an infinite number of experimental cycles for a single trapped ion. If the polarization amplitudes $f_q^i$ are time independent, the steady-state solution can be solved by setting the time derivative to 0 in Eq. (\[eq:L-vN\]). If they are time-dependent, we must integrate Eq. (\[eq:L-vN\]) until quasi-steady state is reached and average the density matrix over one polarization modulation period, which is considerably more computer time consuming. The (quasi-)steady-state value of the scattering rate is the most relevant parameter for comparison with experiments. To collect the fluorescence of the single ion, it is customary to use a bandpass filter at the cooling wavelength to minimize problems with background light and scattering. We therefore define the scattering rate as $\Gamma_\mathrm{sc} = A_g \Gamma (\rho_{77}+\rho_{88})$. Experimental parameters for $^{88}$S$^+$ \[sec:exppar\] ======================================================= Table \[tab:exp\_par\] summarizes the numerical parameters used for the $^{88}$Sr$^+$ ion in this paper. We use the dipole matrix elements, spontaneous decay rate, and branching ratio calculated by Jiang *et al.* [@JiangD2009a]. Their values are in good agreement with the experimental $^2 P_{1/2}$ lifetime in [@Pinnington1995a] and with the calculated lifetime and oscillator strengths in [@Brage1998a]. Gallagher’s [@Gallagher1967a] experimental oscillator strengths and branching ratio are often cited. However, his oscillator strength for the $^2S_{1/2} - \,^2P_{1/2}$ transition agrees with the results in [@JiangD2009a], but he acknowledges that his value for the $^2D_{3/2} - \,^2P_{1/2}$ transition probably is too large, which is why we chose to use the values of Jiang *et al.* [@JiangD2009a]. [l d c]{} Parameter & & Ref. No.\ $\mu_{P_{1/2},S_{1/2}}$ & 3.078 ea\_0 & [@JiangD2009a]\ $\mu_{P_{1/2},D_{3/2}}$ & 3.112 ea\_0 & [@JiangD2009a]\ $\Gamma$ & 135.58 10\^[6]{}\^[-1]{} & [@JiangD2009a]\ $A_g$ & 0.9444 & [@JiangD2009a]\ $\gamma_m$ & 2.30\^[-1]{} & [@Mannervik1999a]\ Using $I_i = \varepsilon_0 c \mathcal{E}_i^2 /2$, we can relate the two-level Rabi frequencies to the laser intensities $$\label{eq:Rabi_int} \Omega_i = \frac{\mu_i}{\hbar}\sqrt{\frac{2I_i}{\varepsilon_0 c}}, \quad i=\mathrm{c},\mathrm{r},$$ where $\mu_i$ is shorthand notation for the corresponding reduced dipole moment. This gives the numerical relations $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = (I_\mathrm{c}/39.8\;\text{mW}\text{cm}^{-2})^{1/2}$ and $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = (I_\mathrm{r}/39.0\;\text{mW}\text{cm}^{-2})^{1/2}$. The laser beams can be carefully adjusted, so we assume that the ion experiences the peak intensity of the Gaussian beam, $I_i=2P_i/\pi w_i^2$, where $P_i$ is the power and $w_i$ is the waist. Berkeland and Boshier [@Berkeland2002a] recommend using the two-level Rabi frequencies $\Omega_\mathrm{c} \approx \Omega_\mathrm{r} \approx 3^{-1/2}\Gamma$ in order to obtain a reasonable scattering rate with little power broadening. However, considerably higher cooling laser Rabi frequencies have been used in experiments at both the NRC ($\Omega_\mathrm{c} \approx 20\Gamma$) [@Madej2004a] and the National Physical Laboratory ($\Omega_\mathrm{c} \approx 7\Gamma$) [@Brownnutt2007]. Types of dark states \[sec:dark\_states\] ========================================= Ground-level dark states \[sec:g-states\] ----------------------------------------- Berkeland and Boshier [@Berkeland2002a] state that for a transition between states with half-integer angular momentum and $J_g = J_e$, such as the cooling transition considered here, there is one dark state for circular polarization only. Let us elaborate on this. Figure \[fig:g-states\] shows the scattering rate as a function of time for different cooling laser polarizations. For a circularly polarized cooling beam in zero magnetic field, we can choose the QA such that the polarization is $\sigma^+$. This polarization only drives the $|1\rangle \rightarrow |8\rangle$ transition and the scattering rate decays rapidly as the population is pumped into the dark state $|2\rangle$ at the optical pumping rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{op} = 0.045 \Gamma$ \[solid (black) curve in Fig. \[fig:g-states\]\]. We have earlier derived an expression for the optical pumping rate in a three-level system with one dark lower level [@Lindvall2009a] $$\label{eq:Gamma_op} \Gamma_\mathrm{op} = \frac{A_n \Gamma \left(\frac{C\Omega}{2}\right)^2}{\delta^2 + \left(\frac{\Gamma}{2}\right)^2 + \left[ 2+\frac{\delta^2-3 \left(\Gamma/2 \right)^2}{\delta^2 + \left( \Gamma/2 \right)^2} A_n \right] \left(\frac{C\Omega}{2}\right)^2}.$$ Here $A_n$ is the spontaneous decay probability to the noncoupled state. If we neglect the metastable state, Eq. (\[eq:Gamma\_op\]) can be applied to the effective three-level system consisting of $|1\rangle$, $|2\rangle$, and $|8\rangle$ ($A_n=A_{82}$, $C=C_{81}$), giving $\Gamma_\mathrm{op} = 0.041 \Gamma$ in reasonable agreement with the numerical result above. If we apply a magnetic field in the direction of the cooling beam, $|2\rangle$ is still a dark eigenstate and the Zeeman shift only changes the detuning.  Time-dependent scattering rates for different cooling polarizations. A $\sigma^+$ polarized cooling beam rapidly pumps the population into the dark state $|2\rangle$ \[$B=0$; solid (black) curve\]. In a transversal magnetic field, the dark state is a superposition state, which is destabilized by the field \[$\mathbf{B} = 350\;\mu\mathrm{T} \mathbf{u}_x$; dashed (red) curve\]. A combination of $\pi$ and $\sigma^+$ polarization creates a partially dark state \[$B=0$; dash-dotted (green) curve\]. For a linearly polarized cooling beam, there are no ground-level dark states \[$B=0$; dotted (blue) curve\]. For all curves, $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma$, $\delta_\mathrm{c} = -\Gamma/2$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\gamma_{g,m}=\Gamma/10$, and repumper polarized along $\mathbf{u}_y$.](Fig03-g-states){width=".85\columnwidth"} If we choose the QA in another direction, e.g., in the $x$ direction when the beam is in the $z$ direction, the polarization in the QA frame is $-2^{-1/2}[\mathbf{u}_0-i2^{-1/2}(\mathbf{u}_{+1} - \mathbf{u}_{-1})]$, i.e., a combination of $\pi$ and $\sigma$ ($\sigma$ refers to light that has a linear polarization orthogonal to the QA and that thus induces $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$ transitions). The dark state is now the superposition state $$|\text{DS}_{1,2}\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (|1\rangle - i|2\rangle),$$ for which $\langle 7 |V_\mathrm{c}|\text{DS}_{1,2}\rangle = \langle 8 |V_\mathrm{c}|\text{DS}_{1,2}\rangle = 0$. If we apply a magnetic field in the direction of the QA ($\mathbf{u}_x$), $|\text{DS}_{1,2}\rangle$ is no longer an energy eigenstate, but the dark state evolves in time $$\label{eq:DStimedep} |\text{DS}_{1,2}\rangle (t) = \frac{e^{-i\omega_gt}}{\sqrt{2}} (e^{ig_g\mu_\mathrm{B}Bt/2\hbar}|1\rangle - i e^{-ig_g\mu_\mathrm{B}Bt/2\hbar}|2\rangle).$$ When the field is strong enough that the evolution rate of the dark state $g_g \mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar$ is higher than the optical pumping rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{op}$ (corresponding to $B\approx 35\;\mu$T for the parameters in Fig. \[fig:g-states\]), the system cannot follow and the dark state is destabilized. Another way to explain this is that the optical pumping rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{op}$ determines the width of the ground states, and the Zeeman shift of the ground levels tune the $\Lambda$ system out of Raman (CPT) resonance. When $g_g \mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar \approx 10 \Gamma_\mathrm{op}$ ($B\approx 350\;\mu$T), the dark state is completely destabilized; see the dashed (red) curve in Fig. \[fig:g-states\]. If the field is increased further so that the Zeeman shifts approach $\Gamma$, the cooling laser is tuned away from resonance and the scattering rate decreases. If the polarization is a combination of $\pi$ and $\sigma^+$ (this can be achieved by an elliptically polarized beam traveling at an angle to the QA), the $\Lambda$ system $|1\rangle \leftrightarrow |8\rangle \leftrightarrow |2\rangle$ is formed, but it is not closed, as the $|1\rangle \leftrightarrow |7\rangle$ transition is also driven. Hence the contrast of the corresponding CPT resonance is less than unity, i.e., the scattering rate decays rapidly, but not to 0 \[dash-dotted (green) curve in Fig. \[fig:g-states\]\]. If the cooling laser is linearly polarized ($\pi$, $\sigma$, or combination thereof in the QA frame), there is no dark state among the ground levels. The slow decay of the dotted (blue) curve in Fig. \[fig:g-states\] is due to dark states among the metastable sublevels, which are considered in Sec. \[sec:m-states\]. In the following, we therefore only consider a linearly polarized cooling beam. Ground-metastable-level dark states ----------------------------------- The ground-metastable-level dark states are CPT superposition states of $|g\rangle$ and $|m\rangle$ sublevels. As the two legs of the $\Lambda$ systems are driven by separate lasers, the CPT resonances can be detected by tuning one of the lasers over the Raman resonance [@Janik1985a; @Klein1990a; @Siemers1992a; @Kurth1995a; @Barwood1998a]. The width and contrast of the ground-metastable CPT resonances depend strongly on the ground-metastable coherence dephasing rate $\gamma_{g,m}$, Eq. (\[eq:g-m\_dephasing\]). Siemers *et al*. [@Siemers1992a] used narrow-band lasers (“a few kHz”) and deduced a coherence dephasing rate of $2\pi\times 12$kHz, in agreement with the assumption of noncorrelated lasers (the actual CPT resonances were wider due to power broadening). The dephasing due to the laser linewidths was not examined in the calculations in Ref. [@Berkeland2002a]. Figure \[fig:gammaL\] shows ground-metastable CPT resonances for parameters corresponding to curve A in Fig. 7 of Ref. [@Berkeland2002a], but for different dephasing rates $\gamma_{g,m}$. As this rate approaches $\Gamma$, the CPT resonances disappear completely. The magnetic field of $150\;\mu$T is large enough to separate the four resonances as well as to destabilize metastable-level dark states (see Sec. \[sec:m-states\]). The CPT resonances have finite linewidths even for $\gamma_{g,m}=0$ due to power broadening, which is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:powerbroadening\]. Note that the blue side of the $^2S_{1/2} - ^2\,P_{1/2}$ transition cannot be scanned in a real ion trap experiment as the ion is lost due to heating.  CPT resonances for different values of $\gamma_{g,m}/\Gamma$: 0 \[solid (black) curve\], 0.01 \[dashed (red) curve\], and 0.1 \[dotted (blue) curve\]. $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar = \Gamma/10$ ($B\approx 150\;\mu$T).](Fig04-g-m-states-dephasing){width=".85\columnwidth"}  Power broadening of the CPT resonances. Normalized (at $\delta_\mathrm{c}=\Gamma$) scattering rate spectra for different Rabi frequencies $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r}$: $0.1\Gamma$ \[solid (black) curve\], $0.3\Gamma$ \[dashed (red) curve\], and $\Gamma$ \[dotted (blue) curvee\]. $\gamma_{g,m}=0$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar = \Gamma/10$ ($B\approx 150\;\mu$T).](Fig05-g-m-states-power){width=".85\columnwidth"} As the cooling laser is red-detuned (typically $\delta_c\approx -\Gamma/2$), ground-metastable CPT resonances can be avoided by tuning the repumper slightly to the blue. If the repumper is modulated so that sidebands are created, care must be taken that no sideband is at Raman resonance either, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:polarizationmodulation\]. Metastable-level dark states \[sec:m-states\] --------------------------------------------- The $|J_m=3/2\rangle \rightarrow |J_e=1/2\rangle$ repumper transition has dark states for all laser polarizations. In zero field, the scattering rate is practically independent of the repumper polarization \[see the solid (black) curve in Fig. \[fig:m-states\]\]. The optical pumping rate is $\Gamma_\mathrm{op} \approx 0.002 \Gamma$ and again Eq. (\[eq:Gamma\_op\]) gives a good estimate if we assume both fields to be linearly polarized so that we can use $C=C_{82}$ and $A_n=A_{86}$. This optical pumping rate is lower than the optical pumping rate into ground-level dark states (Sec. \[sec:g-states\]) by roughly a factor of $A_m/A_g$ as one would expect. The actual dark states depend on the repumper polarization. For $\pi$ polarization, $|3\rangle$ and $|6\rangle$ are dark states, for $\sigma^+$, $|5\rangle$ and $|6\rangle$ are dark, and for $\sigma$ polarization, the dark states are superpositions of $|3\rangle$ and $|5\rangle$ and of $|4\rangle$ and $|6\rangle$.  For $B=0$, the scattering rate is independent of the repumper polarization \[$\pi$, $\sigma$, or $\sigma^+$; solid (black) curve\]. For a $\sigma$ polarized repumper, a field of 100$\mu$T ($2 g_m \mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar \approx 0.09 \Gamma$) destabilizes the dark states completely \[dashed (red) curve\]. $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma$, $\delta_\mathrm{c} = -\Gamma/2$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\gamma_{g,m}=\Gamma/10$, and cooling laser $\sigma$ polarized.](Fig06-m-states){width=".85\columnwidth"} When the repumper is $\sigma$ polarized, the dark states can again be destabilized using a magnetic field. The relation between the optical pumping rate and the required field is not as simple as in Sec. \[sec:g-states\] because the decay probability $A_m$ is low. However, a field of 100$\mu$T (dark state evolution rate $2 g_m \mu_\mathrm{B} B/\hbar \approx 0.09 \Gamma$) is enough to fully destabilize the dark states for the parameters in Fig. \[fig:m-states\] \[dashed (red) curve\]. Polarization angles =================== Let us summarize the requirements on the laser polarizations. In Sec. \[sec:g-states\] we showed that the cooling laser beam should be linearly polarized. If we are far from Raman resonance, its function, from the point of view of dark states, is merely to pump population into the metastable levels, where the repumper can then build up coherences (dark states) unless these are destabilized. Hence the effect of the angle between the magnetic field and the linear cooling laser polarization is negligible, typically only a few percent for the parameters considered here. On the other hand, near Raman resonance the number, position, and amplitude of the ground-metastable CPT resonances depend strongly on the polarization of both laser fields, but this is a regime we try to avoid. The polarization angle of the repumper is crucial for the magnetic-field destabilization to work (see Fig. \[fig:RepumpAngle\]). It works only when the dark states are superpositions, i.e., when the repumper contains both $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$. For all other polarizations ($\pi$, $\sigma^+$, $\sigma^-$, combination of $\pi$ and $\sigma^+$ *or* $\sigma^-$, but not both) there is at least one dark eigenstate into which optical pumping occurs.  Scattering rate as a function of the angle between the magnetic field and the linear repumper polarization when dark states are destabilized using $B=50\;\mu$T \[solid (black) curve\] and $B=100\;\mu$T \[dashed (red) curve\]. $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma$, $\delta_\mathrm{c} = -\Gamma/2$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\gamma_{g,m}=\Gamma/10$, and cooling laser $\sigma$ polarized.](Fig07-repump-angle){width=".85\columnwidth"} Polarization modulation \[sec:polarizationmodulation\] ====================================================== Dark state destabilization using an external magnetic field has been discussed in Sec. \[sec:dark\_states\]. However, there are applications where a strong magnetic field is not desired, in particular ion clocks, where typically fields of only a few microteslas are used. A simple and commonly used way to modulate the repumper polarization is to pass the beam through an electro-optical modulator (EOM) at a 45$^\circ$ angle to the optical axis. The resulting polarization (with beam direction as QA) is $$\begin{aligned} \mathbf{u}_\text{EOM}(t) &=& \frac{1}{2}\left[(1+i e^{-i\varphi_\text{EOM}(t)}) \mathbf{u}_{+1} + (1-i e^{-i\varphi_\text{EOM}(t)}) \mathbf{u}_{-1} \right] \nonumber \\ &=& -\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} (e^{-i\varphi_\text{EOM}(t)} \mathbf{u}_x + \mathbf{u}_y). \label{eq:EOM-pol}\end{aligned}$$ where the phase retardation is [@Berkeland2002a] $$\label{eq:EOM-ret} \varphi_\text{EOM}(t) = \frac{1}{2} \Phi_\text{EOM} ( 1-\cos{\omega_\text{EOM}t}).$$ If the modulation frequency $\omega_\text{EOM}=0$ or the modulation amplitude $\Phi_\text{EOM}=0$, the resulting polarization is the stationary linear polarization incident on the EOM, $(\mathbf{u}_x + \mathbf{u}_y)/\sqrt{2}$. In the following, we consider only the EOM modulation technique. Modulation techniques using acousto-optic modulators (AOMs) give similar results [@Berkeland2002a]. Figure \[fig:pol-mod\] shows that the dark state destabilization due to polarization modulation is very similar to magnetic field destabilization when the dark state evolution rate is the same (cf. Fig. \[fig:m-states\]), except for some oscillations at the modulation frequency $\omega_\text{EOM}$. The two effects also sum up almost fully \[see the dotted (blue) curve in Fig. \[fig:pol-mod\]\].  Scattering rate for stationary $\sigma$ repumper \[solid (black) curve\] and polarization modulated according to Eqs. (\[eq:EOM-pol\]) and (\[eq:EOM-ret\]) at $\omega_\text{EOM}=2\pi\times 2\;\text{MHz} \approx 0.09 \Gamma$ \[dashed (red) curve\]. Modulation at 1MHz plus a 50-$\mu$T field along $\mathbf{u}_x$ gives approximately the same result \[dotted (blue) curve\]. $\Phi_\text{EOM}=\pi$, $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma$, $\delta_\mathrm{c} = -\Gamma/2$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\gamma_{g,m}=\Gamma/10$, and cooling laser $\mathbf{u}_x$ polarized.](Fig08-pol-mod2){width=".85\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:EOM\](a) shows the quasi-steady-state scattering rate as a function of the modulation frequency $\omega_\text{EOM}$. As shown in Fig. \[fig:pol-mod\], the dark-state destabilization is efficient already at $\omega_\text{EOM}\approx 0.1 \Gamma$ for the parameters used here. As expected, there are dips at $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma/2$, where the first- and second-order red sidebands of the repumper are at Raman resonance. Assuming we have a fixed EOM modulation frequency, this must be taken into account when choosing the repumper detuning. The dips become more pronounced if the Rabi frequencies are increased or if $\gamma_{g,m}$ is decreased. Figure \[fig:EOM\](b) shows that for $\omega_\text{EOM}=\Gamma/4$, the scattering rate is maximized for the modulation amplitude $\Phi_\text{EOM} \approx 1.4\pi$. At lower amplitudes the polarization variation is not sufficient to fully destabilize the dark states, and at higher amplitudes an increasing part of the repumper intensity is transferred into sidebands further from resonance. ![\[fig:EOM\] Quasi-steady-state scattering rate (a) as a function of modulation frequency $\omega_\text{EOM}$ for $\Phi_\text{EOM}=\pi$ and (b) as a function of modulation amplitude $\Phi_\text{EOM}$ for $\omega_\text{EOM}=\Gamma/4$. $\Omega_\mathrm{c} = \Omega_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma$, $\delta_\mathrm{c} = -\Gamma/2$, $\delta_\mathrm{r} = \Gamma/2$, $\gamma_{g,m}=\Gamma/10$, cooling laser $\mathbf{u}_x$ polarized, and repumper as in Eqs. (\[eq:EOM-pol\]) and (\[eq:EOM-ret\]).](Fig09-EOM3){width="1\columnwidth"} Ion motion ========== The ion undergoes both secular (thermal) motion at the trap frequencies and micromotion at the applied trap drive frequency. If the ion is not significantly perturbed from the RF voltage symmetry node of the trap by stray fields so that the micromotion amplitude is kept low, the Doppler cooling is not compromised and the ion experiences an approximately constant laser intensity near the beam focus. Under these circumstances, the motion can be accounted for by considering the rest frame of the ion and including the oscillations in the phases of the laser fields. The equations of motion of a single ion in a quadrupole trap are given by the Mathieu equation and the first-order solution in the trap coordinate system $XYZ = R_XR_YR_Z$ is [@Berkeland1998a] $$R_i(t) \approx \left[ R_{0i} + R_{\text{sec},i} \cos{(\omega_{\text{sec},i} t + \theta_{\text{sec},i})} \right] \left( 1+ \frac{q_i}{2} \cos{\Omega t} \right).$$ Here $R_{\text{sec},i}$ is the secular motion amplitude, which can be obtained from the temperature of the ion, $E_{\mathrm{K}i} = k_\mathrm{B} T_i \approx \frac{1}{2} m R_{\text{sec},i}^2 \omega_{\text{sec},i}^2$ [@Berkeland1998a], $\omega_{\text{sec},i}$ is the trap frequency, and $\theta_{\text{sec},i}$ is the phase, determined by the initial position and momentum of the ion. The trap drive frequency is $\Omega$ and $q_i$ is a parameter that depends on the trap geometry, drive voltage, and ion mass. $R_{0i}$ is the displacement of the average position of the ion that is caused by static electric fields and that results in excess micromotion. We consider a geometry, where the endcap trap $Z$ axis is at an angle $\alpha = 35.3^\circ$ to the horizontal plane. The possible beam directions are vertical ($z$) and horizontal at $\pm 45^\circ$ to the horizontal projection of the trap axis ($x$ and $y$). In the beam coordinate system, the ion motion is then given by $$\begin{aligned} r_{x}(t) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ R_{X}(t) -\sin{\alpha} \,R_{Y}(t) -\cos{\alpha} \,R_{Z}(t) \right], \\ r_{y}(t) &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[ R_{X}(t) +\sin{\alpha} \,R_{Y}(t) +\cos{\alpha} \,R_{Z}(t) \right], \\ r_{z}(t) &=& -\cos{\alpha} \,R_{Y}(t) +\sin{\alpha} \,R_{Z}(t).\end{aligned}$$ This geometry is chosen to make the projection of each beam direction on the trap $Z$ axis equal in magnitude ($\cos{\alpha}/\sqrt{2} = \sin{\alpha}$). In the rest frame of the ion, the phase of a laser beam traveling along the $\mathbf{u}_l$ axis is then given by $\exp{\{-i[\omega_j t - k_jr_l(t) - \phi_{jl}]\}}$ ($j=\mathrm{c},\mathrm{r}$). The phase $\phi_{jl}$ is not relevant. Figure \[fig:ionmotion\] illustrates the effect of ion motion using numerical parameters typical for an endcap trap: $q_Z=-2q_{X,Y}=0.4$, $\omega_{\text{sec},Z}=2\omega_{\text{sec},X,Y}=2\pi\times 2$MHz, and $\Omega=2\pi\times 12$MHz. The solid (black) curve is the scattering rate for a stationary ion, $T=0$, equal to the dashed (red) curve in Fig. \[fig:pol-mod\] (note the different horizontal axis), and shows oscillations at the frequency $\omega_\mathrm{EOM}$ only. At finite temperatures, there are additional oscillations at the trap frequencies $\omega_{\text{sec},X,Y}$ and $\omega_{\text{sec},Z}$ and at the drive frequency $\Omega$, and the time dependence of the scattering rate is rather complex. The oscillation amplitudes increase with increasing temperature; see the dashed (red) and dash-dotted (green) curves in Fig. \[fig:ionmotion\], which correspond to temperatures of $0.5$mK (Doppler limit for $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$) and $5$mK, respectively. However, as the density matrix formalism describes an ensemble average over the internal degrees of freedom, it is not physically meaningful to select fixed values for the external degrees of freedom, i.e., the secular motion phases $\theta_i$ that depend on the initial position and velocity of the ion. Instead, we must average over a large number of solutions with random phases $\theta_i$. The dotted (blue) curve in Fig. \[fig:ionmotion\] shows that an average over 250 solutions with $T=5$mK is very close to the curve for a stationary ion. Intuitively, one expects the ion motion to have the most significant effect in the vicinity of a narrow CPT resonance. The left-hand inset in Fig. \[fig:ionmotion\] shows CPT resonances for $\gamma_{g,m}=0$. For a stationary ion (solid black curve), the scattering rate vanishes at CPT resonance, whereas the resonance is significantly “rounded off” in the $T=5$mK case (dashed red curve). However, the right-hand inset in Fig. \[fig:ionmotion\] shows the corresponding curves for $\gamma_{g,m}=0.04\Gamma$ (the value that is used in the comparison with experiments in Sec. \[sec:exp\]) and now the difference between the curves is minute. For the inset curves, the ensemble average was evaluated as a time average once quasi-steady-state was reached, which was particularly convenient as the involved frequencies were chosen to be multiples of $\omega_{\text{sec},X,Y}$. Thus, unless one is studying CPT resonances with a very low coherence dephasing rate $\gamma_{g,m}$, one can closely approximate the scattering rate without accounting for ion motion in cases where the ion motion is of a low amplitude and micromotion effects do not dominate.  Scattering rate for a stationary ion \[$T=0$; solid (black) curve\] and at temperatures $0.5$mK \[dashed (red) curve\] and $5$mK \[dashed-dotted (green) curve\]. The average over 250 curves with $T=5$mK and random secular motion phases $\theta_i$ approaches the stationary case \[dotted (blue) curve\]. Left inset: CPT resonances for a stationary ion \[solid (black) curve\] and at $T=5$mK \[dashed (red) curve\] for $\gamma_{g,m}=0$. Right inset: Corresponding CPT resonances for $\gamma_{g,m}=0.04\Gamma$. Parameters not mentioned are the same as for the dashed (red) curve in Fig. \[fig:pol-mod\].](Fig10-IonMotionFig2){width=".85\columnwidth"} Comparison with experiments \[sec:exp\] ======================================= Endcap trap setup ----------------- We now compare the theoretical results to experimental spectra measured using the $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$ endcap trap at NRC [@Dube2010a]. Briefly, the experiment employs a single ion of $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$ held in an endcap trap [@Schrama1993a; @Sinclair2001a]. The trap characteristic dimensions have endcap electrodes of radius $r_0 = 0.25$mm with separation $2z_0 = 0.541\pm 0.015$mm made of molybdenum. The shield electrodes were kept at ground potential, had a diameter of $2r_2=2$mm, and were made from tantalum tubing. The entire trap structure was composed of nonmagnetic materials and housed in an ultra-high-vacuum environment, where the background pressure was 10nPa, composed primarily of H$_2$. At these pressures, the mean collision times are of the order of $10^3$s [@Madej1990a] and do not contribute to the dephasing rates of the observed line shapes. The ion trap is operated at a trap frequency of $\Omega = 2\pi \times 14.4$MHz with a voltage amplitude of $V_0 = 200$V. The trap secular frequencies were $\omega_{\text{sec},Z}/2\pi = 2.3$MHz and $\omega_{\text{sec},X,Y}/2\pi = 1.2$MHz in the radial direction, with the difference between the two radial frequencies being about 20kHz. The ion is loaded into the trap using a weak effusive source of Sr atoms and photoionized using 461- and 404-nm laser beams which are turned off following the loading process [@Brownnutt2007a]. In this way, micromotion due to patch potentials of deposited Sr is reduced to a minimum and only small adjustments of the trap compensation electrodes are necessary between loadings. The trap is enclosed in a double-layer magnetic shield and the residual field at the trap center is $\mathbf{B} = (-1.22 \mathbf{u}_x -0.70 \mathbf{u}_y + 1.47 \mathbf{u}_z) \;\mu\mathrm{T}$ ($|\mathbf{B}|=2.03 \;\mu\mathrm{T}$). In the experiment, both beams propagate in the $\mathbf{u}_y$ direction. The cooling laser is linearly polarized in the $\mathbf{u}_z$ direction, whereas the repumper polarization is modulated like $\mathbf{u}_\mathrm{r} = 2^{-1/2}(\mathbf{u}_x + e^{-i\varphi_\text{EOM}(t)} \mathbf{u}_z)$. The EOM frequency is 12MHz ($\omega_\text{EOM} = 0.556 \Gamma$) and the amplitude is $\Phi_\text{EOM} = (1.1\pm0.2) \pi$. Typical beam parameters at trap center are $w_\mathrm{c} = 16\pm 1\;\mu$m and $w_\mathrm{r} = 50.5 \pm 2 \;\mu$m. The linewidth of the repumper (a diode pumped fiber laser) is specified to below 10kHz and can be neglected. The repump laser is stabilized in its drift by stabilization to a transfer optical cavity whose length is controlled using a 633-nm polarization-stabilized HeNe laser system which maintains the repumper laser within 2MHz over extended periods of time. The cooling laser system has been described in a previous publication [@Shiner2007a]. The laser is a 422-nm diode laser system which is stabilized in its short-term frequency fluctuations to the side of a transmission fringe of an optical cavity and then controlled in its long-term drift by locking to the saturated absorption of the $5s \,^2S_{1/2} - 6p \,^2P_{1/2}$ line in $^{85}\mathrm{Rb}$. The linewidth of the cooling laser has been determined by two different independent techniques to be $2.4\pm 0.8$MHz [@Shiner2007a] and $0.6\pm 0.3$MHz. A ground-metastable coherence decay rate $\gamma_{g,m} = 0.04\Gamma$, corresponding to a linewidth of 1.7MHz, is used in the current comparison, as it gives the best agreement between experiments and theory. The cooling laser is frequency referenced to the $^{85}\mathrm{Rb}$ $5s \,^2S_{1/2}\, (F=2) - 6p \,^2P_{1/2}\, (F=3)$ transition [@Madej1998a; @Shiner2007a], which provides the absolute frequency scale for the cooling laser line shapes. In the repumper line shapes, the absolute frequency scale is determined from the position of the CPT resonances. The laser Rabi frequencies are determined by measuring the beam powers and waists, giving an uncertainty of approximately 20–25%. However, the slightest misalignment of the beams affects the Rabi frequencies experienced by the ion, so the actual uncertainty is larger. The ion trap fluorescence is optimized at low laser intensities with neutral density filters in the beam paths. The filters are then removed for the measurements at high Rabi frequencies and it is possible that this alters the beam alignment so that the true Rabi frequencies are lower than estimated in these cases. Ion fluorescence is detected by an $f = 27$mm ($f$-number $f/\#=0.9$) aspheric collection lens located in the vacuum chamber which focuses the light onto a pinhole in front of a photon counting photomultiplier system. Detected count rates at optimum fluorescence are typically at $10\,000$ cps. The detected fluorescence rate is sensitive to scattered cooling laser light, mainly from the trap electrodes. This background has not been removed from the experimental data. However, the level of parasitic light in the current experiment is typically less than $1/50$ of the observed single ion fluorescence under optimum conditions. The relation between the detected fluorescence rate and the total scattering rate is not known and the experimental data are hence given in arbitrary units. A second viewport opposite the photon counting photomultiplier has a commercial camera lens system ($f/\#= 4$) which images the trap central region on a photon counting CCD camera system. This allows the initial optimization of beam alignment and ion fluorescence to be performed. In addition, it is used as a first stage of minimizing the micromotion using external compensation electrodes in the radial plane and axial dc bias of the endcap electrodes in the axial direction. Final optimization of the ion micromotion is achieved by the measurement and optimization of the observed sideband features in the spectra of the ion probed on the reference ion clock transition at 445THz. In this way the total Stark and time dilation perturbations of the single ion are maintained below the $2\times 10^{-17}$ fractional shift for the reference transition at 445THz and micromotion effects are deemed negligible for the current line-shape scans. In addition, scans of the ion secular motion sidebands have placed an operating temperature of $2\pm 1$mK for all trap canonical directions under optimum laser cooling, thus well satisfying the condition for Doppler free spectra of the ion line shapes. Departures from the ideal low ion kinetic temperatures are anticipated when the laser powers cause low fluorescence scattering and detunings are near the ion line center. Results ------- Figure \[fig:ModAmp\] shows the scattering rate as a function of the EOM modulation amplitude as in Fig. \[fig:EOM\](b). The only adjusted parameter in the comparison was the ratio of the observed detected count rate to the calculated absolute scattering rate, which was set at 8150. Other parameters were based on the measured experimental conditions. As shown, the observed dependence of fluorescence matches the calculated relation very well confirming optimum fluorescence at $\Phi_\text{EOM}/\pi > 1$.  Measured \[filled (black) circles\] and calculated \[solid (red) curve\] scattering rate as a function of EOM modulation amplitude. $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = 1.7$, $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 0.77$, $\delta_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = -0.74$, $\delta_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 0.7$.](Fig11-ModAmp){width=".85\columnwidth"}  (a) Measured and (b) calculated scattering rate as a function of cooling laser detuning for different Rabi frequency pairs $[\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma, \,\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma]$. From bottom to top: $[0.36,\,0.39]$ \[solid (black) curve\], $[0.64,\,0.70]$ \[dashed (red) curve\], $[1.13,\,1.25]$ \[dash-dotted (green) curve\], $[1.60,\,2.22]$ \[dotted (blue) curve\], and $[3.58,\,3.22]$ \[solid (magenta) curve\]. $\delta_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = -0.53$.](Fig12-SP10e){width=".9\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:SPscans\] shows line shapes obtained by scanning the cooling laser detuning for increasing Rabi frequencies. The repumper was red-detuned in order to make the CPT resonances visible. Only the red half of the spectrum can be measured and in some of the experimental curves one can see how the scattering rate drops close to $\delta_\mathrm{c} = 0$ as the laser cooling is compromised. The agreement between the experimental and the calculated line shapes is very good, except for the highest Rabi frequency line shape. In this case, both the optical line and the CPT resonance are considerably more power broadened in the calculated curve, indicating that the experimental Rabi frequencies are lower than estimated. This is probably due to beam misalignment as mentioned above. In the second lowest \[dashed (red)\] curve, the CPT resonance is offset, as the repumper detuning has drifted slightly. Figure \[fig:SPnormal\] shows the corresponding line shapes for more normal operating conditions with a repumper detuning of $0.09\Gamma$. Again, lower fluorescence levels are observed near line center, presumably due to ion heating. If a narrower linewidth is desired, even lower Rabi frequencies have to be used at the sacrifice of the ion scattering rate. ![\[fig:SPnormal\] (a) Measured and (b) calculated scattering rate as a function of cooling laser detuning for $\delta_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 0.09$. $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = 1.60$, $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 2.22$.](Fig13-SP08et2){width="1\columnwidth"}  (a) Measured and (b) calculated scattering rate as a function of repumper detuning for two cooling detunings: $\delta_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = -1.30$ \[solid (black) curve\] and $\delta_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = -0.74$ \[dashed (red) curve\]. $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = 1.69$, $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 0.72$.](Fig14-PDdce){width=".9\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:PDdc\] shows line shapes obtained by scanning the repumper frequency for two cooling laser detunings. Again, the agreement is very good considering the uncertainties of the experimental parameters. The multiple coherence dips in the spectra arise from the different orders of the EOM frequency falling in Raman (CPT) resonance. Again it should be noted that a significant change in the observed line shape is seen for small changes in cooling detuning which is well matched by the calculations.  (a) Measured and (b) calculated scattering rate as a function of repumper detuning for increasing cooling Rabi frequencies $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma$: $0.53$ \[solid (black) curve\], $1.19$ \[dashed (red) curve\], $3.00$ \[dash-dotted (green) curve\], and $6.71$ \[dotted (blue) curve\]. $\delta_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = -0.92$, $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 0.72$.](Fig15-PDRce){width=".9\columnwidth"} Figure \[fig:PDRc\] shows repumper line shapes for increasing cooling laser Rabi frequencies. The two-peak spectrum that occurs for the highest $\Omega_\mathrm{c}$ values can be explained using dressed states [@Cohen-Tannoudji:API]. The dressed states are the eigenstates of the interacting ion ($|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ levels) plus cooling laser system when the laser is strong ($C_{82} \Omega_\mathrm{c} \gg \Gamma$). The left-hand side of Fig. \[fig:DressedStates\] shows the uncoupled states of the ion-photon system. The energy level scheme consists of a ladder of manifolds, separated by the cooling laser frequency $\omega_\mathrm{c}$, two of which are shown in the figure. Each manifold consists of two closely spaced ($|\delta_\mathrm{c}|$) states $|g,N\rangle$ and $|e,N-1\rangle$, where the first letter refers to the state of the ion and the second to the number of cooling laser photons. When the ion-laser interaction is taken into account, the strong cooling laser couples the ground and excited states and the new eigenstates are the two dressed states $|1(N)\rangle$ and $|2(N)\rangle$ shown at the right in Fig. \[fig:DressedStates\]. These are both superpositions of $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ and are separated by the generalized Rabi frequency $\Omega' = \sqrt{C_{82}^2 \Omega_\mathrm{c}^2 + \delta_\mathrm{c}^2}$. The frequencies of the two dressed states in relation to the unperturbed excited state are $\Delta\omega_{1,2} = (\delta_\mathrm{c} \pm \Omega')/2$. Since the $|g\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle$ system is not closed, the population will be optically pumped into $|m\rangle$ except when the repumper is resonant with one of the dressed states. For the highest $\Omega_\mathrm{c}$ line shape in Fig. \[fig:PDRc\], the dressed state frequencies are $\Delta\omega_1 = 1.0\Gamma$ and $\Delta\omega_2 = -1.9\Gamma$. Thus the simple dressed state model predicts the peak positions very accurately. In addition, each dressed state peak has a CPT resonance at the very center. In practice, such high applied cooling intensities should not be used if low ion kinetic temperatures are desired, as the high intensities induce power broadening and a reduction in the obtainable minimum laser cooling temperatures [@Javanainen1980a].  Dressed state model: uncoupled levels at the left and dressed states at the right.](Fig16-DressedStatesGS){width=".75\columnwidth"}  (a) Measured \[solid (black) curve\] and calculated \[dashed (red) curve\] scattering rate as a function of repumper detuning for a high repumper Rabi frequency $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 5.90$. $\delta_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = -0.92$, $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = 1.19$. The measured curve was multiplied by a factor of 5150 to make the amplitudes equal. (b) Scattering rate as a function of cooling laser detuning for typical experimental conditions: $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma = 1.19$, $\Omega_\mathrm{r}/\Gamma = 1.8$, and repumper blue-detuned.](Fig17-BrightNormal2e){width="1\columnwidth"} If instead the repumper has a relatively high Rabi frequency \[Fig. \[fig:BrightNormal\](a)\], a dispersive line shape is obtained, as confirmed in the experimental spectrum. The “bright lateral part” next to the dark resonance was first observed by Alzetta *et al*. [@Alzetta1979a] and occurs when the two Rabi frequencies are considerably different and the detunings are non-zero. It is caused by stimulated Raman scattering between the ground and the metastable states [@Lounis1992a] and has been studied also in single trapped ions [@Janik1985a; @Siemers1992a]. Figure \[fig:BrightNormal\](b) shows a cooling laser line shape for typical trap operation parameters. The repumper is blue-detuned, but the exact detuning is not known. Strong ion fluorescence is obtained with the linewidth approaching the natural width value. The FWHM of the line is difficult to determine exactly from such a half spectrum with possible changes in ion fluorescence near line center, but can be seen to be $\lesssim 2\Gamma$. Conclusions =========== In this paper, we have studied the different types of dark states that can occur in a single trapped $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$ ion due to the cooling and repumping laser fields. Efficient Doppler cooling and fluorescence detection of the ion require a high scattering rate, which is only achieved if dark states are prevented from forming. Dark states within the $5s\,^2S_{1/2}$ ground state can be prevented simply by using a linearly polarized cooling beam. Dark states between $5s\,^2S_{1/2}$ ground state and $4d\,^2D_{3/2}$ metastable state sublevels can be tuned away by using a positive repumper detuning (assuming that the cooling laser detuning is negative for Doppler cooling) when the lasers have narrow lines and modest intensities so that the CPT resonances are not heavily broadened. On the other hand, the cross-correlation between the two lasers and their linewidths affect the dephasing rate of the ground-metastable coherences. This means that if the two lasers are uncorrelated and the sum of their linewidths is of the order of the natural linewidth of the ion, the contrast of the ground-metastable dark states will vanish. Dark states within the metastable state are thus the main problem. These can be destabilized using a magnetic field or, in applications where strong fields cannot be tolerated such as ion clocks, by modulating the repumper polarization. Our results regarding the $SP$ linewidth and optimum parameters essentially agree with those of Berkeland and Boshier [@Berkeland2002a]. Power broadening by the cooling laser becomes significant for $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma > 1/\sqrt{3} \approx 0.6$. However, for many practical applications it might be desirable to increase the Rabi frequency to $\Omega_\mathrm{c}/\Gamma \approx 1$, which increases the scattering rate by more than a factor of 2, while the linewidth increases only by approximately 15%. If the repumper Rabi frequency is lower than the cooling laser Rabi frequency, there is significant broadening due to optical pumping into the metastable state. On the other hand, both lasers cause power broadening of the CPT resonances. A too high $\Omega_\mathrm{r}$ value causes the CPT resonance to extend to the red side of the line. Depending on the exact values of $\Omega_\mathrm{c}$ and $\delta_\mathrm{r}$, a repumper Rabi frequency of $\Omega_\mathrm{r} \approx (1\ldots1.5)\Omega_\mathrm{c}$ gives the maximum scattering rate, while the CPT resonances remain sufficiently narrow that they can be tuned away by a positive repumper detuning $\delta_\mathrm{r} \approx \Gamma/2$. We have also analyzed the effect of ion motion for cases where its amplitude is low, i.e., the ion is sufficiently cooled and does not undergo excess micromotion. We found that at a $5$mK temperature, high-contrast CPT resonances, associated with a low ground-metastable coherence dephasing rate $\gamma_{g,m}$, i.e., very narrow linewidth or cross-correlated lasers, are rounded off by the ion motion. For higher dephasing rates $\gamma_{g,m} \gtrsim 0.04$, at lower temperatures, or further from CPT resonance, the effect of ion motion can be neglected. The theoretical results have been compared to experimental data from the $^{88}\mathrm{Sr}^+$ endcap trap at the National Research Council of Canada and the agreement was found to be very good considering the uncertainties of the experimental parameters. The results confirm that the system can be well described by the current theoretical framework and can shed light on the full optimization of single ion fluorescence and laser cooling for single trapped ions applied to atomic frequency standards or test systems for quantum manipulation studies. The rich variety of observed behaviors can now be understood and optimal parameters chosen depending on the desired operating conditions needed. It is anticipated that these results will certainly aid in providing the optimal high fluorescence rates needed for efficient detection of single ions and the low kinetic temperatures from laser cooling needed for a perturbation free nearly isolated quantum system. The authors would like to thank P. Dubé for essential aid in the construction and operation of the NRC single-ion trap system and Z. Zhou for assistance in portions of the data acquisition. This work received partial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC). The work at MIKES was funded by the Academy of Finland (Project No. 138894). [39]{}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 in [**](\doibase 10.1007/3-540-44991-4_7), , Vol. ,  (, , ) p.  [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1140/epjst/e2009-01044-4) @noop [****,  ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/lapl.201010125) @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.61.023405) @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033413) in [**](\doibase 10.1109/FREQ.2010.5556371) () p.  @noop [**]{} (, , ) in @noop [**]{},  (, ) pp.  [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1007/s00340-007-2624-8) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1088/0953-4075/42/15/154020) [****,  ()](http://stacks.iop.org/0953-4075/28/i=11/a=009) @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.698) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.012507) **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{},  () [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.032505) @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1007/s00340-007-2836-y) @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00899714) @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1051/jp2:1992153)

ArXiv

--- abstract: | Let $f$ be a dominant rational map of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ such that $\exists s <k, \ \mathrm{with} \ \lambda_s(f)>\lambda_l(f)$ for all $l$. Under mild hypotheses, we show that, for $A$ outside a pluripolar set of $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, the map $f\circ A$ admits a hyperbolic measure of maximal entropy $\log \lambda_s(f)$ with explicit bounds on the Lyapunov exponents. In particular, the result is true for polynomial maps hence for the homogeneous extension of $f$ to ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+1}$. This provides many examples where non uniform hyperbolic dynamics is established. One of the key tools is to approximate the graph of a meromorphic function by a smooth positive closed current. This allows us to do all the computations in a smooth setting, using super-potentials theory to pass to the limit. author: - Gabriel Vigny title: 'Hyperbolic measure of maximal entropy for generic rational maps of $\P^k$' --- \[section\] \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Hypothesis]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} **MSC:** 37Fxx, 32H04, 32Uxx\ **Keywords:** Complex dynamics, meromorphic maps, Super-potentials, entropy, hyperbolic measure. Introduction ============ Let $f:{\mathbb{P}}^k\to {\mathbb{P}}^k$ be a dominant meromorphic map of the projective space ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ (i.e. a rational map). We are interested in the ergodic properties of $f$. More precisely, we want to construct a measure of maximal entropy that we want to compute and then study its properties (ergodicity, mixing, hyperbolicity ... ). This is a natural yet difficult question in dynamics and the tools of complex analysis and complex geometry often allow to answer that question more easily.\ Such study starts with the computation of the *dynamical degrees*. For $0\leq l \leq k$, let $L_l$ and $L_{k-l}$ be generic linear subspaces of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ of codimension $l$ and $k-l$. Then the number: $$\lambda_l(f):=\mathrm{Card}(f^{-1}(L_l) \cap L_{k-l})=\mathrm{Card}(L_l \cap f( L_{k-l}))$$ is well defined and does not depend on the choice of $L_i$ as it is defined in cohomology. In particular, if $\omega$ denotes the Fubini-Study form on ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ then we also have: $$\lambda_l(f):=\int_{{\mathbb{P}}^k} f^{*}(\omega^l) \wedge \omega^{k-l}=\int_{{\mathbb{P}}^k} \omega^l \wedge f_*(\omega^{k-l}).$$ The sequence $(\lambda_l(f^n))$ satisfies $\lambda_l(f^{n+m})\leq \lambda_l(f^n)\lambda_l(f^m)$ so we can define the $l$-th *dynamical degree* as (see [@RS]): $$d_l(f):= \lim_{n \rightarrow + \infty} (\lambda_l(f^n))^{1/n}.$$ The degree $d_l$ measures the asymptotic spectral radius of the action of $f^*$ on the cohomology group $H^{l,l}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$. When $\lambda_l(f^n)=\lambda_l(f)^n$ for all $n$, we say that $f$ is $l$-*algebraically stable* ([@DS6]). The last degree $d_k$ is the *topological degree*. The sequence of degrees is increasing up to a rank $s$ and then it is decreasing (see [@Gromov]).\ Assume that one of the dynamical degree $d_s$ of $f$ is greater than the others. Such map is said to be *cohomologically hyperbolic*. It is conjectured (see [@Gu1]) that there exists a measure of maximal entropy $\log d_s$. That measure should be hyperbolic (no Lyapunov exponent is zero) and the saddle points should be equidistributed along that measure (that last point is out of the scope of the article). Such statement has been proved in the cases where the highest dynamical degree is the topological degree ([@Gu2]), for Hénon mappings (see e.g [@BS]), regular birational maps ([@DS10]), polynomial-like and horizontal-like maps ([@DS3; @DinhNguyenSibony1]) ... That gives large families of examples where hyperbolic dynamics is established. Still, the result is not known is general and there are natural families for which it is left to be done: birational mappings of ${\mathbb{P}}^2$, polynomial mappings of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ ($k\geq 3$), and more generally rational mappings of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ for which the highest dynamical degree is not the topological degree (and from now on, that will be the case we are in).\ A fruitful approach toward that direction has been initiated by Bedford and Diller for a birational map $f$ on a projective surface $X$ in [@BD1]. They define a geometric condition on the indeterminacy sets $I(f)$ and $I(f^{-1})$ under which they can construct the wanted measure (the computation of the entropy was done in [@Duj2]). Then they show that, in the case where $X$ is ${\mathbb{P}}^2$ that condition is generic in the following sense: for any $f$ satisfying that condition and any $A$ outside a pluripolar set of $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^2)$ then $f \circ A$ also satisfies that geometric condition. In [@Dilgu], the authors showed that there exist examples that do not satisfy that condition and gave a more general condition that is still not always satisfied. Finally, in the articles [@DDG2; @DDG3], the authors generalize that idea to the case of a meromorphic map of a projective surface (under a more general integral condition); whereas that gives new families where the program is fulfilled (notably polynomial mappings of ${\mathbb{P}}^2$) it is yet not general. Indeed, a recent work of Buff gives examples where that condition is not satisfied ([@Buff]). Getting more and more general conditions in hopping to finally get all the existing meromorphic maps seems to be a failing approach as one always seems to find maps that are a “little bit more pathologic” (that might simply be due to the fact that the above conjecture is false). Still, that approach gives large families of map for which we understand fairly well the chaotic dynamics. Furthermore, pluripolar sets are of zero Lebesgue measure, so for a given map $f$, though we may not be able to construct the right measure for $f$, we are able to do so for arbitrarily small approximations of $f$ (that is a map $f\circ A_\varepsilon$ where $A_\varepsilon$ is close to the identity in $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$).\ This was one of the motivations of De Thélin and the author in [@DV1] where we were interested in dynamics in higher dimension. We considered the family of birational maps $f$ of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ such that $\mathrm{dim}(I(f))=k-s-1$ and $\mathrm{dim}(I(f^{-1}))=s-1$, for some $1 \leq s\leq k-1$ (when $k=2$, that gives every birational maps but the situation is more complex when $k\geq 3$). We gave a geometric condition on $I(f)$ and $I(f^{-1})$ analogous to Bedford-Diller’s condition under which we constructed a measure of maximal entropy. Then, we showed that for any $A$ outside a pluripolar set of $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, $f \circ A$ satisfies that condition (we do not need that $f$ itself satisfies the condition). A natural question is to prove the same statement for rational maps (not necessarily birational) with no hypothesis on the dimension of the indeterminacy sets.\ This is exactly the aim of the article. A difference is that we no longer look for a condition that ensures the existence of the right measure, we directly try to construct the measure and we show we can succeed outside a pluripolar set. We denote by ${\mathcal{C}}_q$ the convex cone of positive closed currents of bidegree $(q,q)$ and mass $1$. The main results of the article can be summed up in the following theorem (see below for notions related to super-potentials theory): \[principal\] Let $f$ be a dominant rational map of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. 1. Outside a countable union of analytic sets of $A\in\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, the map $f_A:= f\circ A$ satisfies $\lambda_s(f_A^n)=\lambda_s(f)^n$ for all $n$ and $s$. 2. Assume that $\exists s <k \ \mathrm{with} \ \lambda_s(f)>\lambda_l(f)$ for all $l<s$. Then outside a pluripolar set of $A\in\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, for any smooth form $\Omega_s \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$, the sequence of currents $ \lambda_s(f)^{-n}(f^n_A)^*(\Omega_s)$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to the Green current $T^+_{s,A}$ which is $f_A^*$-invariant. 3. Assume that $\exists s <k, \ \mathrm{with} \ \lambda_s(f)>\lambda_l(f)$ for all $l$. Then outside a pluripolar set of $A\in\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, for any smooth form $\Omega_{k-s} \in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$, the sequence of currents $\lambda_s(f)^{-n} (f^n_A)_*(\Omega_{k-s})$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to the Green current $T^-_{s,A}$ which is $(f_A)_*$-invariant. Furthermore, the measure $\nu_A:=T^+_{s,A} \wedge T^-_{s,A}$ is well defined in the sense of super-potentials. 4. If in addition the map $f$ satisfies $\mathrm{dim}(I(f))=k-s-1$ or $I(f)\subset H$ for a hyperplan $H$ then outside a pluripolar set of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ the measure $\nu_A$ is an invariant measure of maximal entropy $\log \lambda_s(f)$ which is hyperbolic. 5. Assume that $f$ is a polynomial map of ${\mathbb{C}}^k$, then the points 1, 2, 3 and 4 are true replacing $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ with $\mathrm{Aff}({\mathbb{C}}^k)$, the affine automorphisms of ${\mathbb{C}}^k$. An important remark is that for polynomial maps, the inderminacy set is always contained in the hyperplan at infinity so point 4 and 5 holds for polynomial mappings as soon as $\exists s <k, \ \mathrm{with} \ \lambda_s(f)>\lambda_l(f)$. Then starting with a rational map $f$ of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$, though we might not have point 4 in Theorem \[principal\] for $f$, we do have it for any homogeneous extension $\widetilde{f}$ of $f$ to ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+1}$. Since $f$ is a factor of $\widetilde{f}$, it means that though we might not be able to approximate $f$ by hyperbolic maps in the orbit under $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, we can approximate a more complex dynamics ($\widetilde{f}$) but in a bigger space ($\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^{k+1})$ or $\mathrm{Aff}({\mathbb{C}}^{k+1})$). Observe also that the case of birational maps of ${\mathbb{P}}^{3}$ is covered by Theorem \[principal\]: as $\mathrm{dim}(I(f^{\pm 1})) \leq 1$, if $\lambda_1(f)>\lambda_2(f)$ then we apply it directly, if $\lambda_2(f)>\lambda_1(f)$ then we apply it to $f^{-1}$.\ Dealing with higher dimension with no control on $I(f)$ is the main difficulty of the article. We have to consider (positive closed) currents of bidegree $(s,s)$ and by our lack of hypothesis on $I(f)$, we do not have that $f^*(\omega^s)=f^*(\omega)^s$ (that identity was true and often used in [@DV1]). In order to deal with such currents, we use the theory of super-potentials of Dinh and Sibony ([@DS6]). In a first part, we show that outside a countable union of analytic sets of $A\in\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$, pull-backs and push-forwards are well defined in the sense of super-potentials. In other words, algebraic stability is generically true. The proof consists in showing that algebraically stability is an algebraic condition and providing explicit examples where algebraic stability stands (the spirit of such examples follows ideas of Dinh). In a second part, we construct the Green currents and their intersection. For that, the idea is to consider the rational map: $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{F}: \mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)\times {\mathbb{P}}^k & \to \mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k) \times {\mathbb{P}}^k\\ (A,z) &\mapsto (A,f_A(z)),\end{aligned}$$ and to show that $d_s(f)^{-n}(\widetilde{F}^*)^n(\omega^s)$ is well defined and that its slices converges (outside a pluripolar set of $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$) to the Green current of $f_A$ in the sense of super-potentials. For that we want to compute the value of the slice of a quasi-potential of $d_s(f)^{-n}(\widetilde{F}^*)^n(\omega^s)$ at a smooth form of ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s+1}$. Then we want to show that it defines a DSH function computing its $dd^c$ and providing examples where it is finite (using the same kind of examples than above). The difficulty lies in the fact that such $dd^c$ is not a priori clearly defined since we have no control on the singularities of $\widetilde{F}$. To overcome that problem, we regularize the map $\widetilde{F}$ in the following sense: we approximate its graph by a smooth positive closed current. Though we do not a have a map anymore, we preserve the cohomology and we keep the functional properties of the pull-back and push-forward. Then all the computations make sense and we pass to the limit for $\widetilde{F}$ using pluripotential theory. We believe that idea can be used in other cases. In a last section, we prove points 4 and 5 in Theorem \[principal\]. We use Theorem 1 in [@DV1] to show that the entropy of $f_A$ is $\log \lambda_s(f)$, the hyperbolicity is obtained thanks to the results of [@DT1]. As above, the idea is to prove that the wanted properties are obtained under DSH conditions. We need the additional hypotheses of point 4 on the indeterminacy sets to construct examples that satisfy these conditions. In a independent paragraph, we explain how knowing the entropy and hyperbolicity of the homogeneous extension $\widetilde{f}$ gives the entropy and hyperbolicity of $f$ using the theory of the entropy of a skew-product.\ [**Acknowledgements.**]{} I am grateful to De Thélin for numerous conversations where he convinced me that the results of the paper were achievable and for explaining how Corollary 3 in [@DT1] could be used here.\ [**Notations and preliminaries.**]{} In what follows, $f:{\mathbb{P}}^k\rightarrow{\mathbb{P}}^k$ denotes a meromorphic map. Such a map is holomorphic outside an analytic subset $I(f)$ of codimension $\geq 2$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. It can be written in homogeneous coordinates as $[P_0: \dots:P_k]$ where the $P_i$ are homogeneous polynomials of algebraic degree $d$ in the $(z_0,\dots,z_k)$ variable, with $\gcd_i(P_i)=1$. Let $\Gamma$ denote the closure of the graph of the restriction of $f$ to ${\mathbb{P}}^k\setminus I(f)$. This is an irreducible analytic set of dimension $k$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^k\times{\mathbb{P}}^k$. Let $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ denote the canonical projections of ${\mathbb{P}}^k\times {\mathbb{P}}^k$ on the factors. The indeterminacy set $I(f)$ is also the set of points $z\in{\mathbb{P}}^k$ such that $\dim \pi_1^{-1}(z)\cap\Gamma\geq 1$. We sometimes write $I$ instead of $I(f)$. We assume that $f$ is [*dominant*]{}, that is, $\pi_2(\Gamma)={\mathbb{P}}^k$. The [*second indeterminacy set*]{} of $f$ is the set $I'$ of points $z\in{\mathbb{P}}^k$ such that $\dim \pi_2^{-1}(z)\cap\Gamma\geq 1$. Its codimension is also at least equal to $2$. If $A$ is a subset of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$, define $$f(A):=\pi_2(\pi_1^{-1}(A)\cap\Gamma)\quad \mathrm{and}\quad f^{-1}(A):=\pi_1(\pi_2^{-1}(A)\cap\Gamma).$$ We will need to distinguish between the direct image of $A$ by $f$ iterated $n$ times (that we denote $(f^n)(A)$) and the direct image iterated $n$ times of $A$ by $f$ (that we denote $(f)^n(A)$). We use the same notations for preimages. If $f$ is holomorphic, both notions coincide, that does not need to be the case if $f$ is meromorphic.\ We need to define pull-back and push-forward of positive closed currents. Recall that if $S$ is a positive closed current of bidegree $(s,s)$, we denote its *mass* $\|S\|:= \int S \wedge \omega^{k-s}$. Define formally for a current $S$ on ${\mathbb{P}}^k$, not necessarily positive or closed, the pull-back $f^*(S)$ by $$\label{eq_pullback_def} f^*(S):=(\pi_1)_*\big(\pi_2^*(S)\wedge [\Gamma]\big).$$ This makes sense if the wedge-product $\pi_2^*(S)\wedge [\Gamma]$ is well defined, in particular, when $S$ is smooth. We will be particularly interested in the case where $S$ is the current of integration on a analytic set. Similarly, the operator $f_*$ is formally defined by $$\label{eq_pushforward_def} f_*(R):=(\pi_2)_*\big(\pi_1^*(R)\wedge [\Gamma]\big).$$ We need in the article the theory of super-potentials ([@DS6] for proofs, or the appendix of [@DV1]). The formalism of super-potentials allows to extend the calculus of potentials to the case of general bidegree. Recall that if $T\in {\mathcal{C}}_q$, it is cohomologous to a fixed smooth form $\Omega_q\in {\mathcal{C}}_q$, hence we can write it $T= \Omega_q+dd^c U_T$ where $U_T$ is a quasi-potential of $T$. A super-potential ${\mathcal{U}}_T$ of $T$ is then the function defined for smooth $ S\in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-q+1}$ by ${\mathcal{U}}_T(S)=\langle U_T, S\rangle$. This definition can be extended to arbitrarily elements of ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-q+1}$ making ${\mathcal{U}}_T$ a quasi-plurisubharmonic function on ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-q+1}$ (according to the notion of *structural variety* on ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-q+1}$). Finally, recall that the group $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ of automorphisms of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ is $\mathrm{PGl}({\mathbb{C}}^{k+1})$. In particular, it is a Zariski dense open set in ${\mathbb{P}}^{(k+1)^2-1}({\mathbb{C}})$. For $A \in \mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ and $l\leq k$, one has that $\lambda_l(f\circ A)= \lambda_l(A \circ f)=\lambda_l(f)$ (the quantity $\lambda_l(f)$ is defined in the beginning of the introduction). This explain why we choose to consider such perturbations of $f$. Indeed, it could seem that a natural way to approximate $f$ would be to slighty change the polynomials $P_i$ (where $f=[P_0:\dots:P_k]$). But such perturbation gives generically a holomorphic map as the common zero set of $k+1$ polynomials in ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ is generically empty. On the contrary, our choice ensures us we stay in the same family. For $h$ in the orbit of $f$, we use the notation $L_h:=\lambda_q(f)^{-1} h^*$ (resp. $\Lambda_h:=(\lambda_{k-q})^{-1}h_*=(\lambda^-_q(f))^{-1} h_*$) for the normalized pull-back (resp. push-forward) acting on smooth form. These operators can be extented to $h^*$-admissible elements of ${\mathcal{C}}_q$ (resp. $h_*$-admissible elements of ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-q}$) that is elements whose super-potentials are finite at $\lambda(f_{s-1})h_*(R)$ for some $R$ smooth in ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s+1}$ (resp. at $\lambda(f_{s+1})h_*(R)$ for some $R$ smooth in ${\mathcal{C}}_{s+1}$). We still denote by $L_h$ and $\Lambda_h$ the extended operators (see [@DS6 Definition 5.1.7]). We simply write $L$ and $\Lambda$ instead of $L_f$ and $\Lambda_f$.\ Algebraic stability is dense {#Algebraic stability is dense} ============================ The purpose of the section is to prove the following theorem (which gives the first point of Theorem \[principal\]). We do not assume in here that $\lambda_s(f)$ is greater than the other $\lambda_l(f)$. The results of the section remain true for a meromorphic correspondence but we state them in the case of a meromorphic map for simplicity. Let $\Omega_q\in {\mathcal{C}}_q$ be a fixed smooth form, we denote by ${\mathcal{U}}_{L_h(\Omega_q)}$ (resp. ${\mathcal{U}}_{\Lambda_h(\Omega_q)}$) a super-potential of $L_h(\Omega_q)$ (resp. $\Lambda_h(\Omega_q)$). \[algebraic\_stability\_generic\] For all $n$, there exists a Zariski dense open set $\mathcal{Z}_{n,s}$ of elements $h$ in the orbit of $f$ for which: 1. $\lambda_s(h^m)=\lambda_s(h)^m=\lambda_s(f)^n$ for all $m\leq n$; 2. $(h^*)^m=(h^m)^*$ and $(h_*)^m=(h^m)_*$ for all smooth forms in ${\mathcal{C}}_s$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ in the sense of super-potentials; 3. If ${\mathcal{U}}_T$ is a super-potential of $T$ smooth in ${\mathcal{C}}_s$, then the following ${\mathcal{U}}_{L_h^n(T)}$ is a super-potential of $L_h^n(T)$ on smooth forms: $$\begin{aligned} \label{super-potential_L_h^n} {\mathcal{U}}_{L_h^n(T)}&= \sum_{i\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_h(\Omega_s)}\circ \Lambda_h^{i} + \left(\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^n {\mathcal{U}}_T\circ \Lambda_h^{n}; \end{aligned}$$ 4. If ${\mathcal{U}}_S$ is a super-potential of $S$ smooth in ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$, then the following ${\mathcal{U}}_{\Lambda_h^n(S)}$ is a super-potential of $\Lambda_h^n(S)$ on smooth forms: $$\begin{aligned} \label{super-potential_Lambda_h^n} {\mathcal{U}}_{\Lambda_h^n(S)}&= \sum_{i\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s+1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ \Lambda_h(\Omega_s)}\circ L_h^{i} + \left(\frac{d_{s+1}}{d_s}\right)^n {\mathcal{U}}_S\circ L_h^{n}. \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the intersection $\cap_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}\mathcal{Z}_{n,s}$ contains an open set $\mathcal{Y}$. We denote $\mathrm{dim}(I):=m$ and $\mathrm{dim}(I'):=m'$. We consider the critical set ${\mathcal{C}}_1:= \pi_2^{-1}(I')\cap \Gamma$. It is an analytic subset of $\Gamma$ so it has dimension $\mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1) \leq k-1$. Similarly, we consider ${\mathcal{C}}'_1:= \pi_1^{-1}(I)\cap \Gamma$ which is an analytic set of dimension $\leq k-1$. In particular, for $p \in I'$ generic, we have $\mathrm{dim}(\pi_2^{-1}(p)\cap \Gamma) =\mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-m' \leq k-1-m'$. For $r \in \{ \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-m', \dots, \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)\}$, we consider: $$I'_r:= \{p \in I', \ \mathrm{dim}(\pi_2^{-1}(p)\cap \Gamma) =r \}.$$ Then $I'_r$ is a (possibly empty) locally analytic set of dimension $\leq \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-r$ (which is less than $k-1-r$) and $ \cup_{r'\geq r} I'_{r'}$ is an analytic set. Similarly, for $r \in \{ \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}'_1)-m, \dots, \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}'_1)\}$, we consider: $$I_r:= \{p \in I, \ \mathrm{dim}(\pi_1^{-1}(p)\cap \Gamma) =r \}.$$ Then $I_r$ is a (possibly empty) locally analytic set of dimension $\leq \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}'_1)-r$ (which is less than $k-1-r$) and $ \cup_{r'\geq r} I_{r'}$ is an analytic set. Recall that if $M$ is an analytic set then for any $\varepsilon >0$, there exists a $\delta >0$ such that if $U_\delta$ is a $\delta$-neighborhood of $M$ then $f^{-1}(U_\delta)$ is contained in a $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $f^{-1}(M)$. The same result holds for direct image. \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\] Let $M$ be an analytic set of codimension $s$ such that for all $r \in \{ \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-m', \dots, \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)\}$, $M \cap \cup_{r'\geq r} I'_{r'}$ is empty if $ \dim(M)+\dim (\cup_{r'\geq r} I'_{r'}) \leq k-1$ and of dimension $\dim(M)+\dim (\cup_{r'\geq r} I'_{r'}) - k$ if not. Assume also that no component of $\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap \Gamma$ is contained in ${\mathcal{C}}'_1$. 1. Then $f^{-1}(M)$ is an analytic set of codimension $s$ such that $\dim (f^{-1}(M) \cap I(f)) \leq k-s-1$. For all analytic set $M' \subset M$ of codimension $\geq s+1$, then $\mathrm{codim}(f^{-1}(M'))\geq s+1$. 2. The positive closed current $f^*([M])$ of bidegree $(s,s)$ is well defined, depends continuously on $[M]$ in the sense of currents and is equal to $ [f^{-1}(M)]$ (counting with multiplicity). Hence, we have that $\lambda_s(f) = \| f^*([M]) \| \times \|[M]\| ^{-1}$. *Proof.* Take $M$ as in the lemma, we prove the first point. We have that $\pi^{-1}_2(M) \cap \Gamma$ is an analytic set which is of codimension $s$ outside ${\mathcal{C}}_1$. For $r \geq \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-s+1$, we have that $\mathrm{dim}(I'_r)<s $ hence $ \pi_2^{-1}(M \cap I'_{r})=\varnothing$. Now, for $r$ such that $ \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-m' \leq r \leq \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-s$, we have that: $$\mathrm{dim}( \pi_2^{-1}(M \cap I'_{r}) \cap \Gamma) \leq \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}_1)-r+k-s-k+r\leq k-s-1 .$$ That implies that $\pi_2(M) \cap \Gamma$ is an analytic set of codimension $s$. Pushing-forward by $\pi_1$ (and keeping track of the multiplicity), we have that $f^{-1}(M)$ is indeed an analytic set of dimension $s$ as $\pi_2(M) \cap \Gamma \nsubseteq {\mathcal{C}}'_1$ and $\dim (f^{-1}(M) \cap I(f)) \leq k-s-1$. For the second part of that point, take $M'$ of codimension $\geq s+1$. Then, outside $I(f)$, it is clear that $\mathrm{codim} (f^{-1}(M')) \geq s+1$ and the previous argument shows that $\mathrm{codim}(f^{-1}(M') \cap I(f)) \geq \mathrm{codim}(f^{-1}(M) \cap I(f)) \geq s+1$.\ Now, for the second point, we have that $[\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap \Gamma]$ is a well defined positive closed current of bidegree $(s,s)$ as the current of integration on an analytic set of codimension $s$. Consider $\Gamma' := \Gamma \setminus \left( {\mathcal{C}}'_1 \cup {\mathcal{C}}_1 \right)$, it is a complex manifold as the graph of a map. The first point of the lemma gives that $[\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap \Gamma]$ is equal to the trivial extension of $[\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap \Gamma']$ (because $\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap ({\mathcal{C}}_1 \cup {\mathcal{C}}'_1)$ is of dimension $\leq k-s-1$ and both currents coincide outside a set of zero mass for them.). Furthermore, the fiber of $\pi_2$ restricted to $\Gamma'$ are either finite sets or empty. Theorem 1.1 in [@DS13] implies that $(\pi_2)_{|\Gamma'}^*([M])=[\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap \Gamma']$ is a well defined positive closed current on $\Gamma'$ (that is it depends continuously on $[M]$ for the topology of current: if $(R_n)$ is a sequence of smooth currents converging to $[M]$ then $(\pi_2)_{|\Gamma'}^*(R_n)$ converges to $(\pi_2)_{|\Gamma'}^*([M])$). In particular, $[\pi_2^{-1}(M)\cap \Gamma]$ depends continuously on $M$. Pushing-forward by $(\pi_1)_*$ gives that $f^*([M])$ is well defined, depends continuously on $M$ in the sense of currents and is equal to $[f^{-1}(M)]$ (again, we keep track of the multiplicity). Now we deduce that $\lambda_s(f) = \| f^*([M]) \| \times \|[M]\| ^{-1}$ (that would be true if $[M]$ was a smooth current and we can conclude by continuity). $\Box$\ Similarly, one can prove: \[push\_forward\_generic\_linear\] Let $N$ be an analytic set of codimension $k-s$ such that for all $r \in \{ \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}'_1)-m, \dots, \mathrm{dim}({\mathcal{C}}'_1)\}$, $N \cap \cup_{r'\geq r} I_{r'}$ is empty if $ \dim(N)+\dim (\cup_{r'\geq r} I_{r'}) \leq k-1$ and of dimension $\dim(N)+\dim (\cup_{r'\geq r} I_{r'}) - k$ if not. Assume also that no component of $\pi_1^{-1}(N)\cap \Gamma$ is contained in ${\mathcal{C}}_1$. 1. Then $f(N)$ is an analytic set of codimension $k-s$ such that $\dim (f(N) \cap I'(f)) \leq s-1$. For all analytic set $N' \subset N$ of codimension $\geq s+1$, then $\mathrm{codim}(f^{-1}(N'))\geq s+1$. 2. The positive closed current of bidegree $(k-s,k-s)$ $f_*([N])$ is well defined, depends continuously on $[N]$ in the sense of currents and is equal to $ [f(N)]$ (counting the multiplicity). Furthermore, we have that $\lambda_{s}(f) = \| f_*([N]) \| \times \|[N]\| ^{-1}$. In order to simplify the exposition, we need the following ad hoc definition: A analytic set of codimension $s$ (resp. $k-s$) is said to be $f^*$-compatible (resp. $f_*$-compatible) if it satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\] (resp. Lemma \[push\_forward\_generic\_linear\]). A crucial point for a process in dynamics is that it needs to be iterated. Recall that $\Omega_s\in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ and $\Omega_{k-s+1}\in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s+1}$ are fixed smooth elements. \[iterated\_pull\_back\] 1. Let $M$ be an analytic set of codimension $s$. Assume that for all $0\leq m\leq n-1$, $(f^{-1})^m(M)$ is $f^*$-compatible. Then, we can assume that $M$ is $(f^n)^*$-compatible and $f^{-n}(M)=(f^{-1})^n(M)$ (counting the multiplicity) up to a set of codimension $\geq s+1$. Consequently, $\lambda_s(f^n) =\lambda_s(f)^n$. 2. The same result holds for direct images, replacing $f^*$-compatibility with $f_*$-compatibility. 3. Assume that there also exists an analytic set $F$ of codimension $k-s+1$ satisfying $(F\cup f(F)) \cap(\cup_{0\leq m\leq n-1} (f^{-1})^{m}(M))=\varnothing$. Then for any smooth $T \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ and $j\leq n-1$, $L^j(T)$ is $f^*$-admissible and $(f^n)^*(T)=(f^*)^n(T)$ in the sense of super-potentials. If ${\mathcal{U}}_T$ is a super-potential of $T$ smooth, then the following ${\mathcal{U}}_{L^n(T)}$ is a super-potential of $L^n(T)$ on smooth forms: $${\mathcal{U}}_{L^n(T)}= \sum_{i\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L(\Omega_s)}\circ \Lambda^{i} + \left(\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^n {\mathcal{U}}_T\circ \Lambda^{n}.$$ 4. Similarly, let $N$ be an analytic set of codimension $k-s$ such that for all $0\leq m\leq n-1$, $(f)^m(N)$ is $f_*$-compatible. Assume that there exists an analytic set $E$ of codimension $s+1$ satisfying $(E\cup f^{-1}(E)) \cap(\cup_{0\leq m\leq n-1} (f)^{m}(N))=\varnothing$. Then for any smooth $S \in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ and $j\leq n-1$, $\Lambda^j(S)$ is $f_*$-admissible and $(f^n)_*(S)=(f_*)^n(S)$ in the sense of super-potentials. If ${\mathcal{U}}_S$ is a super-potential of $S$ smooth, then the following ${\mathcal{U}}_{\Lambda^n(S)}$ is a super-potential of $\Lambda^n(S)$ on smooth forms: $${\mathcal{U}}_{\Lambda^n(S)}= \sum_{i\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s+1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ \Lambda(\Omega_{k-s})}\circ L^{i} + \left(\frac{d_{s+1}}{d_s}\right)^n {\mathcal{U}}_S\circ L^{n}.$$ *Proof.* Lemma \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\] gives that $(f^{-1})^n(M)$ is an analytic set of codimension $s$ and mass $ \lambda_s(f)^n \|[M]\|$. Since $f^*$-compatibility is generic, we can take an analytic set $M_1$ close to $M$ such that $(f^{-1})^m(M_1)$ is $f^*$-compatible for $m\leq n-1$ and $(f^n)^*$-compatible. Outside $\cup_{m\leq n-1} (f^{-1})^m(I) \supset I(f^n)$, we have that $f^n$ is smooth, hence $(f^{n})^{-1}(M_1)=(f^{-1})^{n}(M_1)$ there (with multiplicity). Lemma \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\] implies that $ (f^{-1})^{n-m}(M_1)\cap I$ has codimension $\geq s+1$ since $(f^{-1})^{n-m-1}(M_1)$ is $f^*$-admissible. It also gives that $(f^{-1})^n\cap(f^{-1})^m(I)=(f^{-1})^m( (f^{-1})^{n-m}(M_1)\cap I)$ has codimension $\geq s+1$. Thus $(f^n)^{-1}(M_1)$ coincides with $(f^{-1})^n(M_1)$ outside a set where $(f^{-1})^n(M_1)$ has zero mass. That implies that $\lambda_s(f^n) \geq \lambda_s(f)^n$. As the other inequality always stands, the equality $\lambda_s(f^n) =\lambda_s(f)^n$ follows from the last point of Lemma \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\] and the first point is proved. The proof of the second point is the same.\ We now prove the third point by induction on $n$ (which is clear for $n=0$). So assume the third point is true for $n-1$. We can choose small neighborhoods $U$ of $M$ and $V$ of $F$ such that $(f^{-1})^{m-1}(U) \cap f(V)=\varnothing$. Let $R$ be a smooth element of ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s+1}$ with support in $V$ (for example a regularization of $\mathrm{vol(F)}^{-1}[F]$ using an approximation of the identity in $\mathrm{PGL}({\mathbb{C}}^{k+1})$). Any current $T' \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ with support in $U$ is such that $(f^{*})^{n-1}(T')$ has support in $(f^{-1})^m(U)$ hence we can choose a quasi-potential of $(f^{*})^{n-1}(T')$ as a form with $\mathcal{C}^1$ coefficients outside $U$. In particular, its super-potentials are finite at $\Lambda(R)$. That gives that the current $L^{n-1}(T')$ is $f^*$-admissible. In particular, for $T$ smooth, we have that $L^{n-1}(T)$ is more $H$-regular than $L^{n-1}(T')$ hence it is also $f^*$-admissible. If ${\mathcal{U}}_{n-1}$ denotes a super-potential of $L^{n-1}(T)$, then we have that: $${\mathcal{U}}_{L^n(T)}= {\mathcal{U}}_{ L(\Omega_s)} + \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s} {\mathcal{U}}_{n-1}\circ \Lambda$$ on smooth forms. A symmetric argument implies that for any smooth form $R\in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s+1}$, then $\Lambda^j(R)$ is well defined in the sense of super-potentials for $j\leq n$ (though we do not claim that $(f_*)^j(R)=(f^j)_*(R)$). In particular, the induction’s hypothesis shows that $${\mathcal{U}}_{L^n(T)}= \sum_{i\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L(\Omega_s)}\circ \Lambda^{i} + (\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s})^n {\mathcal{U}}_T\circ \Lambda^{n}$$ on smooth forms. The same proof gives the result for direct image. $\Box$\ Taking the intersection over all $n\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the above theorem means that algebraic stability is generic in the orbit of $f$ under $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ (it stands outside a countable union of analytic varieties). We now provide explicit examples in the orbit of $f$ to show that it is not empty.\ Let $E^-_{k-s}$ and $E^+_{s}$ be two linear subspaces of complex dimension $k-s$ and $s$ that are respectively $f^*$-compatible and $f_*$-compatible with $E^-_{k-s} \cap E^+_{s}=\{p\}$ reduced to a point. We can then choose $E^-_{k-s-1}\subset E^-_{k-s}$ and $E^+_{s-1}\subset E^+_{s}$ two linear subspaces of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ of complex dimension $k-s$ and $s$ with $p\notin E^+_{s-1}\cup E^-_{k-s-1}$. By Lemmas \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\] and \[push\_forward\_generic\_linear\], we have that $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s-1})$ and $f(E^+_{s-1})$ have complex dimension $k-s-1$ and $s-1$. We claim that we can assume that: $$\begin{aligned} f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s}) \cap E^+_{s-1}=\varnothing \ \mathrm{and} \ & f(E^+_{s})\cap E^-_{k-s-1}= \varnothing \\ f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s-1})\cap E^+_{s} =\varnothing \ \mathrm{and} \ &f(E^+_{s-1})\cap E^-_{k-s}= \varnothing. \end{aligned}$$ Indeed, each of these conditions is generic and can be achieved by moving either $E^+_s$ and $E^+_{s-1}$ or $E^-_{k-s}$ and $E^-_{k-s-1}$. We can choose the homogeneous coordinates $[z_0: \dots: z_k]$ such that $$\begin{aligned} E^-_{k-s}=\{z_{0}=\dots= z_{s-1}=0 \}& \ \mathrm{and} \quad E^+_{s}=\{z_{s+1}=\dots= z_{k}=0 \} \\ E^-_{k-s-1}=\{z_{0}=\dots= z_{s-1}={z_s}=0 \}& \ \mathrm{and} \quad E^+_{s-1}=\{z_{s}=\dots= z_{k}=0 \}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have: - The sets $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s})$ and $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s-1})$ (resp. $f(E^+_{s})$ and $f(E^+_{s-1})$ ) are analytic sets of dimension $k-s$ and $k-s-1$ (resp. $s$ and $s-1$). - for every $\varepsilon>0$, there exist $\delta$-neighborhoods $\mathcal{O}^-$ and $\mathcal{O}^-_1$ (resp. $\mathcal{O}^+$ and $\mathcal{O}^+_1$) of $E^-_{k-s}$ and $E^-_{k-s-1}$ (resp. $E^+_{s}$ and $E^+_{s-1}$) such that $f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-)$ and $f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1)$ (resp. $f(\mathcal{O}^+)$ and $f(\mathcal{O}^+_1)$) are contained in a $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s})$ and $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s-1})$ (resp. $f(E^+_{s})$ and $f(E^+_{s-1})$). - finally, choosing $\delta$ small enough, $\overline{f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-)} \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^+_1} =\varnothing$ and $\overline{f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1)} \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^+}=\varnothing$ (resp. $\overline{f(\mathcal{O}^+)} \cap\overline{\mathcal{O}^-_1}=\varnothing$ and $\overline{f(\mathcal{O}^+_1)} \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^-}=\varnothing$). Let $A_{\alpha}$ be the element of $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ defined by $$\begin{aligned} &A_{\alpha} ([z_0 : z_1 : \dots z_{s-1} : z_s: z_{s+1} :\dots: z_k ])= \\ &\quad [ \alpha^{-1} z_0 :\alpha^{-1} z_1 : \dots \alpha^{-1} z_{s-1} : z_s: \alpha z_{s+1} :\dots: \alpha z_k ] \end{aligned}$$ where $1>\alpha >0$. Choose $\alpha_1$ small enough so that $A_{\alpha_1}^{-1}(f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$. This is possible because $\overline{f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-)} \cap \{z_{s}=\dots= z_{k}=0 \} =\varnothing$. Similarly, we can assume that $A_{\alpha_1}^{-1}(f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-_1$. Similarly, choose $\alpha_2$ small enough so that $A_{\alpha_2}( f(\mathcal{O}^+)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^+$ and $A_{\alpha_2}( f(\mathcal{O}^+_1)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^+_1$. Now consider the map $g$ defined as: $$g := A_{\alpha_2} \circ f \circ A_{\alpha_1}.$$ The following properties are then satisfied: - $g^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$ and $g^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-_1$ ; - $g (\mathcal{O}^+)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+$ and $g (\mathcal{O}^+_1)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+_1$. The example we have constructed is in the orbit of $f$ under the group $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)^2$ but it is of no concern since $f$ and $A_{\alpha_2}\circ f\circ A_{\alpha_2}^{-1}$ are conjugated. Observe that the previous hypotheses are stable under small perturbations (that is conjugating with $c$ in a sufficiently small neighborhood of the identity in $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$). We deduce that: \[U,U\_1...\] There exist analytic sets $E^-_{k-s}$, $E^-_{k-s-1}$ (resp. $E^+_{s}$ and $E^+_{s-1}$) of dimension $k-s$, $k-s-1$, (resp. $s$ and $s-1$) and $\delta$-neighborhoods $\mathcal{O}^-$ and $\mathcal{O}^-_1$ (resp. $\mathcal{O}^+$ and $\mathcal{O}^+_1$) of $E^-_{k-s}$ and $E^-_{k-s-1}$ (resp. $E^+_{s}$ and $E^+_{s-1}$) and an open set $\mathcal{Y}$ in the set of parameters such that for $c\in \mathcal{Y}$ and $f_c:= f\circ c$, we have: - The sets $f_c^{-1}(E^-_{k-s})$ and $f_c^{-1}(E^-_{k-s-1})$ (resp. $f_c(E^+_{s})$ and $f_c(E^+_{s-1})$ ) are analytic sets of dimension $k-s$ and $k-s-1$ (resp. $s$ and $s-1$). - $\overline{\mathcal{O}^-} \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^+_1} =\varnothing$ and $\overline{\mathcal{O}^-_1} \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^+} =\varnothing$. - $f_c^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$ and $f_c^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-_1$ (resp. $f_c(\mathcal{O}^+)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+$ and $f_c(\mathcal{O}^+_1)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+_1$). We can now apply Proposition \[iterated\_pull\_back\] to such an $f_c$ with $M=E^-_{k-s}$, $F=E^+_{s-1}$ (and $N=E^+_{s}$, $E=E^-_{k-s-1}$) and any $n$. It proves Theorem \[algebraic\_stability\_generic\].\ We denote in what follows $d_q=\lambda_q(f)$ the generic dynamical degree in the orbit of $f$. Green currents in the generic case ================================== From now on, we assume that the dynamical degree $d_s$ is strictly larger than $d_{s-1}$ (hence we have $1 < d_1 < \dots <d_s$). Let $W := \mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$. It is a Zariski dense open set in the projective space $\widetilde{W}=\mathbb{P}^l$ where $l=(k+1)^2-1$. Let $c$ denote the homogeneous coordinate on $\widetilde{W}$. When $c \in W$, we write $f_c$ instead of $f\circ c$. We can extend the notation for $c \in \widetilde{W}$. Of course, in that case $f_c$ is not a dominant meromorphic map and it might not be defined. For convenience, we denote $X:= \widetilde{W} \times {\mathbb{P}}^k$, it has complex dimension $(k+1)^2+k-1$.\ Consider the rational map: $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{F}: X &\to X\\ (c,z) &\mapsto (c,f_c(z)).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $\widetilde{F}$ acts as the identity on $\widetilde{W}$. Let $\Pi_i$ denote the canonical projections of $X=\widetilde{W}\times{\mathbb{P}}^k$ to its factor for $i=1,2$. In $X$, let $\omega_i:=\Pi_i^*(\omega_{FS})$ be the pull-back of the Fubini-Study form by the projection for $i=1,2$. That way, $\omega_1+\omega_2$ is a Kähler form on $X$. Let $\widetilde{\Gamma}$ be the graph of $\widetilde{F}$ in $X^2$ and let $P_i$, $i=1,2$, denote the projection from $X^2$ to its factors. We denote $\omega_{i,j}:= P_i^*(\omega_j)$.\ Define $\widetilde{T}:=d^{-1}_s [\widetilde{\Gamma}]$ which is a positive closed current on $X\times X$ of bidegree $((k+1)^2+k-1,(k+1)^2+k-1)$. Let $\widetilde{\Omega}:=\sum_{a+b+c+d= (k+1)^2+k-1 } m_{a,b,c,d} \omega_{1,1}^a \wedge \omega_{1,2}^b \wedge \omega_{2,1}^c \wedge \omega_{2,2}^d$ be a smooth form cohomologous to $\widetilde{T}$. Such $\widetilde{\Omega}$ exists and is positive since $X$ is a product of projective spaces. One can then consider a negative quasi-potential $\widetilde{V}$ of $\widetilde{T}$ (that is $dd^c \widetilde{V}= \widetilde{T}-\widetilde{\Omega}$) given by Theorem 2.3.1 in [@DS6].\ We consider a sequence $(\widetilde{T}_{m})$ of positive closed currents such that: - each $\widetilde{T}_{m}$ is cohomologous to $\widetilde{T}$; - $\widetilde{T}_{m} \to T$ in the sense of currents; - one can choose negative quasi-potentials $\widetilde{V}_{m}$ of $\widetilde{T}_m$ such that for all smooth positive closed currents $S$ of bidegree $((k+1)^2+k,(k+1)^2+k)$ in $X^2$, one has that $\langle \widetilde{V}_m, S \rangle$ decreases to $\langle \widetilde{V}, S \rangle$. Some remarks are in order here. Such sequence of currents has been explicitly constructed in [@DS6] where the authors restricts themselves to the case of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ for simplicity. In order to construct $(\widetilde{T}_{m})$, one uses a convolution by a radial approximation of the identity in $\mathrm{Aut}(X^2)$ (more precisely, a poly-radial approximation). The last property is proved as in Proposition 3.1.6 in [@DS6]. Extending the formalism of super-potentials to $X^2$, we can extend that property to the case where $S$ is not smooth. Finally, that property implies the Hartogs’ convergence of the sequence $\widetilde{T}_{m}$ to $\widetilde{T}$. We need some notations. For a current $R$ in $X$, we denote $\widetilde{L}(R):=(P_1)_*(P_2^*(R)\wedge \widetilde{T})$ and $ \widetilde{\Lambda}(R):=(P_2)_*(P_1^*(R)\wedge \widetilde{T})$ (in the cases where these currents make sense) and $ \widetilde{L}_{m}(R):=(P_1)_*(P_2^*(R)\wedge \widetilde{T}_{m})$ and $ \widetilde{\Lambda_{m}}(R):=(P_2)_*(P_1^*(R)\wedge \widetilde{T}_{m})$. We have the lemma: \[decreasing\_superpotentials\] Let $\Omega^q$ be smooth positive closed current of bidegree $(q,q)$ in $X$. Then one can choose negative quasi-potentials $\widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{U}_{m}$ of $\widetilde{L}(\Omega^q)$ and $\widetilde{L}_{m}(\Omega^q)$ and $\widetilde{U}'$ and $\widetilde{U}'_{m}$ of $\widetilde{\Lambda}(\Omega^q)$ and $\widetilde{\Lambda}_{m}(\Omega^{q})$ such that - for all positive smooth forms $S$ of bidegree $(l-q+1,l-q+1)$ on $X$, we have that $\langle \widetilde{U}_{m}, S \rangle$ decreases to $\langle \widetilde{U}, S \rangle$. - for all positive smooth forms $R$ of bidegree $(l-q+1,l-q+1)$ on $X$, we have that $\langle \widetilde{U}'_{m}, R \rangle$ decreases to $\langle \widetilde{U}', R \rangle$. *Proof.* Let $\widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{U}_{m}$ be the negative quasi-potentials defined by $$\widetilde{U}:= (P_1)_*( P_2^*(\Omega^q)\wedge \widetilde{V}) \ \mathrm{and} \ \widetilde{U}_{m}:= (P_1)_*( P_2^*(\Omega^q)\wedge \widetilde{V}_{m}).$$ Since $dd^c$ commutes with pull-back and push-forward we have indeed that $dd^c \widetilde{U}= \widetilde{L}(\Omega^q)- (P_1)_*( P_2^*(\Omega^q)\wedge \widetilde{\Omega})$ and $dd^c \widetilde{U}_{m}= \widetilde{L}_{m}(\Omega^q)- (P_1)_*( P_2^*(\Omega^q)\wedge \widetilde{\Omega})$. The first part of the lemma follows from the choice of $\widetilde{T}_{m}$ and $\widetilde{V}_m$. The proof of the second point is the same. $\Box$\ We shall now change the choice of the quasi-potentials. One of the interests of the theory super-potentials lies in the fact that although it is defined at some point using quasi-potentials, it does not depend on the choice of the quasi-potentials (up to a normalization). So we choose instead $\widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{U}_{m}$ equal to the Green quasi-potentials of $\widetilde{L}(\Omega^q)$ and $\widetilde{L}_{m}(\Omega^q)$ (see [@DS6 Theorem 2.3.1]). Recall that ${\mathcal{C}}_s$ is the set of normalized positive closed currents of bidegree $(s,s)$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. Consider a smooth $\Omega_s \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ (we will take more specific $\Omega_s$ later on). Consider $\Omega_s:=\Pi_2^*(\Omega_s)$. Then $\Omega_s$ is a smooth positive closed current of bidegree $(s,s)$ in $X$. We apply the above lemma to $\Omega_s$. That gives negative quasi-potentials $\widetilde{U}$ and $\widetilde{U}_{m}$ of $\widetilde{L}(\Omega_s)$ and $\widetilde{L}_m(\Omega_s)$. We let $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{m}$ be the associated super-potentials. For $c \in W$, recall that $L_c$ and $\Lambda_c$ are the corresponding normalized pull-back and push-forward operators.\ We will need some tools on slicing theory and on convergence of DSH functions. Recall some facts on slicing first (see [@Fed] or [@DS12]\[p. 483\]). Let $\lambda_W$ be the standard volume form on $W$. Let $\psi(c')$ be a positive smooth function with compact support in a chart of $W$ containing $c$ such that $\int\psi\lambda_W=1$. Define $\psi_\epsilon(c'):=\epsilon^{-2l}\psi(\epsilon^{-1} c')$ and $\psi_{c,\epsilon}(c'):=\psi_\epsilon(c'-c)$. The measures $\psi_{c,\epsilon}\lambda_W$ approximate the Dirac mass at $c$. Let $T$ be a current on $X$. For every smooth test form $\Psi$ on $X$ one defines the slice of $T$ at $c\in W$ as $$\label{eq_slice} \langle T,\Pi_1, c \rangle (\Psi):=\lim_{\epsilon\rightarrow 0} \langle T \wedge \Pi_1^*(\psi_{c,\epsilon}\lambda_W),\Psi\rangle$$ when $\langle T,\Pi_1 ,c\rangle$ exists. This property holds for all choice of $\psi$. Conversely, when the previous limit exists and is independent of $\psi$, it defines the current $\langle T,\Pi_1 ,c\rangle$ and one says that $\langle T,\Pi_1 ,c\rangle$ [*is well defined*]{} (similarly for $\langle \widetilde{U}, \Pi_1, c \rangle$).\ Restating results of Dinh and Sibony, we have the lemma : \[slice\_n=1\] Let $T$ be a positive closed current of bidegree $(q,q)$ on $X$ of super-potential ${\mathcal{U}}_{T}$, then outside a pluripolar set of $W$, one has that: - the slice $\langle T, \Pi_1, c \rangle$ is a well defined positive closed current on ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. - the function $\gamma_{k-q+1}\mapsto {\mathcal{U}}_{T}(\Pi_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1})\wedge[c'=c])$ is finite and equal to a super-potential of $\langle T, \Pi_1, c \rangle$ on smooth forms. - if $(T_m)$ is a sequence of positive closed currents on $X$ which converges in the Hartogs’ sense to $T$, then the slices $\langle T_n, \Pi_1, c \rangle $ converges to $\langle T, \Pi_1, c \rangle $ in the Hartogs’ sense. - Finally, $\langle \widetilde{L}(\Omega_q), \Pi_1, c \rangle = \frac{d_q}{d_s}L_c(\Omega_q)$. *Proof.* The first point is proved in [@DS11]. For the second point, we consider a smooth form $\gamma_{k-q+1}$ of bidegree $(k-q+1,k-q+1)$. The quantity ${\mathcal{U}}_{T}(\Pi_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1})\wedge[c'=c])$ is well defined by the theory of super-potentials (allowing the value $-\infty$). The set of $c$ where it is equal to $-\infty$ is pluripolar: else we can construct a probability measure $\mu$ on $W$ with bounded super-potential such that ${\mathcal{U}}_{T}(\Pi_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1})\wedge P_1^*(\mu))=-\infty$, a contradiction. Now, if ${\mathcal{U}}_{T}(\Pi_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1})\wedge[c'=c])\neq -\infty$ for one smooth form $\gamma_{k-q+1}$, then it is true for any other smooth form as any smooth form is more H-regular than $\gamma_{k-q+1}$. Observe now that for $c$ such that ${\mathcal{U}}_{T}(\Pi_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1})\wedge[c'=c])$ is finite, we have that the quantity is equal to $\langle \langle U_{T}, \Pi_1, c \rangle, \Pi_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1}) \rangle$ (here, $U_{T}$ is a quasi-potential of $T$) : that follows from the definition of slicing. Hence, $\mathcal{U}_{T} (P_2^*(\gamma_{k-q+1})\wedge[c'=c])$ defines a super-potential of $\langle T, \Pi_1, c \rangle $ on smooth forms.\ The previous point means that $T$ and $[c'=c]$ are wedgeable. The third point follows from Proposition 4.2.6 in [@DS6] as H-convergence is preserved by wedge-product.\ For the last point, the result is clear outside any neighborhood of $I(f_c)$ as $\widetilde{L}(\Omega_q)$ is continuous there. The result follows as the mass in a small neighborhood of $I(f_c)$ can be taken arbitrarily small since the mass of $L_c(\Omega_q)$ is $1$ (observe that a neighborhood of $I(f_c)$ is also a neighborhood of $I(f_{c'})$ for $c'$ close to $c$). $\Box$\ Recall some fact on dsh functions. We say that a function is quasi plurisubharmonic (qpsh for short) on $\widetilde{W}$ if is locally the difference of a plurisubharmonic function and a smooth function. We say that a measure is $PLB$ if the qpsh functions are integrable for that measure. Let $\nu$ be such a measure (any measure given by a smooth distribution for example). We have the following lemma (see Proposition 2.4 in [@DS2]): The family of qpsh functions in $\widetilde{W}$ such that $dd^c \psi \geq - \omega_1$ and one of the two following conditions: $$\max_{\widetilde{W}} \psi =0 \ \mathrm{or} \ \int \psi d\nu=0$$ is bounded in $L^1(\nu)$ and is bounded from above. We say that a function is dsh if can be written outside a pluripolar set as the difference of two qpsh functions. Let $u$ be a dsh function. Then $dd^cu = T^+-T^-$ where $T^{\pm}$ are positive closed $(1,1)$-currents of same mass. For $u$ dsh, define $$\|u\|_{DSH} := \left|\int \varphi d\mu \right| + \min \|T^\pm\|$$ where the minimum is taken on all $T^\pm$ positive closed such that $dd^cu = T^+-T^-$. From a sequence of dsh functions uniformly bounded in $DSH$-norm, one can extract a weakly converging subsequence (in the sense of currents with the norm of the limit bounded by the bound). \[merci\_sib\] Let $(g_n)$ be a bounded sequence of dsh functions on $W$. Then, we can extract a converging subsequence in $DSH$ that converges outside a pluripolar set. Then $g(x)$ is dsh and $\|g\|_{DSH}\leq C$. *Proof.* Write $g_n= g^+_n-g^-_n$ where $g^\pm_n$ are qpsh functions such that $\|g^\pm_n\|_{L^1}$ is uniformly bounded (for the Lebesgues measure). Up to extracting, we can assume that $(g^{\pm}_n)$ converges outside a pluripolar set to $g^\pm$ (Proposition 3.9.4 in [@DS3]). $\Box$\ [$\bullet$ **Action of $\widetilde{L}_{m}$ and $\widetilde{L}$ on the cohomology.**]{} As $\widetilde{T}_{m}$ and $\widetilde{T}$ are cohomologous, $\widetilde{L}$ and $\widetilde{L}_m$ coincide on the cohomology. We study the action of $\widetilde{L}$ on $\omega_1^i\wedge\omega_2^{s-i}$. We have that $\widetilde{L}(\omega_1^i\wedge\omega_2^{s-i})$ is a positive closed form. Since $\widetilde{L}$ acts trivially on $\widetilde{W}$ we have that $\widetilde{L}(\omega_1^i\wedge\omega_2^{s-i})= \omega_1^i\wedge\widetilde{L}(\omega_2^{s-i})$. We can write it in cohomology (that is up to a $dd^c$-exact form): $$\widetilde{L}(\omega_1^i\wedge\omega_2^{s-i})=\omega_1^i\wedge \sum_{j=0}^{j=s-i}C_{j,s-i}\omega_1^j\wedge \omega_2^{s-i-j},$$ where the $C_i$ are non negative numbers (since $X$ is a product of projective space). We claim that $$C_{0,s-i}=\frac{d_{s-i}}{d_s}.$$ Indeed, Lemma \[slice\_n=1\] implies that for $c$ generic we have $\langle \widetilde{L}(\omega_2^{s-i}), \Pi_2, c\rangle =\frac{1}{d_s} f_c^*(\omega_2^{s-i})$ and then $C_{0,s-i}$ is just $\widetilde{L}(\omega_2^{s-i})$ evaluated at $[c'=c]\wedge \omega_2^{k-s}$. The matrix $\widetilde{M}$ of $\widetilde{L}$ on the basis $(\omega_1^i\wedge \omega_2^{s-i})$ is then the matrix with non negative coefficients: $$\left( \begin{array}{lllll} 1 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\ \star & \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s} & \ddots & \ & \vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \frac{d_{s-2}}{d_s} & \ddots & \vdots \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\ \star & \cdots & \cdots & \star & \frac{d_0}{d_s} \end{array} \right).$$ Using Perron-Frobénius theorem gives an eigenvector associated to the eigenvalue $1$ with positive coefficients. In other word, one can choose a positive closed form $\Omega^s$ such that $\widetilde{L}(\Omega^s)= \Omega^s+dd^c U_s$ and $\widetilde{L}_m(\Omega^s)= \Omega^s+dd^c U_{s,m}$. Renormalizing, the form $\Omega^s$ can be written as $\omega_2^s+ \sum_{i\leq 1} a_i \omega_1^i\wedge \omega_2^{s-i}$. Taking $\Omega_s$ (which is cohomologous to $\omega_2^s$) and $\Omega'_s$ any smooth form cohomologous to $\sum_{i\leq 1} a_i \omega_1^i\wedge \omega_2^{s-i}$ with no component of bidegree higher than $(s-1,s-1)$ in the $z$ variables, one can choose instead: $$\Omega^s:=\Omega_s+ \Omega'_s.$$ Similarly, the action of $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ on the basis $(\omega_1^i\wedge \omega_2^{k-s-i})_{i=0..k-s}$ is given by the matrix: $$\left( \begin{array}{lllll} 1 & 0 & \cdots & \cdots & 0 \\ \star & \frac{d_{s+1}}{d_s} & \ddots & \ & \vdots \\ \vdots & \ddots & \frac{d_{s+2}}{d_s} & \ddots & \vdots \\ \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & 0 \\ \star & \cdots & \cdots & \star & \frac{d_k}{d_s} \end{array} \right).$$ In order to see it, one can work with the dual basis $(\omega_1^{l-i}\wedge \omega_2^{s+i})_{i=0..k-s}$ and use that the adjoint of $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ is $\widetilde{L}$.\ Since $\widetilde{L}(\Omega^s)=\widetilde{L}(\Omega_s)+ \widetilde{L}(\Omega'_s)$, we have $U_{s}=\widetilde{U}+\widetilde{U}'_s$ where $\widetilde{U}'_s$ is the Green quasi-potential of $\widetilde{L}(\Omega'_s)$ (recall that $\widetilde{U}$ is a quasi-potential of $\widetilde{L}(\Omega_s)$). Then $\widetilde{U}'_s$ is a form with no components of bidegree higher than $(s-2,s-2)$ in the $z$ variable. So bidegree arguments imply that $\langle U_{s}, \Pi_1, c \rangle=\langle \widetilde{U}, \Pi_1, c \rangle$ defines a super-potential ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}$ of $L_c(\Omega_s)$.\ [$\bullet$ **Construction of a function that tests the convergence of the Green current.**]{} We fix $N\in \mathbb{N}$. Let $m=(m_1,m_2,\dots, m_N)\in \mathbb{N}^N$. We define: $$g^m_N:= (\Pi_1)_*( \sum_{j=1}^{N} \widetilde{L}_{m_N} \dots\widetilde{L}_{m_{j+1}}(U_{s,m_j}) \wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}})$$ where $\widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}}= \Pi_2^{*}(\beta_{k-s+1})$ and $\beta_{k-s+1}$ is a positive closed current of bidegree $(k-s+1,k-s+1)$ in ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ and $U_{s,m_j}$ is a quasi-potential of $\widetilde{L}_{m_j}(\Omega^s)$. Our aim is to prove the following proposition: \[dsh\_approx\] 1. There exist positive closed currents $T^\pm_{n,m}$ on $\widetilde{W}$ and a constant $C$ independent of $n$ and $m$ such that: $$dd^c g^m_n =T^+_{n,m}-T^-_{n,m}$$ with $\| T^\pm_{n,m}\| \leq C$. 2. Letting $m_N \to \infty, \ \dots, \ m_1\to \infty$ in that order, we have that the functions $(g^m_n)$ converge outside a pluripolar set to the function $g_n$ defined for $c \in \cap_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}\mathcal{Z}_{n,s}$ by: $$\begin{aligned} \label{conv_approx_test} g_{n}(c)= \sum_{j\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^j {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}( \Lambda_c^{j}(\beta_{k-s+1})),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}$ is the super-potential of $L_c(\Omega_s)$ given on smooth forms by the quasi-potential $\langle U_s,\Pi_1, c\rangle$. $\bullet$ [**Computation of $dd^c g^m_N$**]{} As every object in the definition of $g^m_N$ is smooth, its $dd^c$ is well defined (that is the very reason we introduced the regularization of the graph). Furthermore, $dd^c$ commutes with pull-back and push-forward $$\begin{aligned} dd^c g_N^m &=(\Pi_1)_*( \sum_{j=1}^{N} \widetilde{L}_{m_N} \dots\widetilde{L}_{m_{j+1}}(dd^c U_{s,m_j}) \wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}})\\ &=(\Pi_1)_*( \sum_{j=1}^{N} \widetilde{L}_{m_N} \dots\widetilde{L}_{m_{j+1}}(\widetilde{L}_{m_j}(\Omega^{s})- \Omega^s) \wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}})\\ &= (\Pi_1)_*( \widetilde{L}_{m_N} \dots\widetilde{L}_{m_{1}}(\Omega^{s})\wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}}) - (\Pi_1)_*( \Omega^{s}\wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, writing: $$\begin{aligned} T^+_{N,m} &:= (\Pi_1)_*( \widetilde{L}_{m_N} \dots\widetilde{L}_{m_{1}}(\Omega^{s})\wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}})\\ T^-_{N,m} &:=(\Pi_1)_*( \Omega^{s}\wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}}),\end{aligned}$$ we can write $dd^cg_N^m$ as the difference of two positive closed currents $T^+_{N,m}-T^-_{N,m}$. Since $T^-_{N,m}$ does not depends on $N$ and $m$, its mass is constant. Now $T^+_{N,m}$ has the same mass than $T^-_{N,m}$ as they are cohomologous. That proves the first point of Proposition \[dsh\_approx\].\ $\bullet$ [**Proof of the convergence of $g^m_N(c)$**]{}\ We can write that: $$\begin{aligned} g_N^m(c) &= \sum_{j=1}^{N} \widetilde{L}_{m_N} \dots\widetilde{L}_{m_{j+1}}(U_{s,m_j}) \wedge \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}}\wedge [c'=c] \\ &= \sum_{j=1}^{N} \langle \widetilde{U}_{s,m_j} , \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{j+1}}\dots \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{N}} ( \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}} \wedge [c'=c]) \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $m_N \to \infty$, we have that, for $c \in \cap_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}\mathcal{Z}_{n,s}$, $\widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{N}} ( \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}} \wedge [c'=c])$ converges in the sense of currents to $\Pi_2^*(\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\Lambda_c(\beta_{k-s+1}))\wedge[c'=c]$ (we can prove the convergence in the Hartogs’ sense but we do not need it). Hence $$\begin{aligned} \langle \widetilde{U}_{s,m_j} , \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{j+1}}\dots \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{N}} ( \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}} \wedge [c'=c]) \rangle \to \\ \langle \widetilde{U}_{s,m_j} , \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{j+1}}\dots \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{N-1}} (\Pi_2^*(\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\Lambda_c(\beta_{k-s+1}))\wedge[c'=c]) \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We let $m_{N-1}, \ \dots, \ m_{j+1}$ go to $\infty$ and we have that the previous quantity converges to $\langle \widetilde{U}_{s,m_j} , \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^j \Pi_2^*( \Lambda_c^{j}(\beta_{k-s+1}))\wedge[c'=c] \rangle$ (at each step, all the objects but one are smooth so the convergence is clear). Now we let $m_j\to \infty$, Hartogs’ convergence of $\widetilde{L}_{m_j}(\Omega^s)$ implies that the previous quantity converges to $\langle U_{s} , \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^j \Pi_2^*( \Lambda_c^{j}(\beta_{k-s+1}))\wedge[c'=c] \rangle$. Thanks to the remark at the end of the paragraph where we computed the action on the cohomology, this can be rewritten as $\left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^j {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}( \Lambda_c^{j}(\beta_{k-s+1}))$ . That proves Proposition \[dsh\_approx\].\ $\bullet$ [**Construction of the Green current for an open set in the space of parameters.**]{} We show now that the $g_N^m$ are uniformly bounded in $\mathcal{Y}$. See Lemma \[U,U\_1...\] for the notations. We shall take for that specific $\Omega_s$, $\Omega_s'$ and $\beta_{k-s+1}$. Let $\Omega_s$ be a smooth positive closed current in $\mathcal{C}_s$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^-$. Let $\Omega'_s$ be a smooth positive closed current with support disjoint from $\mathcal{Y}$ (that can easily be done by choosing instead of $\omega_1$ a smooth approximation of a hyperplan not meeting $\mathcal{Y}$, restricting $\mathcal{Y}$ if necessary). Let $\beta_{k-s+1}$ be a smooth positive closed current in $\mathcal{C}_{k-s-1}$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^+_1$. Observe that by construction of $\widetilde{L}_m$ and $\widetilde{\Lambda}_m$, we have that for $m$ large enough $\mathrm{Supp}(\widetilde{L}_m(\Omega_s))$, $\mathrm{Supp}(\widetilde{L}_m(\Omega'_s))$ and $\mathrm{Supp}(\widetilde{\Lambda}_m(\widetilde{\beta}_{k-s+1}))$ are close to $\mathrm{Supp}(\widetilde{L}(\Omega_s))$, $\mathrm{Supp}(\widetilde{L}(\Omega'_s))$ and $\mathrm{Supp}(\widetilde{\Lambda}(\widetilde{\beta}_{k-s+1}))$. In particular for $c\in\mathcal{Y}$, we have that $\widetilde{L}_{m_j}(\Omega^s)=\widetilde{L}_{m_j}(\Omega_s)$ and it has support in $\mathcal{O}^-\times \mathcal{Y}$. Lemma 2.3.5 in [@DS6] implies that there is a constant $C>0$ (that does not depend on $m_j$) such that $$\| U_{s,m_j}\|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1(\mathcal{O}^+_1\times \mathcal{Y})}\leq C.$$ Slicing implies that: $$\|\langle U_{s, m_j}, \Pi_1, c\rangle \|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1(\mathcal{O}^+_1)}\leq C,$$ for $c\in \mathcal{Y}$. Since $\widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{j+1}}\dots \widetilde{\Lambda}_{m_{N}} ( \widetilde{\beta_{k-s+1}} \wedge [c'=c])$ has support in $\mathcal{O}^+_1$ and mass $(\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s})^n$, we deduce that there exists a constant $C_0$ independent of $m$ and $n$ (providing that $m$ is large enough with respect to $n$) such that $g_n^m$ is uniformly bounded by $C_0$ for $c$ in $\mathcal{Y}$.\ $\bullet$ [**Construction of the Green current outside a pluripolar set.**]{} Take $\mu$ a smooth measure with support in $\mathcal{Y}$ (such $\mu$ is PLB). Then $n$ being fixed, we have that the sequence of functions $g_n^m$ is uniformly bounded in DSH, we can assume that it converges (in DSH). In particular, its limit $g'_n$ is DSH with $\|g'_n\|_{DSH}\leq C$ by Proposition \[dsh\_approx\] and $g'_n=g_n$ by Lemma \[merci\_sib\]. In particular, the sequence $(g_n)$ is uniformly bounded in $DSH$. Since the sequence of (non positive) functions $g_n$ is decreasing (and well defined outside a pluripolar set), we have that it converges for $c$ outside a pluripolar set to $g(c)$ in $\mathbb{R}^- \cup \{\infty\}$. On the other hand, we can extract a weakly converging sequence in $DSH$ to a limit $g'$. Extracting if necessary, we can assume that the convergence holds outside a pluripolar set by Lemma \[merci\_sib\]. In particular, $g=g'$ outside a pluripolar set. Hence, $g$ is finite outside a pluripolar set (removing if necessary the pluripolar set $(\cap_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}} \mathcal{Z}_{n,s})^c$, we assume from now on that this pluripolar set contains it).\ The sum $$\begin{aligned} g_{n}= \sum_{j\leq n} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^j {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}( \Lambda_c^{j}(.)),\end{aligned}$$ defines a super-potentials of $L_c^n(\Omega_s)$ by Theorem \[algebraic\_stability\_generic\]. The sequence is decreasing and outside a pluripolar set, it does not converge to $-\infty$. Outside that set, the convergence of the sequence implies the convergence in the Hartogs’ sense of the sequence of currents $(L^n_c(\Omega_s))$ (see Corollary 3.2.7 in [@DS6]). We denote its limit by $T^+_{s,c}$ that we call the *Green current of order $s$ of $f_c$*. Observe that the convergence of $(L^n_c(\Omega_s))$ in the Hartogs’ sense to $T^+_{s,c}$ implies the convergence of $(L^n_c(\Theta_s))$ in the Hartogs’ sense to $T^+_{s,c}$ for any other smooth form $\Theta_s \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ (that is because any smooth form is more H-regular than any other current).\ The current $T^+_{s,c}$ is $f_c^*$-invariant (in the sense of super-potentials) since the convergence of the series giving $g_n(c)$ (see (\[conv\_approx\_test\])) implies the convergence of: $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{2\leq i} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}\circ \Lambda_c^{i}(\beta_{k-s+1}).\end{aligned}$$ Factorizing, we get that $ \sum_{1\leq i} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}\circ \Lambda_c^{i}(\Lambda_c(\beta_{k-s+1}))$ converges hence a super-potential of $T^+_{s,c}$ is finite at $\Lambda_c(\beta_{k-s+1})$. That means that $T^+_{s,c}$ is $f_c^*$-admissible (see Definition 5.1.4 in [@DS6]) and $L_c(T^+_{s,c})$ is well defined. Now, $L^{n+1}_c(\Omega_s)= L_c L_c^n( \Omega_s)$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to $T^+_{s,c}$ and Proposition 5.1.8 in [@DS6] implies that it also converges to $L_c(T^+_{s,c})$. Thus $T^+_{s,c}=L_c(T^+_{s,c})$ and $T^+_{s,c}$ is $f_c^*$-invariant. In particular, we have proved: There exists a pluripolar set $\mathcal{P}$ of $W$ such that for any $c\notin W$ for any smooth form $\Omega_s \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$, the sequence of currents $L^n_c(\Omega_s)$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to the Green current $T^+_{s,c}$ which is $f_c^*$-invariant. Now assume that furthermore, $s$ is such that $d_s>d_{s+1}>\dots > d_k$ so $d_s$ is the highest degree. In other word, we have that generic maps in the orbit of $f$ are cohomologically hyperbolic. Doing the same thing for $\Lambda_c$, we obtain: \[convergence\_pp\_forward\] There exists a pluripolar set $\mathcal{P}$ of $W$ such that for any $c\notin W$ for any smooth form $\Omega_{k-s} \in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$, the sequence of currents $\Lambda^n_c(\Omega_{k-s})$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to the Green current $T^-_{s,c}$ which is $(f_c)_*$-invariant. $\bullet$ [**Wedge product of $T^+_{s,c}$ and $T^-_{s,c}$ outside a pluripolar set**]{}\ We now prove: \[intersection\] Outside a pluripolar set, the currents $T^+_{s,c}$ and $T^-_{s,c}$ are wedgeable so the probability measure $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$ is well defined. *Proof.* Recall that $T^+_{s,c}$ and $T^-_{s,c}$ are wedgeable if a super-potential of $T^+_{s,c}$ is finite at $\Omega_1 \wedge T^-_{s,c}$ for one smooth form $\Omega_1 \in {\mathcal{C}}_s$. Let $\beta_{k-s} \in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ be a smooth form. We will choose particular $\Omega_1$ and $\beta_{k-s}$ later. Consider the lemma: \[pourg’\] The sequence of functions $$g'_{n,m}(c)= \sum_{i\leq n-1} \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}(\Lambda_c^{i}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda_c^{m}\beta_{k-s}))$$ is a sequence of DSH functions uniformly bounded in $n$ and $m$ for the DSH norm that converges outside a pluripolar set when $n\to\infty$ to ${\mathcal{U}}_{T^+_{s,c}}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda_c^{m}\beta_{k-s})$. Assume the lemma is proved, then we have that ${\mathcal{U}}_{T^+_{s,c}}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda_c^{m}\beta_{k-s})$ defines a bounded sequence of $DSH$ functions. When $m\to \infty$, it converges outside a pluripolar set to ${\mathcal{U}}_{T^+_{s,c}}(\Omega_1 \wedge T^+_{s,c})$ since $\Lambda_c^{m}\beta_{k-s}$ converges to $T^+_{s,c}$ in the Hartogs’ sense. Hence ${\mathcal{U}}_{T^+_{s,c}}(\Omega_1 \wedge T^+_{s,c})\neq-\infty$ outside a pluripolar set and the proposition is proved.$\Box$\ *Proof of the lemma.* In order to control the DSH norm of $g'_{n,m}$, we need to compute its $dd^c$. That is done exactly as in the proof of Theorem \[dsh\_approx\] replacing $\widetilde{L}$ and $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ by their smooth approximations in order to deal with smooth objects and using $\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda_c^{n} (\beta^{k-s})$ instead of $\beta_{k-s+1}$ (where $\beta^{k-s}=\beta_{k-s}+\dots$ is the eigenvector of $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ associated to 1). So, all there is left is to construct a PLB measure $\mu$ for which $\|g'_{n,m}\|_{L^1(\mu)}$ is uniformly bounded. As in the previous section, that will be achieved by constructing an example stable by pertubations for which we have uniform estimates in the convergence of $g'_{n,m}$.\ We use the notations and results of Lemma \[U,U\_1...\]. We consider parameters $c\in \mathcal{Y}$. As in the previous paragraph, we take $\Omega_s\in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ a smooth current with support in $\mathcal{O}^-$. We take $\beta_{k-s}\in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ any smooth form with support in $\mathcal{O}^+$. In particular, $\Lambda^m_c(\beta_{k-s})$ has support in $\mathcal{O}^+$ for all $m$. Let $H$ be the hyperplan spanned by $E^-_{s-1}$ and $E^-_{k-s-1}$. Let $\Omega_1$ be a smooth element of ${\mathcal{C}}_1$ with support in a small neighborhood of $H$. Choosing that neighborhood small enough, we have that $\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda^m_c(\beta_{k-s})$ is a probability measure with support in $\mathcal{O}^+_1$. In particular, for $c\in \mathcal{Y}$, ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}(\Lambda_c^{i}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda^m_c(\beta_{k-s})))=\langle U_{ L_c(\Omega_s)} ,\Lambda_c^{i}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda^m_c(\beta_{k-s})) \rangle$ as $U_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}$ is smooth on the support of $\Lambda_c^{i}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda^m_c(\beta_{k-s}))$. For $c\in \mathcal{Y}$, we have that: $$\|\langle U_{s}, \Pi_1, c\rangle \|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1(\mathcal{O}^+_1)}\leq C.$$ Hence: $$\left| \left( \frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_s)}(\Lambda_c^{i}(\Omega_1 \wedge \Lambda^m_c(\beta_{k-s})))\right| \leq C\left(\frac{d_{s-1}}{d_s}\right)^i.$$ That implies that $|{\mathcal{U}}_{L_c^n(\Omega_s)}(\beta_{k-s+1})|$ is uniformly bounded by a constant $C_0$ in $\mathcal{Y}$ where $C_0$ does not depend on $n, m$. Again, we take for $\mu$ any smooth measure with support in $\mathcal{Y}$. $\Box$\ In particular, we have proved points 2 and 3 in Theorem \[principal\]. 1. Hartogs’ regularity implies that, for $c$ generic, $L_c^n(\Omega_s)$ and $\Lambda_c^m(\Omega_{k-s})$ are wedgeable for any smooth $\Omega_s$ and $\Omega_{k-s}$ and $n, m$. 2. It does not follows from the proposition that the measure $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$ is invariant. Indeed, we have not proved that it does not charge $I(f_c)$. If not, such measure would hold little interest for the dynamics of $f_c$. So, in the next section, we will show a (stronger) property of invariance (namely the quasi-potential of $T^+_{1,c}$, the Green current of order $1$ is integrable with respect to $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$). Green measure in the generic case ================================= In that section, we assume again that $d_s$ is the largest (generic) dynamical degree. Our purpose is to prove the following which will give point 4 in Theorem \[principal\] : \[1andeboulot\] Let $f$ be such that $\mathrm{dim}(I(f))=k-s-1$ or $I\subset H$ for a hyperplan $H$. Then there exists a pluripolar set $\mathcal{P}$ of $W$ such that for any $c\notin W$ the Green currents $T^+_{s, c}$ and $T^-_{s,c}$ are well defined, wedgeable. Furthermore, the measure $\nu_c:= T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$ is an invariant probability measure that integrates $\log \mathrm{dist}( , I(f_c))$ of maximal entropy $\log d_s$. The Lyapunov exponents $\chi_1 \geq \chi_2 \geq \dots \geq \chi_k$ of $\nu_c$ are well defined and we have the estimates: $$\begin{aligned} \chi_1\geq\dots\geq\chi_s\geq \frac{1}{2}\log \frac{d_s}{d_{s-1}}>0\\ 0>\frac{1}{2}\log \frac{d_{s+1}}{d_{s}} \geq \chi_{s+1}\geq\dots\geq\chi_k \geq -\infty. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, the measure $\nu_c$ is hyperbolic. $\bullet$ [**Strategy of the proof.**]{} We shall construct the measure of maximal entropy using a theorem of De Thélin and the author ([@DV1]) : \[ENTROPY\] Consider the sequence of measures: $$\nu_{c,n}:= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (f_c^i)_{*}\left( \frac{(f_c^n)^* \omega^{s} \wedge \omega^{k-s}}{\lambda_l(f_c^n)} \right).$$ Assume that there exists a converging subsequence $\nu_{c,\psi(n)} \to \nu_c$ with: $$(H) \mathrm{ : } \lim_{n \rightarrow + \infty} \int \log d(x,I) d \nu_{c,\psi(n)} (x) = \int \log d(x,I(f_c)) d \nu_c(x) > - \infty.$$ Then $\nu_c$ is an invariant measure of metric entropy $=\log d_s$. Observe that in ([@DV1]), we define $\nu_c$ for $s$ not necessarily associated to the highest dynamical degree and then we only have that $\nu_c$ is an invariant measure of metric entropy $\geq \log d_s$. But in our case, the other inequality always stands by [@DS9].\ The estimates on the Lyapunov exponents follows from Corollary 3 in [@DT1]. Observe that in that theorem, one requires that $\log \mathrm{dist}(x, \mathcal{A}) \in L^1(\nu_c)$ where $ \mathcal{A}= C_{f_c} \cup I_{f_c}$ (recall that $C_{f_c}$ is the critical set of $f_c$). But in our case, we only have that $\log \mathrm{dist}(x, I_{f_c}) \in L^1(\nu_c)$. Despite that fact, one still has the hyperbolicity of the measure allowing the value $-\infty$ for the negative Lyapunov exponents. Indeed, the stable manifolds were obtained in [@DT1] by composing forward graph transforms for $f^{-1}$ along $\nu_c$-generic orbits. In the non-integrable case, one can produce them by performing backward graph transforms for $f$ itself. Then, once the stable manifolds are constructed, volume estimates are obtained by the slicing arguments of [@DT1] (we are very grateful to De Thélin for explaining that fact to us, one can also see [@Dup] where De Thélin’s arguments are checked).\ In particular, Theorem \[1andeboulot\] is proved if we can apply Theorem \[ENTROPY\] for $c$ outside a pluripolar set. We are going for that to follow the strategy of [@DV1 Proposition 3.4.16]: one can apply Theorem \[ENTROPY\] and obtain the following writing of $\nu_c$, providing we can prove the theorem: \[constructionmeasure\] let $f$ such that $\mathrm{dim}(I(f))=k-s-1$ or $I\subset H$ for a hyperplan $H$. Outside a pluripolar set, the current $T^+_{s,c}$ and $T^-_{s,c}$ are wedgeable. So the intersection $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$ is a well defined probability measure $\nu_c$ and the quasi-potential of $T^+_{1,c}$, the Green current of order $1$, is integrable with respect to that measure. Assume the theorem is proved. Let us briefly explain how we can conclude. Since $L_c(\omega)$ is more H-regular than $T^+_{1,c}$, we also have that $\nu_c$ integrates a quasi-potential $U_{L_c(\Omega)}$ of $L_c(\omega)$. Now, a quasi-potential of $L_c(\omega)$ has singularities in $\log d(x,I(f_c))$. Hartogs’ regularities implies that $L^n_c(\omega^s)\wedge \Lambda_c^m(\omega^{k-s})$ is a well defined probability measure that integrates a quasi-potential of $L_c(\omega)$. In particular, it does not charge $I(f_c)$ and it is $(f_c)_*$-admissible. Replacing $L_c^{n-1}(\omega^s)$ and $\Lambda_c^m(\omega^{k-s})$ by sequences of smooth currents converging in the Hartogs’ sense, we prove that $$\Lambda_c(L^n_c(\omega^s)\wedge \Lambda_c^m(\omega^{k-s}))=L^{n-1}_c(\omega^s)\wedge \Lambda_c^{m+1}(\omega^{k-s}).$$ Again, continuity of the wedge product and $f_*$ for the H-convergence implies that $\nu_c$ is $f_*$-invariant and we can write $\nu_{c,n}$ as: $$\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} L^{n-i}_c(\omega^s)\wedge \Lambda_c^i(\omega^{k-s}).$$ It follows that $\nu_{c,n}$ converges to $\nu_c$ in the Hartogs’ sense and satisfies the condition (H). Then, we can apply Theorem \[ENTROPY\].\ Observe also that the fact that $\nu_c$ integrates a quasi-potential of $L_c(\omega)$ is equivalent to the fact that it integrates a quasi-potential of $T^+_{1,c}$. Indeed, if $\nu_c$ integrates a quasi-potential of $L_c(\omega)$ it is $(f_c)_*$-invariant (see just above). A simple recurrence shows that it integrates $(f_c^*)^nU_{L_c(\Omega)}$ and $$\langle \nu_c , U_{L_c(\Omega)}\rangle =\langle \nu_c , (f_c^*)^nU_{L_c(\Omega)}\rangle.$$ The result follows by monotone convergence as a quasi-potential of $T^+_{1,c}$ is given by $\sum_{1\leq n} \frac{1}{d_1^n} (f_c^*)^nU_{L_c(\Omega)}$.\ Proposition \[intersection\] already states that $T^+_{s,c}$ and $T^-_{s,c}$ are wedgeable for $c$ generic. So we only need to prove that the potential of the Green current of order $1$ is integrable with respect to $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$ or, as it was observed in the above paragraph, that the potential of $L_c(\omega)$ is integrable with respect to $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$. We proceed as in the previous section. Let $\frac{1}{d_1}F^*(\Omega_1)$ be the pull-back of some current in ${\mathcal{C}}_1$ (more precisely, $\Pi_1^*(\Omega_1)$). Let $U_1$ be a quasi-potential of $\frac{1}{d_1}F^*(\Omega_1)$. Then outside a pluripolar set of $c$ one has that $ L_c(\Omega_1)=\langle \frac{1}{d_1}F^*(\Omega_1), \Pi_1, c\rangle $ and the slice $\langle U_1, \Pi_1, c\rangle $ is a quasi-potential of $ L_c(\Omega_1)$ (in fact, that is true for all $c$). We denote by ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}$ the associated super-potential. Let $\beta_{k-s}\in {\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ (we will choose a more specific $\beta_{k-s}$ later on). Consider the lemma: \[pourk\] Let $f$ be such that $\mathrm{dim}(I(f))=k-s-1$ or $I\subset H$ for a hyperplan $H$. The sequence of functions $$k_{n}(c)= {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}( L^n_c(\Omega_s)\wedge \Lambda^n_c(\beta_{k-s}))$$ is a sequence of DSH functions uniformly bounded in $n$ for the DSH norm. Assume the lemma is proved. From above, we have that outside a pluripolar set, $L^n_c(\Omega_s)\wedge \Lambda^n_c(\beta_{k-s})$ converges to $T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}$ in the Hartogs’ sense (Proposition 4.2.6 in [@DS6]). Hence, ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}( L^n_c(\Omega_s)\wedge \Lambda^n_c(\beta_{k-s}))$ converges to ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}( T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c})$ by continuity of the super-potential for the Hartogs’ convergence (Remarks 3.2.4. in [@DS6]). Then extracting weakly converging sequences in DSH to a limit $k$ and using Lemma \[merci\_sib\], we deduce that $k \neq -\infty$ outside a pluripolar set. As $k(c)=\langle U_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}, T^+_{s,c}\wedge T^-_{s,c}\rangle$ that implies Theorem \[constructionmeasure\].\ In order to prove Lemma \[pourk\], we first have to control $dd^c k_n$. That is done exactly as above using the same technics of approximation in the Hartogs’ sense of the graph of the application $\widetilde{F}$. So, all there is left is to construct is the PLB measure $\mu$ on $\widetilde{W}$ such that $\|k_{n}(c)\|_{L^1(\mu)}$ are uniformly bounded. As in the previous section, that will be achieved by constructing an example stable by pertubations for which we have uniform estimates in the convergence of $k_n$. We will first do that in the case where $\mathrm{dim}(I)=k-s-1$ and then when $I\subset H$ for some hyperplan $H$.\ $\bullet$ [**Construction of an example stable by perturbations when $\mathrm{dim}(I)=k-s-1$.**]{} Recall that we constructed linear subspaces $E^+_s$, $E^+_{s-1}$, $E^-_{k-s-1}$, $E^-_{k-s}$ in Lemma \[U,U\_1...\]. We can assume that $I \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^+} =\varnothing$ since $\mathcal{O}^+$ is a small neighborhood of a linear set of dimension $s$. As in Section \[Algebraic stability is dense\], we choose an element $A_{\alpha}$ in $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ such that - $A_{\alpha}^{-1}(f^{-1})(\mathcal{O}^-) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$, - $A_{\alpha}^{-1}(f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-_1$, - $A_{\alpha}( f(\mathcal{O}^+)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^+$, - $A_{\alpha}( f(\mathcal{O}^+_1)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^+_1$. Consider the element $g$ defined as: $$g := A_{\alpha} \circ f \circ A_{\alpha}.$$ Observe that $I(g)= A_{\alpha}^{-1}(I(f))$ hence we can assume (taking $\alpha$ large enough) that $I(g) \subset \mathcal{O}_1^-$. The following property are then satisfied: - $g^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$ and $g^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-_1$ ; - $g (\mathcal{O}^+)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+$ and $g (\mathcal{O}^+_1)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+_1$; - $I(g) \subset \mathcal{O}_1^-$. Again, the example we have constructed is in the orbit of $f$ under the group $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)^2$ but that is of no concern since $f$ and $A_{\alpha}\circ f\circ A_{\alpha}^{-1}$ are conjugated. Observe that the previous properties are stable under small perturbations, so we can find a smooth probability measure $\mu$ with support in $W$ such that the above conditions are satisfied for $g_c=g\circ c$ with $c\in \mathrm{Supp}(\mu)$. Now, in order to prove Lemma \[pourk\], we choose for $\Omega_1$ any smooth form in ${\mathcal{C}}_1$ (for example the Fubini-Study form). As before, we take for $\Omega_s$ a smooth form in ${\mathcal{C}}_s$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^-$ and for $\beta_{k-s}$ a smooth form in ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^+$. In particular, $L_n^c(\Omega_s)$ has support in $\mathcal{O}^-$ and $\Lambda_c^n(\beta_{k-s+1})$ has support in $\mathcal{O}^+$. Thus $L^n_c(\Omega_s)\wedge \Lambda^n_c(\beta_{k-s})$ is a probability measure with support in $\mathcal{O}^+\cap \mathcal{O}^-$. The super-potential ${\mathcal{U}}_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}$ is given by a quasi-potential $U_{ L_c(\Omega_1)}$. Lemma 2.3.5 in [@DS6] implies that there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $c$ such that $$\|U_{ L_c(\Omega)}\|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1(\mathcal{O}^+_{s}\cap \mathcal{O}^-_{k-s})}\leq C.$$ So arguing as above, we have that $k_n(c)$ is uniformly bounded for $c\in \mathrm{Supp}(\mu)$. That gives Lemma \[pourk\] in the case where $\mathrm{dim}(I)=k-s-1$.\ $\bullet$ [**Construction of an example stable by perturbations when $I$ is contained in a hyperplan.**]{} We modify the previous construction. Let $H$ denote a hyperplan such that $I \subset H$. Let $E^+_s$ and $E^-_{k-s}$ be (generic) linear subspaces of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ of dimension $s$ and $k-s$. We consider $E_{s-1}^+:= E_s^+ \cap H$ and $E_{k-s-1}^-:= E_{k-s}^-\cap H$. Then $E_{s-1}^+$ and $E_{k-s-1}^-$ are linear subspaces of dimension $s-1$ and $k-s-1$. We claim that we can assume: - $E^+_s \cap E^-_{k-s} =\{p\}$ is reduced to a point and $H \cap \{p\} =\varnothing$ - $E^+_s$ (resp. $E^-_{k-s}$) is $f_*$-compatible (resp. $f^*$-compatible) - $f(E^+_s) \cap E_{k-s-1}^-=\varnothing $ and $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s}) \cap E_{s-1}^+=\varnothing $ We explain why the last point stands. It is generic (in the algebraic sense), hence we only need to show that it is not empty. For that we can choose $E^-_{k-s}$ so that $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s}) \cap H$ is of dimension $k-s-1$. Indeed the set of $Z\in E^-_{k-s}$ sent to $H$ by $f$ is a proper analytic set of $E^-_{k-s}$ and is then of dimension $\leq k-s-1$. We conclude using the first point of Lemma \[pull\_back\_generic\_linear\]. Since $\mathrm{dim}(f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s}) \cap H)+\mathrm{dim}(E^+_{s-1})= k-2 <\mathrm{dim}(H)$, we can assume that $f^{-1}(E^-_{k-s}) \cap E_{s-1}^+=\varnothing $. We proceed similarly for $f(E^+_s) \cap E_{k-s-1}^-=\varnothing $. We let $\mathcal{O}^+$ be a small neighborhood of $E^+_s$ and $\mathcal{O}^-$ be a small neighborhood of $E^-_{k-s}$. We can assume that $ H \cap \overline{\mathcal{O}^+\cap \mathcal{O}^- } =\varnothing$. We choose small neighborhoods $\mathcal{O}^+_1$ and $\mathcal{O}^-_1$ of $E_{s-1}^+$ and $E_{k-s-1}^-$. We can choose the homogeneous coordinates $[z_0: \dots: z_k]$ such that $$\begin{aligned} E^-_{k-s}=\{z_{0}=\dots= z_{s-1}=0 \}& \ \mathrm{and} \quad E^+_{s}=\{z_{s+1}=\dots= z_{k}=0 \} \\ E^-_{k-s-1}=\{z_{0}=\dots= z_{s-1}={z_s}=0 \}& \ \mathrm{and} \quad E^+_{s-1}=\{z_{s}=\dots= z_{k}=0 \}\\ H=\{z_s=0\}\end{aligned}$$ As in section \[Algebraic stability is dense\] let $A_{\alpha}$ be the element of $\mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$ given by $$\begin{aligned} &A_{\alpha} ([z_0 : z_1 : \dots z_{s-1} : z_s: z_{s+1} :\dots: z_k ])= \\ &\quad [ \alpha^{-1} z_0 :\alpha^{-1} z_1 : \dots \alpha^{-1} z_{s-1} : z_s: \alpha z_{s+1} :\dots: \alpha z_k ]. \end{aligned}$$ Then for $\alpha$ small enough: - $A_{\alpha}^{-1}(f^{-1})(\mathcal{O}^-) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$, - $A_{\alpha}^{-1}(f^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-_1)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-_1$, - $A_{\alpha}( f(\mathcal{O}^+)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^+$, - $A_{\alpha}( f(\mathcal{O}^+_1)) \Subset \mathcal{O}^+_1$. Consider the element $g$ in $\mathrm{Orb}(f)$ defined as: $$g := A_{\alpha} \circ f \circ A_{\alpha}.$$ Observe that $I(g)= A_{\alpha}^{-1}(I(f))\subset A_{\alpha}^{-1}(H) \subset H$. Hence we can assume that $I(g)\cap \overline{(\mathcal{O}^+ \cap \mathcal{O}^-)}=\varnothing$. The following property are then satisfied: - $g^{-1}(\mathcal{O}^-) \Subset \mathcal{O}^-$ and $g(\mathcal{O}^+)\Subset \mathcal{O}^+$; - $I(g)\cap \overline{(\mathcal{O}^+ \cap \mathcal{O}^-)}=\varnothing$. Observe that the previous properties are stable under small perturbations. That defines a small open set $W_0$ in $W$ where the above conditions are satisfied and we can find a smooth probability measure $\mu$ with support in $W_0$ such that the above conditions are satisfied for $g_c=g\circ c$ with $c\in \mathrm{Supp}(\mu)$. Now, in order to prove Lemma \[pourk\], we choose for $\Omega_1$ any smooth form in ${\mathcal{C}}_1$ (for example the Fubini-Study form). As before, we take for $\Omega_s$ a smooth form in ${\mathcal{C}}_s$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^-$ and for $\beta_{k-s}$ a smooth form in ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^+$. In particular, for $c \in W_0$, $L^n_c(\Omega_s)\wedge \Lambda^n_c(\beta_{k-s})$ is a probability measure with support in $\mathcal{O}^+\cap \mathcal{O}^-$. Lemma 2.3.5 in [@DS6] implies that there is a constant $C>0$ independent of $c$ such that $$\|U_{ L_c(\Omega)}\|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1(\mathcal{O}^+_{s}\cap \mathcal{O}^-_{k-s})}\leq C.$$ So arguing as above, we have that $k_n(c)$ is uniformly bounded for $c \in \mathrm{Supp}(\mu)$. That gives Lemma \[pourk\] in the case where $I$ is contained in a hyperplan.\ We claim that in that example one also has that for any $x\in {\mathbb{P}}^k$, $\log\mathrm{dist}(., x)$ is integrable with respect to $\nu_c$ for $c$ outside a pluripolar set (the distance being given by the Fubini-Study metric). The proof of that claim follows the lines of the previous one. Choosing suitable coordinates, we can assume that $x=0 \in {\mathbb{C}}^k \subset {\mathbb{P}}^k$. Let $[z_0:\dots:z_{k-1}:t]$ denote the associated homogeneous coordinates on ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. We want to construct an example stable by perturbations for which $\nu_{c}$ integrates $\log \mathrm{dist}( . , 0)$ with locally uniform estimates. The qpsh function $\log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\| -\log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1},t)\|$ is well defined so $dd^c \log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\|$ is a well defined $(1,1)$ current in ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. Furthermore, $\log \mathrm{dist}( . , 0) \in L^1(\nu_{c'})$ is equivalent to $\log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\| -\log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1},t)\| \in L^1(\nu_{c'})$. Using super-potential theory ([@DS6 Lemma 4.2.8]), it is enough to prove that $${\mathcal{U}}_{T^+_{c', s}}(dd^c \log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\| \wedge T^-_{c', k-s}) >L$$ for $c'$ in a small neighborhood of $c$. Observe that $dd^c \log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\|$ is a well defined $(1,1)$ current in ${\mathbb{P}}^k$, since it is smooth outside a set of dimension $0$, its wedge product with any positive closed current is well defined (see [@dem]). We take $c\in W_0$ as in the previous example: - let $U_{c,s}$ denotes the Green quasi-potential of $L_c(\Omega_{s})$ of the previous section. Then $U_{c,s}$ is smooth (with locally uniform estimate near $c$) in $\mathcal{O}^-$. - for all $n\geq 0$ and $c'$ near $c$, $\Lambda_{c'}^n(dd^c \log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\wedge \Lambda^n_{c'}(\beta_{k-s}))$ is a well defined element of ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s+1}$ with support in $\mathcal{O}^-$. It is $(f_{c'})_*$-admissible since $U_{c',s}$ is finite at that point. - the functions $$k'_{m}(c'):= \sum_n {\mathcal{U}}_{ L_{c'}(\Omega_s)}( \Lambda^n_{c'}( dd^c \log \|(z_0, \dots, z_{k-1})\| \wedge \Lambda^m_{c'}(\beta_{k-s})))$$ satisfy $dd^c k_m =T^+_m-T^-_m$ with $\|T^\pm_m\| \leq C$ where $C$ does not depend on $m$. So arguing as above, we deduce the claim. The parameters $c \in W_0$ give functions $f_c$ which are *horizontal-like maps* in $\mathcal{O}^+ \cap \mathcal{O}^-$. Such maps were introduced by Dujardin in dimension 2 (see [@duj]) and have been extensively studied by Dinh, Nguyen and Sibony in [@DS11; @DinhNguyenSibony1]. In that last article, the authors prove in the inversible case that the measure $\nu_c$ is PB (of entropy $\log d_s$ and hyperbolic) that means that it integrates qpsh functions and in particular $\log\mathrm{dist}(., x)$. We can extend the results of Theorem \[principal\] to any map such that “there exists linear subspaces $E^+_s$ and $E^-_{k-s }$ of dimension $s$ and $k-s$ such that, up to a linear change of coordinates, the ball in $E^+_s$ of center $p=E^+_s\cap E^-_{k-s}$ and radius $\mathrm{dist}(p, f^{-1}(E_{k-s})\cap E^+_s)$ does not contain a point of $I(f)$”. Using that condition, we leave to the reader the proof of Theorem \[principal\] for a map such that $\mathrm{dim}(I)=k-s$ and $\mathrm{Vol}(I)\leq k-s$. In general, that condition is not easy to verify and there is no reason for an arbitrary map to check it. [**Question.**]{} The following question is natural in the settings of generic dynamics. Indeed, it is known to be false in the general case (see [@Dilgu]). For $c$ outside a pluripolar set, is the measure $\nu_c$ $PB$ (does it integrate $DSH$ functions)? If the answer was yes, one would deduce that the Lyapunov exponents are generically not $-\infty$ and that the measure $\nu_c$ does not charge pluripolar sets.\ $\bullet$ [**Proof of point 5 in Theorem \[principal\]**]{} Observe that for polynomials, one always have that $I$ is contained in the hyperplan at infinity. In the previous case, we have built an example using an element $A_\alpha$ that fixes $H$. When $H$ is the hyperplan at infinity, that means that $A_{\alpha}$ is an affine automorphism of ${\mathbb{C}}^k$. Since that example is stable under small perturbations in $\mathrm{Aff}({\mathbb{C}}^k)$, we just have to compute the $dd^c$ of the different functions used in the previous part ($g_n$, $g'_{n,m}$, $k_n$). That is done exactly in the same way, observe that $W_1=\mathrm{Aff}({\mathbb{C}}^k)$ is a Zariski dense open set in $\widetilde{W}_1\simeq {\mathbb{P}}^{k^2+k}$.\ $\bullet$ [**Ergodicity and mixing**]{} Let $c$ be a generic parameter. It is natural to ask if the measure $\nu_c$ is mixing (or ergodic, but mixing is stronger). We are able to do so under an additional hypothesis : we need that $\nu_c$ does not charge $I'(f_c)$. The strategy is classical in complex analysis so we only sketch it: 1. one first show that the Green current $T^+_{s,c}$ is extremal in the sense that if $S\in {\mathcal{C}}_s$ is such that $S\leq T^+_{s,c}$ then $S=T^+_{s,c}$. 2. one proves that, for a smooth function $\varphi$, $\varphi \circ f_c^n T^+_{s,c}$ converges in the sense of currents to $c(\varphi) T^+_{s,c}$ where $c(\varphi)= \langle \varphi, \nu_c \rangle$ (at this point, one uses that the potentials of $T^+_{1,c}$ are integrable with respect to $\nu_c$). 3. one deduces that for $\psi$ smooth, we have $\lim_n \langle \varphi \circ f^n \psi , \nu_c \rangle= \langle \varphi , \nu_c \rangle \langle \psi , \nu_c \rangle$. This would be true by the above if $T^-_{s,c}$ was smooth and one proceed by approximations (we need here that $\nu_c$ does not charge $I'(f_c)$). The mixing is proved. $\bullet$ [**Hyperbolicity of the homogeneous extension and hyperbolicity of the map**]{} Assume now that $f$ is a dominating meromorphic map of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$. We can write it in homogeneous coordinates as $f=[P_0:\dots:P_k]$ where the $P_i$ are relatively prime homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$. We consider the polynomial map of ${\mathbb{C}}^{k+1}$ defined as: $$\widetilde{f} = (P_0,\dots,P_k).$$ Its extension to ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+1}$ (still denoted as $\widetilde{f}$) has its indeterminacy set contained in $H$, the hyperplan at infinity. Hence, it satisfies the above conditions. Let $[z_0:\dots:z_k:t]$ be the homogeneous coordinates on ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+1}$. Let $(\widetilde{d_i})_{i=0..k+1}$ be the generic dynamical degree in the orbit of $\widetilde{f}$. An easy computation gives: $$\widetilde{d_0}=1, \ \widetilde{d_i}= d\times d_{i-1} \ \mathrm{for} \ i\neq 0.$$ In particular, we can apply point 5 of Theorem \[principal\] to $\widetilde{f}$.\ Assume furthermore that $\widetilde{f}$ is in fact a hyperbolic map in the sense that it satisfies Theorem \[principal\]. In other words, the parameter $\mathrm{Id} \in \mathrm{Aut}({\mathbb{P}}^{k+1})$ is not in the pluripolar set where we cannot apply the Theorem. Let $\widetilde{\nu}$ denote the measure of maximal entropy constructed for $\widetilde{f}$. Observe that since $0$ is an attractive fixed point, it does not belong to the support of $\widetilde{\nu}$, hence $\log \mathrm{dist}(x, 0) \in L^1(\widetilde{\nu})$.\ The mapping $\widetilde{f}=[f: t^d]$ is a skew-product over $f$: if $\pi$ denotes the (meromorphic) projection from ${\mathbb{P}}^{k+1}$ to ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ defined by $\pi ([z_0:\dots:z_k:t]) =[z_0:\dots:z_k]$ then $f \circ \pi = \pi\circ \widetilde{f}$. In fact, as $\widetilde{\nu}$ does not charge $0$ (since it integrates $\log \mathrm{dist}(., 0)$), we can work instead in the birational model ${\mathbb{P}}^k \times {\mathbb{P}}^1$ where the map $\pi$ is holomorphic. Let $\nu':= \pi_* \widetilde{\nu}$. We claim that: Assume that $\widetilde{f}$ is as above, then the measure $\nu'$ is a hyperbolic measure of maximal entropy $\log{d_s}$. Assume that the measure $\nu= T_s^+ \wedge T_s^-$ is well defined, then $\nu$ is also a hyperbolic measure of maximal entropy $\log{d_s}$ *Proof.* Using Proposition 3.5 in [@L.W] gives $$h_{\widetilde{\nu}}(\widetilde{f}) \leq h_{\nu'}(f) + \int_{{\mathbb{P}}^k=H} h(\widetilde{f}, \pi^{-1}(y)) d\nu'(y),$$ where $h(\widetilde{f}, \pi^{-1}(y))$ is the topological entropy of $\widetilde{f}$ relative to the set $\pi^{-1}(y)$. Observe that in [@L.W], the mappings $\widetilde{f}$ and $f$ are continuous but that hypothesis is not needed for that inequality. On the other hand, on $\pi^{-1}(y)\simeq {\mathbb{P}}^1$ the mappings $\widetilde{f}_{y}:=(\widetilde{f})_{|\pi^{-1}(y)}$ are holomorphic maps of degree either $d$ or $0$ (that happens when $y\in I(f)$). Then $h(\widetilde{f}, \pi^{-1}(y))$ is the entropy of the sequence $(\widetilde{f}_{y_n})_n$ where $y_n=f^n(y)$ (see [@K.L] for definitions). Gromov’s arguments on $lov$ (see [@Gro]) still apply in that setting and one gets that $h(\widetilde{f}, \pi^{-1}(y))\leq \log d$. In particular, we deduce: $$\log d_s + \log d\leq h_{\nu'}(f)+ \log d.$$ In other words, $h_{\nu'}(f)\geq \log { d_s}$. As the other inequality always stands (see [@DS9]), that gives $h_{\nu'}(f)= \log {d_s}$.\ Since $ \log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k)\|- \log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\| \in L^1(\widetilde{\nu})$, invariance of $\widetilde{\nu}$ implies that $$\begin{aligned} &\log \|f(z_0,\dots,z_k)\|-d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k)\| + \\ &d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k )\| - d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\|+ \\ & d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\| - \log \|\widetilde{f}(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\| \in L^1(\widetilde{\nu}). \end{aligned}$$ We have that $d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\| - \log \|\widetilde{f}(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\|\in L^1(\widetilde{\nu})$ by hypothesis and $d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k )\| - d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k,t)\| \in L^1(\widetilde{\nu}) $, thus: $$\begin{aligned} \log \|f(z_0,\dots,z_k)\|-d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k)\| = \\ \pi^*(\log \|f(z_0,\dots,z_k)\|-d\log \|(z_0,\dots,z_k)\|) \in L^1(\widetilde{\nu}).\end{aligned}$$ We deduce that $\nu'$ integrates a quasi-potential of $f^*(\omega)$ hence $\log \mathrm{dist}(.,I)$. De Thélin’s Theorem can be applied and we deduce the hyperbolicity of $\nu'$.\ By continuity of $\pi_*$, one has that $$\nu'= \lim_{n\to \infty} \pi_*( \frac{1}{(d \times d_s)^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)^*(\Omega_{s+1}) \wedge \frac{1}{(d \times d_s)^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)_*(\Omega_{k-s}))$$ where $\Omega_{s+1}$ and $\Omega_{k-s}$ are smooth elements of ${\mathcal{C}}_{s+1}({\mathbb{P}}^{k+1})$ and ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}({\mathbb{P}}^{k+1})$. In particular, we choose $\Omega_{s+1}= \pi^*(\omega^s) \wedge \Omega_1$ where $\omega$ is the Fubini-Study form on ${\mathbb{P}}^k$ and $\Omega_1$ is a smooth $(1,1)$ form with support disjoint from $0$ (observe that $\pi^*(\omega^s)$ is smooth away from $0$). Then we have that $(\widetilde{f}^n)^*(\Omega_{s+1})= \pi^*(f^n)^*(\omega^s)\wedge (\widetilde{f}^n)^*(\Omega_1)$. Thus: $$\begin{aligned} &\pi_*( \frac{1}{(d\times d_s)^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)^*(\Omega_{s+1}) \wedge \frac{1}{(d\times d_s)^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)_*(\Omega_{k-s}))= \\ &\frac{1}{d_s^n}(f^n)^*(\omega^{s}) \wedge \pi_*( \frac{1}{d^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)^*(\Omega_1) \wedge \frac{1}{(d\times d_s)^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)_*(\Omega_{k-s}) ).\end{aligned}$$ Now, $\frac{1}{d_s^n}(f^n)^*(\omega^s)$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to the Green current $T^+_{s}$ of $f$. Let $\widetilde{T}^+_{1}$ and $\widetilde{T}^-_{k-s}$ be the Green currents of $\widetilde{f}$. They are wedgeable by hypothesis. In particular, $\pi_*( \frac{1}{d^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)^*(\Omega_1) \wedge \frac{1}{(d \times d_s)^n}(\widetilde{f}^n)_*(\Omega_{k-s}) )$ converges in the Hartogs’ sense to $\pi_*( \widetilde{T}^+_{1} \wedge \widetilde{T}^-_{k-s})$. One easily checks that it defines an $f_*$-invariant current in ${\mathcal{C}}_{k-s}({\mathbb{P}}^k)$. As $T^-_{s}$ is the more H-regular invariant current, we deduce that it is more H-regular than $\pi_*( \widetilde{T}^+_{1} \wedge \widetilde{T}^-_{k-s})$. Thus $\nu$ is more H-regular than $\nu'$ and it particular, $\nu$ integrates $\log \mathrm{dist}(., I)$. We can then apply as above Theorem \[ENTROPY\] and Corollary 3 in [@DT1] to compute the entropy and prove the hyperbolicity of $\nu$. $\Box$\ [**Question.**]{} Unicity of the measure of maximal entropy is expected so it would nice to prove that $\nu'=\nu$.\ [00]{} E. Bedford and J. Diller, *[Energy and invariant measures for birational surface maps]{}*, Duke Math. J. **128** (2005), 331-368. E. Bedford and J. Smillie, *[Polynomial diffeomorphisms of $\mathbb{C}^2$. III. Ergodicity, exponents and entropy of the equilibrium measure]{}*, Math. Ann. **294** (1992), 395-420. X. Buff , *Courants dynamiques pluripolaires*, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse, Math. (6) **20** (2011), no. 1, 203-214. H. De Thélin, *[Sur les exposants de Lyapounov des applications méromorphes]{}*, Invent. Math. **172** (2008), 89-116. H. [De Thélin]{} and G. Vigny, *[Entropy of meromorphic maps and dynamics of birational maps]{}*, Mémoires de la SMF, Mém. Soc. Math. Fr. [**122**]{}, 98 p. (2010). J.-P. Demailly, *[Complex analytic and differential geometry]{}*, http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/$\sim$demailly/books.html, 1997. J. Diller, R. Dujardin and V. Guedj, *[Dynamics of meromorphic maps with small topological degree II: Energy and invariant measure]{}*, Comment. Math. Helvet. **86** (2011), no. 2, 277-316 . J. Diller, R. Dujardin and V. Guedj, *[Dynamics of meromorphic maps with small topological degree III: geometric currents and ergodic theory]{}*, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) **43** (2010), no. 2, 235-278. J. Diller and V. Guedj, *[Regularity of dynamical Green’s functions]{}*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**361**]{} (2009), 4783-4805. Dinh T.-C., Nguy[ê]{}n V.-A., Sibony N., *Dynamics of horizontal-like maps in higher dimension*, Adv. Math. **219** (2008), no. 5, 1689-1721. T.-C Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Dynamique des applications d’allure polynomiale]{}*, J. Math. Pures Appl. **82** (2003), 367-423. T.-C Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Une borne supérieure pour l’entropie topologique d’une application rationnelle]{}*, Ann. of Math. **161** (2005), 1637-1644. T.-C. Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Dynamics of regular birational maps in $\mathbb{P}^k$]{}*, J. Funct. Anal. **222** (2005), 202-216. T.C. Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Geometry of currents, intersection theory and dynamics of horizontal-like maps]{}*, Annales de l’institut Fourier **56** (2006), no. 2, 423–457. T.-C. Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Distribution des valeurs de transformations méromorphes et applications]{}*, Comment. Math. Helv. **81** (2006), 221-258. T.C. Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Pull-back of currents by holomorphic maps]{}*, Manuscipta Math. **123** (2007), no. 3, 357–371. T.C. Dinh and N. Sibony, *[Super-potentials of positive closed current, intersection theory and dynamics]{}*, Acta Math., **203** (2009), no. 1, 1–82. T.-C. Dinh and N. Sibony, *Super-potentials for currents on compact Kähler manifolds and dynamics of automorphisms*, J. Alg. Geo., **19** (2010), 473–529. R. Dujardin, *H[é]{}non-like mappings in ${\mathbb{C}}^2$*, Amer. J. Math., [**126**]{} (2004), 439-472. R. Dujardin, *[Laminar currents and birational dynamics]{}*, Duke Math. J. **131** (2006), 219-247. C. Dupont, *Large entropy measures for endomorphisms of ${\mathbb{P}}^k$*, [*To appear in Israel J. Math.*]{}, preprint arXiv:0911.4675. H. Federer, *Geometric Measure Theory*, New-York, Springer-Verlag, (1969). M. Gromov, *[Convex sets and K[ä]{}hler manifolds]{}*, [Teaneck, NJ]{} ed., Word Sci. Publishing, 1990. M. Gromov, *[On the entropy of holomorphic maps]{}*, Enseign. Math. (2) 49 (2003), no. 3-4, 217-235. V. Guedj, *Entropie topologique des applications méromorphes*, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems [**25**]{} (2005), 1847-1855. V. Guedj, *Ergodic properties of rational mappings with large topological degree*, Ann. of Math. (2) [**161**]{} (2005), no. 3, 1589-1607. Y. Kifer and P.D. Liu, *Random dynamics*, Handbook of dynamical systems. Vol. 1B, 379-499, Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, (2006). F. Ledrappier and P. Walters, *A relativised variational principle for continuous transformations*, J. London Math. Soc. (2), [**16**]{} (1977), no. 3, 568-576. A. Russakovskii and B. Shiffman, *Value distribution for sequences of rational mappings and complex dynamics*, Ind. Univ. Math. J. [**46**]{} (1997), 897-932. Gabriel Vigny, LAMFA - UMR 6140,\ U. P. J. V. 33, rue Saint-Leu, 80039 Amiens, France.\ Email: [email protected]

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We present the results for the Next-to-Leading Order effective hamiltonian for $\Delta S\!=\! 1$ decays, in presence of both QCD and QED corrections, and update the existing theoretical predictions for $\epsi$.' address: | Université Libre de Bruxelles, Service de Physique Théorique,\ Boulevard du Triomphe, CP 225, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium author: - 'Laura Reina[^1]' title: '$\epsi$: theoretical results and updated phenomenological analysis' --- Introduction ============ During the last few years a big effort has been made in order to state the theoretical predictions for K- and B-meson physics on a more solid ground. Our interest in K- and B-physics is due both to theoretical and experimental reasons. From the theoretical point of view, this kind of physics is the natural framework to analyze and test the mechanisms of flavour mixing and CP violation proposed in the Standard Model and beyond. $\Delta F\!=\!2$ (F=flavour) mixings, $\Delta F\!=\!1$ weak decays (and related asymmetries), rare K- and B-decays provide in principle all the necessary tools for a full-fledged analysis of this important aspect of the present phenomenology of elementary particle physics. Several “still missing” parameters of the Standard Model, tipically the ones related to the top quark – as the top mass ($m_t$) and couplings ($V_{td},\ldots$) – can be constrained by CP violation and flavour mixing results: a real alternative prediction to the pure electroweak determinations, moreover improvable in the near future. On the other hand, the nowadays theoretical enthusiasm is supported by an exciting experimental scenario, where more and more precision is reached in single measurements or expected in first generation experiments. This is expecially the case of B-physics, so extensively discussed at this conference, and of $\epsi$, the [*direct*]{} CP violation parameter in Kaon decays into two pions. The smallness of this CP violation parameter, due both to its [*radiative*]{} origin and to its intrinsic dependence on the $\Delta I\!=\!1/2$ [*rule*]{} [@peccei2], is at the same time the origin of its interest and of its illness. $\epsi$ is today still compatible with zero, both theoretically and experimentally. At the same time it is crucial to state if it vanishes, in order to trust the Standard Model or not. Thus, it is a real challenge to reduce more and more all the uncertainties in the problem. Our contribution in this direction has been the calculation of the effective hamiltonian for $\Delta S\!=\!1$ weak decays at the Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) in QCD and QED. The effective hamiltonian formalism is the typical framework for the analytical calculation of the physical amplitudes for weak processes, i.e. in a theory where very large masses and mass gaps are present. Within this formalism, the hamiltonian which describes a given physical process is expressed as a linear combination of effective operators with certain Wilson coefficients. In so doing, the perturbative and non-perturbative realms factorize and we can fully exploit our analytical capabilities in calculating the Wilson coefficients at a given perturbative order, while taking the operator matrix elements from some non-perturbative results. They are precisely the non-perturbative inputs which represent the “dark side” of the problem, being affected by very large uncertainties, which show up not only in the operator matrix elements, but also in some physical input parameters (like the CKM parameters, etc.) whose prediction relies on some “long-distance physics”. Taking “long-distance physics” from Lattice QCD (just a method among others, to be predictive from a quantitative point of view), our effort has been to state the perturbative calculation of the Wilson coefficients on a more solid ground. A NLO effective hamiltonian constitutes a more reliable result in many respects: the $\mu$-dependence is greatly reduced ($\mu$ being the scale of matching between Wilson coefficients and matrix elements); $\Lambda_{QCD}$ can be properly taken from other experiments which use NLO results; the stability of the perturbative expansion can be tested; the dependence on the heavy masses of the theory can be precisely taken into account and enforced. Moreover, the results obtained in the calculation of the $\Delta S\!=\!1$ Effective Hamiltonian can be easily generalized to the case of other effective hamiltonians, in the Standard Model or even beyond it. For all these reasons and many others I do not detail here, we think that this calculation will be important, even if, as we will show in the phenomenological analysis, for the time being the theoretical prediction for $\epsi$ is not adequate to be competitive with the improvements of the experimental measurements in the near future. The $\Delta S\!=\!1$ Effective Hamiltonian: theoretical construction ==================================================================== I would like to report here about some main points in the theoretical calculation of the effective hamiltonian which describes $\Delta S\!=\!1$ decays and $\epsi$. I will recall the general construction of the effective hamiltonian for the physical problem at hand, the importance of the matching between “short-distance” and “long-distance” physics, the independence of any physical result from the matching scale and its consequences. I will finally present the NLO solution of the evolution equation for the Wilson coefficients and discuss the regularization scheme independence of the final result. Full details and references about each single point can be found in [@cfmr2]. The most general effective hamiltonian can be written, using the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) of the product of the two original weak currents as: & &F \_[eff]{}\^[S=1]{}I\ & & d\^4 x D\_W(x\^2, M\_W\^2) F T ( J\_(x),J\^\_(0) )I\ && \_[i]{}F O\_[ i]{}() I C\_[ i]{}() = O\^T() C()\[ope\] where $\{O_i(\mu)\}$ is a complete basis of independent operators (which mix under renormalization, when QCD and QED corrections are taken into account), appropriate to the physical problem at hand, and $\{C_i(\mu)\}$ the related Wilson coefficients. For the specific case of the $\Delta S\!\!=\!\! 1$ effective hamiltonian, we have used the following basis made of vertex-type and penguin-type operators: O\_[ 1]{}&=&([|s]{}\_u\_)\_[(V-A)]{} ([|u]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{}\ O\_[ 2]{}&=&([|s]{}\_u\_)\_[(V-A)]{} ([|u]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{}\ O\_[ 3,5]{} &=& ([|s]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{} \_[q=u,d,s,]{}([|q]{}\_q\_)\_[(VA)]{}\ O\_[ 4,6]{} &=& ([|s]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{} \_[q=u,d,s,]{}([|q]{}\_q\_)\_[(VA)]{}\ O\_[ 7,9]{} &=& ([|s]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{} \_[q=u,d,s,]{}e\_[ q]{}([|q]{}\_q\_)\_[(VA)]{}\ O\_[ 8,10]{} &=& ([|s]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{} \_[q=u,d,s,]{}e\_[ q]{}([|q]{}\_q\_)\_[(VA)]{}\ O\^c\_[ 1]{}&=&([|s]{}\_c\_)\_[(V-A)]{} ([|c]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{}\ O\^c\_[ 2]{}&=&([|s]{}\_c\_)\_[(V-A)]{} ([|c]{}\_d\_)\_[(V-A)]{} \[opbasis\] where the subscript $(V \pm A)$ indicates the chiral structure and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are colour indices. The sum is intended over those flavours which are active at the scale $\mu$. The factorization of $\langle {\cal H}_{eff}^{\Delta S\!=\!1}\rangle$ in operator matrix elements and Wilson coefficients is completely arbitrary. It depends on the scale $\mu$ at which we decide to match the “short-distance” and “long-distance” physics. But the final physical amplitude must be $\mu$-independent. Imposing this condition, a Renormalization Group Equation (RGE) for the Wilson coefficients can be derived. When both QCD ($\alphas$) and QED ($\alphae$) radiative corrections are taken into account, the RGE for the coefficients is: ( - + () - ) C(t, (t), )&=&0\ & & \[rge\] where (in the case of a weak interaction effective theory) $t=ln (M_W^2 / \mu^2 )$, $\vec\alpha=(\alphas,\alphae)$ and in particular we ignore the running of $\alphae$. The solution of eq.(\[rge\]) gives the evolution of the coefficients with the mass scale $\mu$ and depends on $\beta(\alphas)$ (the QCD $\beta$-function), $\hat\gamma(\alphas,\alphae)$ (the QCD+QED anomalous dimension matrix) and the value of the coefficients at a given initial scale (initial conditions for the solution of the RGE). All these quantities are perturbative objects, expanded in powers of $\alphas$ and $\alphae$ (or in powers of $\alphas^k \alphae^h(\alphas t)^n(\alphae t)^m$ in a Leading Logarithm expansion). Thus the solution of eq.(\[rge\]) has also to be specified at a given order, f.i. LO (Leading Order), NLO (Next-to-Leading Order), etc. Our result concerns the NLO evolution of the Wilson coefficients. Assuming the initial value of the coefficients to be $\vec C(\Mw)$ [@flynn; @anat1; @cfmr2], their value at the scale $\mu$ will be given in term of the evolution matrix $\W[\mu,\Mw]$ as: C() = C() \[evo\] Consider the perturbative expansion of $\beta(\alphas)$ and $\hat\gamma(\alphas,\alphae)$: () = - \_0 - \_1 + O(\^4) \[betafun\] &=& \_s\^[(0)]{} + \_e\^[(0)]{}+\ & & ()\^2 \_s\^[(1)]{} + \_e\^[(1)]{} \[dimanom\] where $\hat \gamma_{s,e}^{(0,1)}$ are $(10\times 10)$ matrices expressing the mixing under renormalization (at one and two loops respectively) among the operators in eq.(\[opbasis\]). Then at the NLO in QCD and QED, when only one power of $\alphae$ is taken into account ($\alphae^n$ negligible for $n>1$. This means that terms of order $(\alphas t)^n$, $\alphas(\alphas t)^n$, $(\alphae t)(\alphas t)^n$ and $\alphae(\alphas t)^n$ are resummed in the Leading-Log expansion), the evolution matrix $\W[\mu,\Mw]$ is of the form: = \[monster\] with: &=& (1 +) (1 +)\ & & (1+) \[mo1\] and &=& (1-)\ & & (1 -) (1 -) \[mo2\] Here $\K$, $\J$ and $\PP$ are recursively determined by a set of complicate equations I do not report here (see ref. [@cfmr1; @cfmr2] for more details) and results to be functions of $\hat\gamma_{s,e}^{(0)}$, $\hat \gamma_{s,e}^{(1)}$, $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$. On the other hand, the NLO initial conditions $\vec C(\Mw)$, defined by matching the full theory with the effective one at the $\Mw$ scale and at order $O(\alphas,\alphae)$, are of the form: C() &=& T\^[(0)]{} + ( T\^[(1)]{} - r\^T T\^[(0)]{} ) +\ & & ( D\^[(1)]{} - s\^T T\^[(0)]{} ) \[coeic\] where $\vec T^{(1)}$ and $\vec D^{(1)}$ represent the coefficients obtained calculating the one loop matching at the scale $\Mw$, while $\hat r$ and $\hat s$ express the mixing in the operator matrix elements, at the $\Mw$ scale and at the given order ($O(\alphas,\alphae)$). Both $\vec T^{(1)}$, $\vec D^{(1)}$, $\hat r$ and $\hat s$ depend on the external states chosen for the Feynman diagrams involved in their calculation. However in the final expression for the $\vec C(\Mw)$ coefficients this dependence cancels. Any “unbalanced” modifications of the initial condition $\vec C(\Mw)$ will break this cancellation and the dependence on the external states must be recovered by the operator matrix elements at the $\Mw$ scale, as we have indeed verified. Our contribution has been the calculation of $\hat\gamma_{s,e}^{(1)}$ with respect to the operator basis in eq.( \[opbasis\]) and the development of the whole formalism summarized up to here in order to get the NLO answer for the Wilson coefficients. We have worked in the modified Minimal Subtraction renormalization scheme ($\overline{MS}$) and in two different regularization schemes: Naive Dimensional Reduction (NDR) and ’t Hooft-Veltman scheme (HV). The regularization scheme independence of the final result has been demonstrated and explicitely checked. On this point we agree with the only other similar calculation in the literature [@bjlw2; @bjl], while a difference on two single diagrams is still present (see [@cfmr2] for further details). The scheme-dependent objects in the calculation are those involving divergent parts of two-loop Feynman diagrams or finite parts of one-loop Feynman diagrams, i.e. $\hat \gamma_{s,e}^{(1)}$ on one side and $\vec T^{(1)}$, $\vec D^{(1)}$, $\hat r$ and $\hat s$ on the other (for the list of the Feynman diagrams contributing at different levels see ref. [@cfmr2]). However, they enter the final expression for the evoluted coefficients $\vec C(\mu)$ in a scheme independent combination. The final results for the NLO coefficients can be given in any definite regularization scheme, provided that the relative operator matrix elements are also calculated in the same scheme, as is affordable using Lattice QCD matrix elements. One could also use scheme independent coefficients, but this would correspond to what we have called an “unbalanced” definition of the initial conditions $\vec C(\Mw)$, i.e. to an additional dependence of $\vec C(\mu)$ on the external states, to be compensated by using matrix elements calculated between the same external states. Results for $\epsi$ =================== Using the $\Delta S\!=\!1$ effective hamiltonian we have computed, we can calculate the NLO amplitudes for Kaon decays into two pions: $A(K\rightarrow\pi\pi\,\,(I=0))$ and $A(K\rightarrow\pi\pi\,\,(I=2))$, whose imaginary parts enter the expression for $\epsilon^\prime$: \^&=&\[epsilonprime\] where $ \omega=\mbox{Re}A_{ 2}/ \mbox{Re}A_{ 0}=0.045 $ and: A\_[ 2]{}=(A\_[ 2]{})\^+\_[IB]{}A\_[ 0]{} $\Omega_{ IB}\!=\!0.25 \pm 0.10$ denotes the isospin breaking contribution and we assume $\mbox{Re}A_0\!=\!3.3\cdot 10^{-7}$. $\mbox{Im}A_{ 0}$ and $(\mbox{Im}A_{ 2})^{\prime}$ are expressed in terms of Wilson coefficients and operator matrix elements. We have implemented a numerical program for the calculation of the evolution of the Wilson coefficients at NLO and we have taken the matrix elements of the operators in eq.(\[opbasis\]) from Lattice QCD. We have chosen as matching scale $\mu\!=\!2$ GeV, because at this scale the Wilson coefficients can be safely computed in a pure perturbative regime and operator matrix elements, when calculable, can be taken from Lattice QCD (this would not be true for other non-perturbative methods, a much lower scale $\mu$ would be required, $\mu\sim 0.8-1.0$ GeV, where the Wilson coefficients show a quite strong instability – see Fig.(\[ncf68\])). In particular, the matrix element of the generic operator $O_i$ is given by: O\_i=B\_iO\_i\_[VIA]{} where the subscript “$_{VIA}$” denotes the matrix element calculated in the Vacuum Insertion Approximation and $B_i$ is the B-parameter of the operator $O_i$, which quantitatively represents the deviation of the physical matrix element from the VIA expectation. The VIA matrix elements are calculated as functions of three quantities: X&=&f\_(M\_[ K]{}\^[ 2]{}-M\_\^[ 2]{})\ Y&=&f\_()\^2\ &\~& 12X()\^2\ Z&=&4(-1)Y \[xyz\] while the B-parameters are in part taken from Lattice QCD (with a given error) and, when this is not possible, they are allowed to vary in a suitable range, consistent with some theoretical predictions or experimental results. Thus, in the effective hamiltonian formalism the expressions for $\mbox{Im}A_{ 0}$ and $(\mbox{Im}A_{ 2})^\prime$ result to be: \[ima0\] & & A\_[ 0]{} =-Im([ V]{}\_[ ts]{}\^[ \*]{}[ V]{}\_[ td]{})\ & &{-(C\_[ 6]{}B\_[ 6]{}+C\_[ 5]{}B\_[ 5]{})Z +(C\_[ 4]{}B\_[ 4]{}+..\ & &.C\_[ 3]{}B\_[ 3]{})X+C\_[ 7]{}B\_[ 7]{}\^[ 1/2]{} (+-)+\ & &C\_[ 8]{}B\_[ 8]{}\^[ 1/2]{}(2Y++ )-C\_[ 9]{}B\_[ 9]{}\^[ 1/2]{}+\ & &.(+C\_[ 2]{}B\_[ 2]{}\^[ c]{})X}and \[ima2\] & &(A\_[ 2]{})\^=-G\_[ F]{}Im([ V]{}\_[ ts]{}\^[ \*]{} [V]{}\_[ td]{})\ & &{C\_[ 7]{}B\_[ 7]{}\^[ 3/2]{}(-)+ .\ & &.C\_[ 8]{}B\_[ 8]{}\^[ 3/2]{}(Y-)+ C\_[ 9]{}B\_[ 9]{}\^[ 3/2]{}} As one can see from eqs.(17) and (18), $\epsi$ depends on the analytical calculation of the coefficients (as functions of the scale $\mu$, the top mass $m_t$ and $\Lambda_{QCD}$) and on some experimental and theoretical input parameters, in particular: the B-parameters, the strange quark mass $\ms$, the CKM matrix elements. Many other well known quantities enter the determination of $\epsi$, but they are clearly not so relevant in the analysis of the uncertainties which still affect our theoretical analysis. I would like to separate two main arguments. The first one concerns the discussion of $\epsi$ in the more general contest in which we can understand the mechanism of CP violation in the Standard Model (or even beyond it). The second one, on the other hand, is more specifically related to the determination of $\epsi$ itself, on the basis of the NLO calculation of the Wilson coefficients [@cfmr1; @anat2]. In a global analysis of CP-violation within the Standard Model framework, other physical quantities have to be taken into account, mainly: the $\epsilon$ parameter of CP violation in the $K_0\!-\!\bar K_0$ mixing and the $x_d$ parameter of $B_0\!-\!\bar B_0$ mixing (related to $f_B$ or to the $B_B$ B-parameter). $\epsilon$ and $x_d$, as $\epsi$ depend on some CKM matrix elements and moreover introduce a strong dependence on $B_K$ (the B-parameter for the $K_0\!-\!\bar K_0$ mixing) and on the B-meson lifetime $\tau_B$. Many phenomenological analysis of this kind exists in the literature, f.i. [@anat1; @topst; @anat2; @lmmr]. We are presently updating the analysis of ref.[@lmmr], both with respect to the values of the parameters used and to the use of the NLO expression for $\epsi$ [@cfmr3]. The main idea of ref.[@lmmr] is to use the common dependence of $\epsilon$, $x_d$ and $\epsi$ on $\cos\delta$ ($\delta$ being the CP-violating phase in the CKM matrix) in order to select between positive and negative values of $cos\delta$. For a fixed value of $\mt$ (we have taken $\mt\!=\!(160\pm 30)$ GeV) the theoretical value of $\epsilon$ – obtained allowing $B_K$, $\Lambda_{QCD}$, $A$ and $\sigma$ (in the Wolfestein parametrization of the CKM matrix, see f.i. [@lmmr]) varying in a $1\sigma$-interval around their central values – is fitted with the experimental one ($|\epsilon|\!=\! 2.268\cdot 10^{-3}$). For the selected values of $\cos\delta$, $f_B$ and $\epsi$ are calculated (we assume $x_d\!=\! 0.685\pm 0.0786$ and this time we vary also $\tau_B$, $\Omega_{IB}$, $\ms$ and the B-parameters with the previous criterion) and from the knowledge of both of them a single region, $\cos\delta >0$ or $\cos\delta < 0$ should be selected. Indeed the present proposed values for $f_B$: f\_B={ (20540) &\ (1951030) &\ (1606 +53\ -19 ) & . seem to select quite unambiguously the $\cos\delta >0$ region. On the other and, as we will discuss more extensively in the following, this is not the case for $\epsi$, at the present level of theoretical and experimental uncertainty, see figs.(\[mt130\])-(\[mt190\]). Let us add a few comments on the values used for some relevant parameters. We use $\Lambda_{QCD}^{N_f=4}\!=\!(340\pm 120)$ MeV, derived from [@alt] where the value for $\Lambda_{QCD}^{N_f=5}$ is given. We assume $\ms\!=\!(150\pm 30)$ MeV, lower than in ref.[@lmmr], in order to better compare our results to other recent analyses [@anat2], also if we still think that the status of uncertainty on $\ms$ is such that the our “old” $\ms\!=\!(170\pm 30)$ MeV would have been reasonably allowed. Concerning the CKM matrix elements, the values of $A$ and $\sigma$ (Wolfestein par.) are derived respectively from $V_{cb}$ and $\left|V_{ub}/V_{cb}\right|$. The value of $V_{cb}$ used is: V\_[cb]{}= A\^2= 0.0430.005 as extracted from incluse and exclusive semipletonic B-decays data using a B-meson mean lifetime of: \_B= (1.50.1)10\^[-12]{} It is in agreement with refs. [@anat2; @peccei1] and corresponds to: A=(0.90.1) The recent data presented at this conference [@wither; @tanaka; @peccei2], propose a little lower value of $V_{cb}$ ($V_{cb}\!=\!(0.041\pm 0.005)$, corresponding to $A\!=\!(0.85\pm 0.10)$) and correspondentely a still higher value for the B-meson mean lifetime $\tau_B$ ($\tau_B\!=\!(1.535\pm 0.025)$ ps). Finally, our choice of $\left|V_{ub}/V_{cb}\right|$: |V\_[ub]{}/V\_[cb]{}| = = 0.0850.015 corresponds to a central value which mediates between the analysis of the inclusive semileptonic B-spectrum based on the ACCMM or ISGW models [@peccei1]. On the other hand, for the extimation of the error we trust much more the ACCMM model. The corrisponding value of $\sigma$ results to be: =0.390.07 A much more detailed discussion will be given in ref.[@cfmr3]. Let us now consider the NLO analysis of $\epsi$. The new values assumed for the CKM parameters have clearly produced a change in the central value of $\epsi$ (at different $\mt$) with respect to ref.[@cfmr1]. The same holds also for the change in $\ms$. For the time being we have not yet ultimate the analysis of the specific dependence on these parameters [@cfmr3], but it will be clearly important to have it in view of a more general discussion (see previous argument). Then, $\epsi$ mainly depends on the values of the B-parameters and on the NLO expression for the Wilson coefficients. The B-parameters are certainly one of the major sources of uncertainty in the problem, being related to the poor knowledge we still have of the long-distance hadronic physics. A detailed discussion of the values used, see Table \[bpar\], is given in refs.[@lmmr; @cfmr1]. I am not going to repeat it here, because no relevant improvement has been produced in the meanwhile. ‘?=? [@l@rrrrrr]{}\ $B_{ K},B_{ 9}^{ (3/2)}$ & $B_{ 1-2}^{ c}$ & $B_{ 3,4}$ & $B_{ 5,6}$ & $B_{ 7-8-9}^{ (1/2)}$ & $B_{ 7-8}^{ (3/2)}$\ \ \ $0.8\pm 0.2$ & $0 - 0.15^{ (*)}$ & $1 - 6^{ (*)}$ & $1.0\pm 0.2$ & $1^{ (*)}$ & $1.0\pm0.2$\ On the other hand, considering the Wilson coefficients, we may focus on two main points: their variation from LO to NLO and their dependence (once the NLO expression is assumed) on some peculiar quantities: $\mt$, $\Lambda_{QCD}$ and the matching scale $\mu$. For the purpose of the following discussion, let us write $\epsi$ in the following form: \~R C\_6 B\_6 (1-\_i \_i) \[kfact\] where the contribution of $O_6$ has been explicitely factorized. Indeed, at LO, $\epsi$ results to be dominated by $O_6$, and we want to verify if it is still the case at NLO, when electromagnetic penguin operators are expected to play a very important role. The leading $\Omega$’s result always to be: $\Omega_2^c$, $\Omega_4$ and $\Omega_{7,8,9}^{3/2}$. First, let us fix $\mt\!=\!160$ GeV, $\mu\!=\!2$ GeV, $\Lambda_{QCD}^{(N_f=4)}\!=\!340$ MeV, and look at the effects of the NLO evolution (QCD+QED). The only relevant variations appear for $\Omega_{7,8}^{3/2}$: $\Omega_{7}^{3/2}$ varies from 0.40 (LO) to 0.66 (NLO) and $\Omega_{8}^{3/2}$ from -0.02 (LO) to -0.09 (NLO). However, the sum $\Omega_{7}^{3/2}+\Omega_{8}^{3/2}+\Omega_{9}^{3/2}$ does not change in a sensible way from LO to NLO (from 0.20 to 0.30), while the sum $\Omega_{2}^{c}+\Omega_{4}$ is constant and equal to 0.10. Thus, although the contribution of each single electromagnetic penguin operator is relevant, their global effect is not and $\epsi$ continues to be dominated by the contribution of $O_6$ still at NLO level. Being $C_6$ lowered by the NLO corrections here considered (see fig.(\[ncf6\])), also the central value of $\epsi$ is lowered going from LO to NLO, as figs.(\[mt130\])-(\[mt160\]) show. The value measured by the Fermilab collaboration at E731 [@lawr1; @tsch] seems to be in better agreement with our results. =2.7in =2.7in Taking now the NLO values for the $C_i$ and looking to specific dependences, we observe first of all a remarkable variation with $\mt$, see again figs.(\[mt130\])-(\[mt160\]). Higher values of $\mt$ correspond to lower values of $\epsi$. The present “tendence” of $\mt$ seems to point towards higher values instead then smaller ones and this is another point in favour of a small value of $\epsi$. Moreover, looking at fig.(\[ncf68\]), we can see both the dependence on $\Lambda_{QCD}$ and the dependence on $\mu$ for different values of $\Lambda_{QCD}$. What is quite clear here is just the fact (already stressed in justifying the necessity of a high matching scale for the effective hamiltonian) that the coefficients really “blow up” for low values of $\mu$, let us say below 1 GeV, indicating that the perturbative approach is nomore reliable at that scale. Conclusions =========== From the previous phenomenological analysis, it is clear that for the time being the value of $\epsi$ is till compatible with zero and nothing definitive can be stated neither experimentally nor theoretically. Thus, the Standar Model prediction of a small but definitely non-zero $\epsi$ could still be confirmed or not. The experimental scenario seems at the moment to be much more promising [@tsch] than the theoretical one. What we have done put the calculation of the perturbative part of the $\Delta S\!=\!1$ effective hamiltonian on a more solid ground, while some sensible improvements in the calculation of the long-distance physics of the problem is mandatory. =2.7in =2.7in =2.7in [9]{} F.J. Gilman and M. Wise, Phys. Rev. [**D27**]{} (1983) 1128. J.M. Flynn, L. Randall, Phys. Lett. [**B224**]{} (1989) 221; Erratum [**B235**]{} (1990) 412. G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras, M.K. Harlander, Nucl. Phys. [**B337**]{} (1990) 313. A.J. Buras, M.K. Harlander, MPI-PAE:PTh 1/92, TUM-T31-25/92 A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. [**B370**]{} (1992) 69. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H. Weisz, MPI-PAE/PTh 106/92 and TUM-T31-18/92. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and M.E. Lautenbacher, MPI-PAE/PTh 107/92 and TUM-T31-30/92. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and M.E. Lautenbacher, MPI-Ph/93-11 and TUM-T31-35/93. L. Lusignoli, L. Maiani, G. Martinelli, L. Reina, Nucl. Phys. [**B369**]{} (1992) 139 M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Reina, Phys. Lett. [**B301**]{} (1993) 263. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Reina, LPTENS 93/11, ROME prep. 92/913 and ULB-TH 93/03 (1993), to appear in [Nucl. Phys. ]{}[B]{}. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Reina, in preparation A. Abada et al., Nucl.Phys. [**B376**]{} (1992) 172 C.Bernard and A.Soni, Brookhaven Preprint, BNL-47585, (1992). UKQCD collaboration, R. Baxter et al., Edinburgh prep. 93/526 and SHEP92/93-24 G. Altarelli, Prep. CERN-TH.6623/92 (1992). R.D. Peccei, Invited talk given at the 1993 [*Rencontres de la Valle d’Aoste*]{}, La Thuille, Italy, March 1993 R.D. Peccei, Summary Talk at this conference M. Witherell, Talk given at this conference M. Tanaka, Talk given at this conference L.K. Gibbons et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. [**30**]{} (1993) 1199, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{} (1993) 1203 R. Tschirhart, Talk given at this conference [^1]: Work done in collaboration with M. Ciuchini, E. Franco and G. Martinelli of the University of Rome “La Sapienza”.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'A reliable and consistently reproducible technique to fabricate $^{222}$Rn-loaded radioactive sources ($\sim$0.5-1 kBq just after fabrication) based on liquid scintillator (LS), with negligible amounts of LS quencher contaminants, was implemented. This work demonstrates the process that will be used during the Borexino detectorÕs upcoming calibration campaign, where one or several $\sim$100 Bq such sources will be deployed at different positions in its fiducial volume, currently showing unprecedented levels of radiopurity. These sources need to fulfill stringent requirements of $^{222}$Rn activity, transparency to the radiations of interest and complete removability from the detector to ensure their impact on Borexino’s radiopurity is negligible. Moreover, the need for a clean, undistorted spectral signal for the calibrations imposes a tight requirement to minimize scintillator quenching agents (“quenchers”) to null or extremely low levels.' address: - 'Physics Department, Virginia Tech, 24061 Blacksburg, VA (USA)' - 'INFN Sezione Milano, Via Celoria 16, 20133 Milano (Italy)' - 'Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 16, 20133 Milano (Italy)' - 'INFN Sezione Napoli, Naples (Italy)' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica, Universitá di Napoli Federico II, Naples (Italy)' author: - 'D. Bravo-Berguño' - 'L. Miramonti' - 'P. Cavalcante' - 'V. Roca' - 'S. Hardy' - 'R.B. Vogelaar' bibliography: - 'Radon.bib' title: 'Fabrication of quencher-free liquid scintillator-based, high-activity $^{222}$Rn calibration sources for the Borexino detector' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ The calibration campaign for the Borexino neutrino observatory that took place in 2007-10[@calib] employed, for the first time, a novel technique that enabled to obtain relatively high activity ($\mathcal{O}(100)$ Bq) $^{222}$Rn calibration sources suitable to be deployed inside the detector’s extremely radiopure Inner Volume[@Hardy]. Building upon this development, the technique was optimized in preparation for the upcoming 2017 Borexino-SOX calibration campaign. In particular, this was done by precisely characterizing loading procedures, improving the fluid handling system’s reliability and, most importantly, by demonstrating the reliable fabrication of sources with low levels of contaminants affecting the liquid scintillator’s (LS) response to ionization through reductions of its intrinsic light yield (henceforth referred to as chemical quenchers or, for convenience, just “quenchers”; see Section \[subsec:quenching\])[@my_thesis]. This paper intends to provide a comprehensive overview of the source and technique designs, as well as the results from the fabricated specimens. This technique is suitable for a large number of low-background detector calibration purposes, despite being developed exclusively for Borexino. Indeed, $^{222}$Rn offers a unique mixture of calibration signals ($\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$, over broad areas inside the energy region of interest up to $\sim$3 MeV), owing to the cascading decays of its decay daughters –particularly, $^{218}$Po, $^{214}$Bi and $^{214}$Po. Pulse-shape discrimination (PSD) techniques, energy response, fiducialization and position reconstruction, fast coincidences ($^{214}$Bi-Po, for example) and ionization quenching effects[@long_paper] (involving the $dE/dx$ of different types of radiation, to be distinguished from chemical quenching induced by quenchers) can therefore be reliably and quickly studied with $^{222}$Rn-based sources. At the same time, LS-based $^{222}$Rn sources with negligible chemical quencher concentrations offer the same scintillation response than the surrounding medium, with little to no spectral distortion thanks to the simple and optimized containment vial, even for short-range radiation. Additionally, the source is completely removable and, following the proper procedure described in [@calib], has proven not to leave long-term radioactive contaminants in Borexino’s active volume. Motivation {#sec:motivation} ========== The Borexino Neutrino Observatory {#subsec:borex} --------------------------------- The Borexino liquid scintillator detector is devoted to performing high-precision neutrino observations. In particular, it is optimized to study the low energy part of the solar neutrino spectrum in the sub-MeV region, having the precision measurement of the $^7$Be solar neutrinos as its design objective. Borexino has succeeded in performing high-precision measurements of all the major components of the solar neutrino spectrum (first direct detections of *pp*[@pp], *pep*[@pep], $^7$Be[@7Be], and lowest (3 MeV) threshold observation of $^8$B[@8B]), as well as in reaching the best available limit in the subdominant CNO solar neutrino rate[@8B], with just the DAQ time of 767 days comprising its first dataset *Phase 1* from 2007-10, as well as a more recent high-precision determinations of the aforementioned major solar neutrino fluxes using new techniques and enlarged statistics from the post-LS purification phase (*Phase 2*)[@wideband] [@new8B]. Geoneutrinos have also been detected by Borexino with high significance (5.9$\sigma$[@geo]) thanks to the extremely clean $\overline{\nu}$ channel. Results on searches for new particles, (anti)neutrino sources and rare processes like [@sterile_old], [@antinu_sources], [@pauli_trans], [@e_decay], [@axions] are expected to gain even more relevance during the *Short-distance neutrino Oscillations with boreXino* (SOX) phase of the experiment, where a $\overline{\nu}_e$ generator will be placed in close proximity to the detector, in order to probe for anomalous oscillatory behaviors and unambiguously check for the expected experimental signatures along the phase space light sterile neutrinos might lie in[@SOX] [@Giunti]. These results were possible thanks to the unprecedented, extremely radio-pure conditions reached in the active section of the detector –achieved thanks to a combination of ultra-clean construction and fluid-handling techniques as well as dedicated scintillator purification campaigns[@purif]. Detailed detector response determination was made possible thanks to very successful internal calibration campaigns[@calib] which did not disturb the uniquely radio-pure environment. Borexino, located in the Hall C of the Gran Sasso National Laboratories’ (LNGS) underground facilities (3,800 m w.e.), measures solar neutrinos via their interactions with a 278 tonnes target of organic LS. This ultrapure LS (pseudocumene –PC– or 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene solvent with 1.5 g/l 2,5-diphenyloxazole –PPO– scintillating solute) is contained inside a thin transparent spherical nylon Inner Vessel (IV) of 8.5 m diameter. Solar neutrinos are detected by measuring the energy and position of electrons scattered by neutrino-electron elastic interactions. The scintillator promptly converts the kinetic energy of electrons by emitting photons, which are detected and converted into electronic signals (photoelectrons or p.e.) by 2,212 photomultipliers (PMT) mounted on a concentric 13.7 m-diameter stainless steel sphere (SSS, see Figure \[fig:BX\]). A software-defined, analysis-dependent Fiducial Volume (FV) is established inside the IV. The volume between this inner nylon vessel and the SSS is filled with 889 tonnes of ultra pure, non scintillating fluid called “buffer” (PC+2-3 g/L dimethylphthalate or DMP) acting as a radiation shield for external gamma rays and neutrons. A second, larger nylon sphere (Outer Vessel –OV–, 11.5 m diameter) prevents radon and other radioactive contaminants from the PMTs and SSS from diffusing into the central sensitive volume of the detector, and segments the Inner and Outer Buffers (IB and OB). The SSS is immersed in a 2,100-tonne Water Tank (WT) acting as a Čerenkov detector detecting residual cosmic $\mu^{\pm}$. ![The Borexino neutrino observatory, with its main structures annotated. See full text for details.[]{data-label="fig:BX"}](Fig1_color){width="0.5\linewidth"} $^{222}$Rn calibrations {#subsec:222rn} ----------------------- The usefulness and versatility of a $^{222}$Rn-loaded scintillator source in Borexino containing negligible amounts of chemical quenchers lies in the fact that it includes all types of radiation (except neutrons) over the energy range of interest (see Figure \[fig:rn222\]). In particular, the $^{214}$Po peak (by itself and in conjunction with the $^{218}$Po-$^{222}$Rn lower energy peak) is very useful for MonteCarlo energy response tuning, with the inclusion of regional effects when deployed at different positions around the active volume. It is also extremely useful for the accurate determination of the position reconstruction in the detector, having a point-like response in the $\alpha$ peaks, due to their large $dE/dx$ (making the spatial smear caused by their ionization to be smaller than the detector’s cm-scale spatial resolution, and therefore offering this point-like response). From there, a precise determination of the effective index of refraction, $n_{eff}$, of the LS is also possible: through the determination of the true-to-reconstructed source position, systematic biases due to the frequency dispersion behavior of the scintillation wave packets can be quantified and re-tuned for by including these effects in the effective parameter. These issues are especially important for the 2017 calibration campaign, which will be more focused towards the SOX program, where most of the statistics will be gathered at peripheral areas of the IV, in its bottom hemisphere. For those reasons, $^{222}$Rn source deployment is seen as an extremely important part of this new calibration campaign, only in second place after a neutron source (which would mimic the delayed signal from an antineutrino capture). ![$^{222}$Rn $\alpha$-decay (left side) and decay chain from its daughers (right side), inscribed in the general $^{238}$U chain to which they belong. Encircled in dotted lines are the components which are likely to hold secular equilibrium in Borexino. $^{210}$Po is also near equilibrium with $^{210}$Pb-Bi at the current Borexino age. Yellow(blue)-shaded isotopes are $\alpha$($\beta$)-emitters with a spectral endpoint above 250 keV at the ionization-quenched (-unquenched) visible energy in the detector, respectively. The spectrum this chain offers when used in a $^{222}$Rn-loaded scintillator source can be seen in Figure \[fig:Sources\_old\]’s inset.[]{data-label="fig:rn222"}](Fig2_color.pdf){width="1\linewidth"} The mixture utilized needs to match as well as possible the scintillator that would surround it when deployed in the IV, both regarding the transparency of the mixture, its light-yield and scintillation characteristics (related directly to the quencher concentration the source’s scintillator contained, see Section \[subsec:quenching\]), as well as avoiding too large bubbles or other optical path effects that could interfere with the scintillation light propagation. Moreover, it must ensure no long-term radiocontaminants are left inside the detector (i.e. easy thorough cleaning and low intrinsic backgrounds on its external surfaces). Its activity must also be high enough to allow for adequate statistics collection. Additionally, a long enough life with reasonably high trigger levels before it decays away must be guaranteed –while making it low enough that it would not cause saturation or instability problems with the DAQ trigger. This was limited to $\mathcal{O}$(100) Hz with the old Borexino Trigger Board (BTB), requirement which is expected to be significantly alleviated with the new trigger installed in the summer of 2016. In conclusion, there are three main objectives to be met with the technique described in the next sections: (i) ensure external radiocleanliness to avoid insertion of long-lasting radioisotopes into the extremely radiopure LS inside Borexino’s IV; (ii) maximize source activity (within the operational limits that constrain it to $\mathcal{O}$(100) Bq at deployment) with a procedure as simple and reproducible as possible; and (iii) minimize the introduction of chemical quencher agents in the LS throughout this procedure, to keep the LS’ properties as close as possible to the original ones found in Borexino’s active volume. Technique {#sec:technique} ========= Precedents {#subsec:precedents} ---------- Three sources based on $^{222}$Rn-loaded PC+PPO scintillator were used extensively during the 2008-10 first Borexino calibration campaign[@calib][@Hardy], along with a $^{222}$Rn-deposited low-pressure vial used without scintillator. During the 2017 calibration campaign in preparation for the SOX program, $^{222}$Rn LS-based sources with as little chemical quencher concentration as possible will also be extensively used. The radon source containment ampoules are the standard Borexino calibration quartz vials[@Hardy], used also for the $\gamma$ sources. These vials are intended to have a very simple design, in order to reduce failure modes, yet fulfill three stringent requirements: *(i)* secure attachment to the source deployment mechanism, *(ii)* allow for thorough surface cleaning with minimal hard-to-reach or non-smooth surfaces, in order to preserve to the highest extent practicable the unprecedented radiopurity of Borexino’s active volume scintillator fluid, and *(iii)* transmit ultraviolet light throughout as much of the PPO fluor spectrum as possible. A Pyrex glass neck is joined to an opening on the top of this 1”-diameter quartz sphere to allow for liquid and gas loading (see Figure \[fig:vial\]). The 0.19”-diameter glass neck features a constriction at $\sim$3.4 cm from the sphere-to-neck joint, designed to ease fire-sealing of the system once filled with the Rn-loaded scintillator, as well as a small protrusion around the neck to ensure no slippage can occur when secured to the detector’s source holder. A sacrificial neck length above the constriction is used to attach the vial to the fluid loading station described in Section \[subsec:newsystem\]. Vials are thoroughly cleaned in its interior with several baths of acetone, isopropanol, critical-cleaning detergent and de-ionized water. ![Sealed sample source vial, featuring the $\sim$1”-diameter quartz sphere filled with LS (where the $^{222}$Rn would be dissolved), the connection Pyrex neck, joined to the sphere with a quartz-to-glass transition, and the protrusion ring for safe attachment to the Source Deployment System of Borexino. The top of the vial has been fire-sealed at the mid-point of the glass constriction, discarding the sacrificial neck above it.[]{data-label="fig:vial"}](Fig3_color){width="0.3\linewidth"} The technique for creating this kind of sources was first developed and used operationally during the 2007-09 internal calibration period. The characteristics of the sources produced during that development are reported in [@Hardy]. Most of them were mixed with toluene in order to include a certain amount of $^{14}$C activity (50 $\mu$L or $\sim$30 Bq), useful to characterize detection response in Borexino’s lowest energy threshold. This addition is no longer performed, as $^{14}$C has been well understood since then[@pp], and maximizing the $^{222}$Rn activity calls for an increase in the trigger threshold, in order to keep out the $\sim$30 Hz of scintillator-contained $^{14}$C present in Borexino’s signal by default. The key aspect that differentiates the current technique from previous attempts at high-activity liquid scintillator $^{222}$Rn loading is the deposition of the $^{222}$Rn in solid form on the inner vial walls, through freezing by vial immersion in liquid nitrogen (boiling point at normal pressure and temperature of 77.36 K). In particular, radon solidifies at 202 K. This technique does not rely on radon being dissolved inside the scintillator (and staying in it while more is being loaded) like previous works, and therefore allows for much higher resulting activities. The radon-loaded UHPN whose carefully-controlled flow is directed through the $^{222}$Rn generator is directed through a retractable thin metal capillary to make it impinge on the internal vial walls while immersed in the liquid nitrogen bath. This was shown to provide an effective retention mechanism for part of the $^{222}$Rn mixed in the nitrogen flow, while allowing for the latter to escape through an exhaust port that closes the circuit. The microscopic deposition mechanism for the $^{222}$Rn has not been researched in detail for this work (see [@rn_fcc] for radon crystal growth), but in principle should enable to fully predict deposition rates depending on the flux of $^{222}$Rn-loaded gas entering the freezing zone, which clearly will not be linear (depending on nucleation sites, which could naïvely be assumed to grow as $\sim r^2$ assuming a small nucleation region would preferentially grow radially along the deposition surface). However, as will be shown henceforth, reasonably consistent loading rates have been achieved. A detailed sequential description of the refined technique can be found in Section \[subsec:newsystem\]. Quenching causes and effects on signal {#subsec:quenching} -------------------------------------- Liquid scintillator detectors such as Borexino depend on the scintillation process, where fluorescence photons are emitted when charged incoming particles lose energy either by ionizing or exciting the solvent (PC). This is a process dependent on the nature of the charged particle itself, its energy and the solvent-fluor interactions (PC-PPO). The time distribution and the light yield of the emitted fluorescence photons depend on the various molecular processes taking place as a consequence of the particle energy loss. They do not only depend on the energy deposit in the scintillator but mainly on how the energy is released, *i.e.* on the value of $dE/dx$ and on the type of incident particle. Heavy ionizing particles like $\alpha$s feature a large $dE/dx$, and produce large ionization or excitation density, thereby increasing the probability to get the triplet excitation state $T_{10}$ –and consequently, delayed fluorescence. Such large ionization or excitation densities favor molecular processes in which the energy is dissipated in non-radiative ways, which results in the quenching of the scintillation light. This is referred to as ionization quenching[@Birks]. Proper understanding and modeling of this effect is crucial for detector operations[@MC]. Scintillator quenching effects similar to ionization quenching, but affecting all incident radiations exciting the scintillator, can also be produced by contaminating substances which absorb or modify the scintillation light before it reaches the fluor. This has the net effect of reducing the light yield and, therefore, modifying the energy response of the scintillator. Effectively, a shifting and scaling of the energy scale will be observed. Therefore, if a LS-based calibration source contains quenchers in its scintillator, its usefulness for proper energy reconstruction and light yield determination (especially for short-range radiation) will be much diminished. In other words, its properties will differ from those of the detector’s scintillator around it, whose response is the subject of the calibration. In the case of PC, exposure to oxygen is the most likely quenching factor. Indeed, just a short exposure to the atmosphere will severely quench its response (not counting the introduction of backgrounds dangerous to Borexino’s target signal, such as $^{85}$Kr). Acute, low-level oxygen exposures however, can be mitigated by sparging (that is, areating with dry nitrogen or other inert pure gas) the scintillator to bring it back to its original chemically-unquenched state. However, while dissolved oxygen is a known quenching agent by itself, if it is left in contact with pseudocumene for a sufficient period of time, its molecules will also react to form dimethylbenzaldehyde (DMBA) or other oxygen-containing molecules –these are chemical changes and are not removed by sparging (conveniently, DMBA has a higher boiling point than pseudocumene, thus, distillation can separate the two chemicals –although this is mostly useful for large scale scintillator treatment, such as through Borexino’s purification plants[@purif], and not so much for small samples such as the ones used for the $^{222}$Rn-loaded sources). Latest developments and technique {#subsec:newsystem} --------------------------------- The loading station was completely re-designed from the 2007-09 system, and the few similarities shared with the previous setup were due to convergent designs aiming for similar objectives. However, the current aim was to lower the quenching to the minimum, which was not reliably achieved in an operational manner during the first calibration campaign[@Hardy]. Furthermore, the source loading had to be demonstrated to be scalable with reliability to achieve the activity required. A diagram of the system is shown in Figure \[fig:Rn\_setup\], and a photograph of it located in the fume hood in INFN Naples’ laboratory in University Federico II is shown in Figure \[fig:Rn\_setup\_pic\]. ![Radon loading setup diagram for the high-activity $^{222}$Rn sources with negligible amounts of quenchers developed in the Federico II University of Naples. The upper left cylinders represent the High Purity Nitrogen supply. The portable glovebox was used for (dis)assembly of pieces, such as the vial or scintillator flask, when exposure to atmospheric oxygen is not desired. The grey box represents the monolithic panel employed for pressure determination and core valve control, scavenged from CTF’s source production campaigns. The activated carbon filter is employed to avoid indirect transport of PC vapors to the rotary vacuum pump when the upstream panel lines are evacuated, even if $V_{exh}$ is nominally closed.[]{data-label="fig:Rn_setup"}](Fig4_color){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![Picture of the final version of the radon loading station.[]{data-label="fig:Rn_setup_pic"}](Fig5_color){width="0.8\columnwidth"} The system consists of a heritage panel from the Counting Test Facility (CTF)’s loading experiments, containing the core fittings and instrumentation for gas distribution. It was kept unmodified, except for a thorough interior cleaning, since the Swagelock fittings and welds had already been proven and leak-checked. This panel includes two parallel flux-meters (coarse and fine) for flow control, a manometer in series with those for pressure monitoring, and the radon generator in/out ports, as well as those for the source loading. Finally, an exhaust port for the source was also provided, as well as a vacuum port for fluid drawing, also useful for line evacuation, purging and cleaning. The vacuum pump employed was a low-power membrane pump capable of bringing line pressure down to a few millibar, more than enough for source creation purposes, and adequate after a few iterations for line evacuation and pumping to avoid oxygen presence. An ultra-high-purity nitrogen (UHPN$_2$) supply was connected to three different points in the system: 1. The flow intake ($V2$) in the panel for the drawing of gas from the radon generator, as well as for the flow supply to the source vial. 2. The scintillator flask containing the liquid used for source filling, that was kept under constant, low-intensity sparging as a precaution against inadvertent exposure to oxygen or other gaseous quenching agents[^1]. 3. A portable glovebox that served as an oxygen-free environment for flask filling operations, vial adjustment when filled with scintillator, and other quenching-critical operations. The flask containing the scintillator (drawn directly from Borexino’s IV under LAKN atmosphere in CR4’s facilities) was connected to the system through a triply-perforated rubber cap that ensured a reasonably hermetic closure. The overpressure inside the flask caused by the UHPN$_2$ bubbling was kept in a safe range to avoid it forcing the cap out or damaging the flask, as well as to prevent too much scintillator sloshing and bubble ingestion during scintillator drawing to the vial. The two connecting tubes going inside the flask and in contact with the scintillator (sparging line and drawing line) are Pyrex glass, while the exhaust tube is Teflon. All the lines not contained within the panel are Teflon tubes with steel or plastic (depending on the criticality of their position within the system) Rapid Fittings, except for gas-only lines which are polyethylene tubing. The source vial is seamlessly held in a sleeve-needle leak-tight holder since the beginning of the procedure until sealing. It is composed of a thin steel tube through which the radon-loaded nitrogen flux and drawn scintillator is directed into the vial; and a concentric, larger diameter sleeve that serves as an exhaust container for the nitrogen flux. This sleeve features two viton O-ring fixtures at its top and bottom that serve as the needle height regulator and vial holder, respectively: the top fixture can be loosened enough to permit the needle to be retracted before or inserted beyond the fire-sealing neck constriction, while keeping the overpressure inside it to make sure no quenching agents get into the system. The radon generator is a commercially-available Pylon RN-1025 flowthrough source[@Pylon]. This source is an aluminium cylinder with two attach fittings (see Figure \[fig:Pylon\]), with a capsule containing $^{226}$Ra salts (see decay scheme in Figure \[fig:226ra\]), sandwiched between particulate filters to avoid release of non-gaseous substances. It has an equilibrium activity of 106$^{+25}_{-10}$kBq, with a rated stable emanation of 13.4 Bq/min under continuous gas flux (maximum flow rate: 10 L/min). ![Pylon RN-1025 flowthrough gas source.[]{data-label="fig:Pylon"}](Fig6_color){width="0.6\columnwidth"} ![Radium-226 decay scheme, yielding the $^{222}$Rn needed for the calibration sources through the 100$\%$ branching ratio $\alpha$ decay, as well as the possible de-excitation $\gamma$s. The $\sim$1600 year half-life means that the radon generator emanation activity will be constant for any Borexino-related program.[]{data-label="fig:226ra"}](Fig7_color){width="0.7\columnwidth"} After assembly, the system was air- and vacuum-cleaned, and several sacrificial PC drawings were performed through the tubing areas where scintillator was expected to flow through. In spite of those precautions, particulate contamination was still present in the first few test runs. For that reason, and since a system improvement was made after high-activity loading feasibility runs were completed, in order to reduce oxygen levels to $<$ppm levels, the system was thoroughly re-cleaned again, including flushing a hot Cytranox detergent mixture through the piping that would see liquid flow. This was repeatedly rinsed with water flows and airflow-vacuum cycles afterward. However, the first few subsequent test drawings showed foaming and a degree of white particulates that, while not impeding the successful demonstration of high-activity sources with negligible amounts of chemical quenchers, showed a potentially undesirable feature for future operational sources. Posterior isopropanol and PC flushings showed their effectiveness through the absence of noticeable contamination when performing later trial source creation runs. Results {#sec:results} ======= The main results obtained both during the technique development in the 2000s and the latest results with the improved technique in recent years are reported here. In particular, the main goals listed at the end of Section \[subsec:222rn\] and their technical solutions detailed here are: (i) external radiocleanliness is ensured by the vial’s design; (ii) maximal activity is achieved thanks to the radon-freezing process by which liquid nitrogen temperatures are kept at the vial walls in order for the $^{222}$Rn to solidify on their interior side while allowing for the radon-loaded UHPN flux to continue for as long as necessary; and (iii) minimal quencher concentration with respect to the initial LS used for filling the source vial is reached thanks to the extreme cleanliness and leak-tightness implemented for the otherwise relatively simple-to-operate setup, as well as the use of ultra high-purity nitrogen in all phases where LS may be present. Old sources data {#subsec:oldsources_data} ---------------- Sources created in 2008-10 were characterized by including the $^{14}$C-containing toluene solution ($\sim$100 $\mu$L, or $\sim$30 Bq), inserted in the vial before radon loading and scintillator withdrawal. Activity determination was not deemed extremely important for this level of development, compared to relative quenching results, and only single p.e. double-pulse spectrometers were employed. For this reason, the numbers reported in Table \[table:results\]’s “VT” (Virginia Tech, since they were fabricated there) section are understood to be mostly indicative. Further, an absolute energy calibration of this detector was not needed since it would be determined when the sources were introduced in Borexino. Therefore, only relative quenching was determined. Three operational sources (A, B and C) were created, as well as a “weak” source of $\sim$10 Bq that was just used as a comparison for the first operational source. An absolute quenching of $\sim$30$\%$ was discovered on the first source A (deployed on the detector’s vertical axis, or “on-axis” for short), as well as on the “weak” reference source. This is attributed to the fact that the scintillator used was made separately from Borexino’s and didn’t go through the same processing. The second off-axis source C (deployed away from the vertical axis of the detector) also exhibited an amount of quenching, although somewhat smaller (estimated $\sim$5$\%$), while the intermediate source B, the first used off-axis, exhibited a negligible amount of quenching, owing to the new batch of scintillator used, carefully withdrawn from Borexino’s IV to understand the impurity quenching on the first sources, as well as renewed procedures (see Figures \[fig:Sources\_old\] and \[fig:scintillator\_quenching\]). In spite of the irregular, non-negligible quencher levels attained for these initial operational sources using the $^{222}$Rn LS-loading procedure, they demonstrated the technique held potential to create quencher-free sources, and gave a strong motivation for the latest technique re-design described below. Moreover, their use during the 2007-09 calibrations highlighted the importance of $^{222}$Rn sources for the understanding and tuning of Borexino’s response, even if their scintillator was noticeably quenched[@calib]. For a fully detailed account of the processes, setup and characterization results, refer to [@Hardy]. ![Results from the first calibration campaing’s sources, used in 2008-2009, from Borexino data taken at deployment, and a fiducial cut of $<$50 cm from the detector’s center. These sources, apart from $^{222}$Rn loading, also included extra $^{14}$C. An evident quencher presence can be seen in the red curves, used in the source A for the on-axis (October 2008, dashed line) deploy and source C, used on the second off-axis deploy (June 2009, continuous line), estimated at $\sim$30$\%$ and $\sim$5$\%$, respectively. The blue curve corresponds to the first off-axis deploy (January 2009, source B), which was the least chemically-quenched source employed in the 2007-09 calibration campaign. In the inset[@calib], an annotated reference spectrum of the spectral shape expected from $^{222}$Rn in equilibrium, with three distinct peaks from different $\beta$ and (ionization-quenched) $\alpha$ decays in its chain. The horizontal displacement of the peaks in sources A and C is evident, while for B it is much less pronounced, indicating the lower quencher concentration reached in that particular source (compatible with zero, at the $<1\%$ level). Arbitrary units (Y axis) stands for the number of events in Borexino when the sources were deployed. NPE stands for Number of PhotoElectrons and is a measure of the charge collected by Borexino’s PMTs –its equivalence in MeV is indicated in parenthesis.[]{data-label="fig:Sources_old"}](Fig8_color){width="1\linewidth"} ![Single photo-electron curve of the scintillator used for the first calibration campaign’s on-axis sources (red, source A) and the one used for the first off-axis calibrations of January 2009 (blue, source B), shown to be the only mostly unquenched ($<1\%$) one in Figure \[fig:Sources\_old\]. These curves show the cumulative scintillation time-decay curve for the first acquired p.e. after each triggered event[@Paolo_quench]. A left-shifted curve means the delayed response tail is inhibited, because of the reduced light yield the quenching agents cause, as explained also in the next section. The low-energy peak in the blue curve is $^{14}$C, quenched off the threshold in the on-axis source A.[]{data-label="fig:scintillator_quenching"}](Fig9_color){width="1\linewidth"} Newly attained sources {#subsec:newsources_data} ---------------------- Several test runs to verify the integrity of the new core system and the feasibility of high-intensity radon loading were performed with a simplified system (which didn’t guarantee ppm oxygen removal) prior to the final assembly of the system described in the previous section. The objectives for these dry and wet dress rehearsals were: 1. Verify leak tightness and proper operation of the core panel. 2. Test new needle/sleeve vial holder. 3. Design and test scintillator withdrawal and sparging system. 4. Demonstrate large amounts of radon could be deposited with the liquid nitrogen bath with the current system, and adjust flushing durations to achieve the desired activity levels: dry runs (no scintillator; 164$\pm$8 Bq deposited). 5. Develop, test and refine scintillator withdrawal and vial filling procedures. 6. Demonstrate reliable line clearing techniques to avoid vial overfill after the initial filling operation was completed. 7. Test acceptable limit for vial ampoule filling. 8. Practice integrated (loading + filling + freezing) operations: wet runs. 9. Develop and practice source fire-sealing. Previous sources had relied on professional glass-makers who were not available on this occasion. 10. Practice legacy procedures. Several test vials were employed, some of which could be re-used since no loading or fire-sealing had taken place. By the end of this phase, all objectives were achieved except the 6th point above: reliable line clearing techniques after the primary filling operation was complete. Reproducibility of the fill level was poor and accidental overfilling was very likely, although its amount was very difficult to predict, so it could not be reliably estimated and corrected for during the primary filling. Additionally, as was expected, scintillator quenching was severe. Regarding activity levels, the radon laboratory in the Federico II University of Naples provided a very sensitive and well-calibrated Ortec hyperpure germanium crystal spectrometer (gamma-X type[@germanium]), allowing to very well characterize the fabricated test (and operational) sources in-situ, mere seconds after their sealing. This detector features a beryllium entrance window for the emitted radiation, allowing to bring the observed spectra’s lower limit to $\sim$20 keV, with a 2 keV energy resolution (at 1.33 MeV) and a relative efficiency of around 48$\%$. Furthermore, the Ortec Gammavision v.6.0 software[@Ortec] provided a quick and precise assessment for the equilibrium activity measurements. This activity is determined from the $\gamma$-emitting daughters from the $^{222}$Rn decay, in particular $^{214}$Pb and $^{214}$Bi, which is then assumed to come from the radon $\alpha$ decay. TThis condition is verified after 3 hours following sealing of the radon source. The $\gamma$ lines are Gaussian-fitted by the software to yield the activity and uncertainty. A test source was first loaded. It was intended to be left loading for 36 minutes at a measured UHPN$_2$ flux of 21 mL/min. However, because of problems with circuit closure, only partial deposition had been happening for most of this time –but conversely got a “hit” of the $^{222}$Rn that had accumulated in the RN-1025 generator once it was properly connected. Final activity was 363$\pm$16 Bq. Considering as a measure of the efficiency of the loading procedure the specific activity per unit of time and flux, it would yield $\sim$0.48$\pm$0.02 Bq/(min$\cdot$mL), but as mentioned, the deposition in this test source was not optimal for the technical reasons described above. Subsequently, the fluid-handling part of the system was completely renewed, except for the scintillator flask and the needle/sleeve holder, by using the new high-quality metal Rapid Fittings and relying on more extensive use of thoroughly cleaned Teflon tubing. Procedurally, routine high-fluence UHPN$_2$ flushing and vacuum pumping cycles were put in place to evacuate the system of oxygen to the $\sim$ppm level. A more detailed overview of the procedure can be found in [@my_thesis]. Results showing the chemical quenching of the sources were provided by Milan’s University time decay profile measurement setup for scintillator mixtures[@Paolo_quench] (see Figure \[fig:Paolo\_PMT\]), based on a previous heritage design[@Gioacchino_PMT], featuring a weak $^{60}$Co excitation source and two photomultiplier tubes: a strongly-coupled one (high-level PMT) and a loosely-coupled one (low-level or fluorescence PMT, for single-p.e. sampling) providing the stop and start signals, respectively. The loose coupling between the specimen and the fluorescence PMT is achieved with a set of neutral filters. An electronic DAq system consisting of a counter, constant fraction discriminators connected to the anode, timer and coincidence units and a digitizer (10 bit, 2 Gb/s Agilent Technology) was integrated through a LabView software architecture[@LabView]. Particular attention was devoted to the long scintillation decay time profile tail, since it is extremely sensitive to quenching, both by shortening of the long scintillation response in time as well as reducing its yield. Additionally, a single-PMT setup was used for the 2017 sources in order to double-check the germanium counter results, which yielded positive results –and also confirmed the decay peaks, as well as the $^{60}$Co source used for excitation, were not shifted relative to each other, reaffirming the absence of relative quenching. The scintillation curves may be seen in Figure \[fig:Sources\_all\], where responses below the reference curve can be interpreted as having an amount of quenchers present, while those coincident with it (or above it, if they additionally have some radioactive isotopes still alive in them) show negligible chemical quenching. The new loading system was thus shown to have provided chemical quenching results compatible with pure scintillator drawn from Borexino’s IV (which was also used as a control reference baseline assumed to contain negligible amounts of quenchers). ![Photograph of the single-photon setup used for the source’s scintillation decay time measurements shown in Figure \[fig:Sources\_all\]. A detailed diagram of the technical details of the setup can be found in [@Paolo_quench].[]{data-label="fig:Paolo_PMT"}](Fig10_color){width="0.7\columnwidth"} The first loaded source (S1\_2015) spent about an hour (62 minutes) in loading mode, with a UHPN$_2$ flux of 40 mL/min, and was measured to have $\sim$650 Bq just after sealing. An overnight measurement (12 h of integration time) led to the more precise determination of 665$\pm$28 Bq. This would yield a loading efficiency of 0.269$\pm$0.012 Bq/(min$\cdot$mL). A second source (S2\_2015) with 20 minutes of loading time and the same flux yielded 105$\pm$5 Bq, or 0.131$\pm$0.001 Bq/(min$\cdot$mL). In light of the preparation of these sources, as well as the dry runs performed with the old system, it is apparent a high level of $^{222}$Rn deposition is achievable and repeatable while providing an environment for the scintillator compatible with negligible amounts of quenching agents. Actual demonstrated initial source activities are far beyond the requirement of $\sim$120 Bq at production, up to more than 5 times. Loading flow time can be extended if necessary, and is in principle not constrained by any factor other than fluid (UHPN$_2$ and liquid nitrogen) availability. It is then expected larger activities can easily be achieved with the same setup, raising the initial activity ceiling to no less than 1 kBq, which could potentially allow for more flexibility in the calibration campaign, either by increasing the available wait time to $\sim$10 days between production and deployment in Borexino, or by shortening data-taking time. Further, an approximate estimate of $\sim$0.2 Bq/(min$\cdot$mL$_{UHPN_2}$) of average deposition efficiency is expectable from the produced sources, and can conceivably be brought up to twice as much by not performing a pre-flush of the radon generator, thereby profiting from the amount accumulated during its previous dormant phase. This option, however, is understood to not be without risks, since air leakage into the RN-1025 might introduce quenching agents that could negatively affect the source’s light yield and hence its usefulness as a calibration tool. Finally, two further sources (S1\_2017 and S2\_2017; along with a blank non-loaded sample) were completed in May 2017, in order to fully certify the new process and setup for the approaching calibration campaign in late 2017. These sources, as was later discovered, used a scintillator batch that was pre-extracted from Borexino before the sample used for the 2015 sources was withdrawn. This meant it was expected to be less pure (both because it was withdrawn under normal atmosphere –and thus exposed to oxygen, without being sparged immediately afterwards, and also because it was expected to have more impurities), although great effort was put into trying to thoroughly sparge it before the 2017 tests. However, as can be seen in Figure \[fig:Sources\_all\], the baseline quenching level for this scintillator was slightly larger than for the older ones, without arriving to the large quenching levels seen in 2008. It is apparent too, however, that relative quenching was not affected by the loading procedure. -------- ------------------- -------------------------- ------------------- -------------- **Activity** **Deposition rate** **Quenching (%)** **Comments** ***(Bq)*** ***(Bq/(mL$\cdot$min)*** VT $\sim$550$\pm$100 ? $>$30($\pm$5) 425$\pm$20 0.47$\pm$0.01 (?) $<$1 1840$\pm$60 2.6$\pm$0.1 $\sim$5($\pm$1) Naples 363$\pm$16 0.48$\pm$0.02 $>$30($\pm$5) Ê 665$\pm$28 0.269$\pm$0.012 $<$1 S1\_2015 105$\pm$5 0.131$\pm$0.001 $<$1 S2\_2015 53.3$\pm$5.1 0.042$\pm$0.004 $<$18 Ê 166$\pm$21 0.10$\pm$0.01 $<$15 -------- ------------------- -------------------------- ------------------- -------------- ![Single photo-electron curve from all sources (and blanks, meaning non-loaded scintillator that passed through the same procedure and lines as the one used for a real source) fabricated with the new, improved setup at INFN Naples. For reference, curves from a scintillator (PC+PPO) mixture drawn directly from Borexino’s IV, considered to contain negligible quencher amounts, and the first sample source (containing quenchers) are also included. Note the still-alive sources (those in 2015) show a higher-than-baseline response because of the extra hits coming from the $^{222}$Rn decays. The “delay” label in the abscises axis indicates the single p.e. delay in the signal used for the scintillator quenching measurement as per the technique indicated in [@Paolo_quench]. Note the similarity between the S1/S2\_2017 curves and the 2017 blank, indicating that although the scintillator batch exhibited some quencher content, the loading process did not significantly worsen it, as detailed also in Table \[table:results\].[]{data-label="fig:Sources_all"}](Fig11_color){width="1\linewidth"} Conclusions and prospects {#sec:conc} ========================= A reproducible method for the creation of $^{222}$Rn-loaded liquid-scintillator-based $\mathcal{O}$(kBq) small-sized sources with negligible amounts of quenching agents has been demonstrated. Furthermore, since its first operational use during Borexino’s early-life calibration campaigns (2008-10), the technique has been replicated and improved, by a different operational group and using new hardware. The new loading setup is geographically much closer to the experiment than before, enabling more flexibility and schedule margin in utilizing them in the detector. This is of great importance to Borexino’s upcoming 2017 end-of-Phase II/pre-SOX calibration campaign, expected by the end of 2017. The procedure to avoid quenching in the scintillator employed for the sources has been repeatedly and reliably demonstrated, in two separate test campaigns during which 4 sources and 2 blanks (non-radon-loaded vials whose scintillator went through the same processing as real sources) were created. Precision characterization was performed using three different setups (single- and double-PMT spectrometers, and a cryogenic germanium counter), also building upon the analyses carried out during the first phase of technique development, which only utilized a double-PMT setup (and the Borexino detector itself, upon calibration deployment). Order-of-magnitude loading efficiency consistency is reported too. The technique will see operational use in the late-2017 SOX calibration campaign, where one or several $>$100 Bq $^{222}$Rn sources will be deployed in an estimated $\sim$200 positions, with special emphasis on mapping the position and energy reconstruction of the IV in its bottom hemisphere, and closer to the vessel limit than achieved in 2008/09 campaigns. This will also tackle other important high-precision detector characterization objectives not attempted before. We believe the technique, additonally, may have a wider use in other low-background experiments where such calibration sources could be of interest. Acknowledgements ================ The Borexino program is made possible by funding from INFN (Italy), NSF (USA), BMBF, DFG, HGF and MPG (Germany), RFBR (Grants 16-02-01026 A, 15-02-02117 A, 16-29-13014 ofi-m, 17-02-00305 A) (Russia), and NCN Poland (Grant No. UMO-2013/10/E/ST2/00180). The indispensable glass vials containing the sources, and its sealing during the 2008-10 period, were made possible thanks to the expert hand of VT’s Chemistry glassblower T. Wertalik. The development of the improved radon-loading system, and the germanium counter instrumentation, are hosted by the INFN Napoli laboratories in University Federico II. We also thank P. Lombardi, R. Pompilio and A. Formozov for their help and availability with the PMT characterization setups. References {#references .unnumbered} ========== [^1]: Exhaust for this flask was directed through an activated carbon filter to the fume hood ventilation system. While the fume hood wouldn’t necessitate this precaution, the connection to the panel through the $V_{exh}$-to-$V5$ line meant that, in the absence of the filter, PC condensation would have the chance to reach the vacuum pump.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We investigate the maximum neutron star mass based on constraints from low-energy nuclear physics, neutron star tidal deformabilities from GW170817, and simultaneous mass-radius measurements of PSR J0030+045 from NICER. Our prior distribution is based on a combination of nuclear modeling valid in the vicinity of normal nuclear densities together with the assumption of a maximally stiff equation of state at high densities. The transition density is treated as a model parameter with uniform prior. Bayesian likelihood functions involving measured neutron star tidal deformabilities and radii are subsequently used to generate equation of state posteriors. We demonstrate that a modification of the highly uncertain supra-saturation density equation of state allows for the support of $2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars without strongly modifying the properties (radius, tidal deformability, and moment of inertia) of $\sim 1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars. In our analysis, only the softest equations of state are eliminated under this scenario. However, the properties of neutron stars with masses $\sim 2.0\,{M_{\odot}}$ are significantly different under the two competing assumptions that the GW190814 secondary was a black hole or a neutron star.' author: - Yeunhwan - Anirban - 'Jeremy W.' - Debdeep title: Revisiting constraints on the maximum neutron star mass in light of GW190814 --- [*Introduction—*]{} Recently, the LIGO/Virgo Collaboration (LVC) has reported measurements [@abbott20a] of gravitational waves resulting from a $2.50-2.67\,{M_{\odot}}$ “mass-gap” object [@Ozel10] in binary coalescence with a heavy ($22.2-24.3$${M_{\odot}}$) companion black hole. Not only are the mass ratio of $q=0.112^{+0.008}_{-0.009}$ and inferred merger rate of $1-23\,{\rm Gpc}^{-3}{\rm yr}^{-1}$ challenging to describe [@abbott20a; @Zevin:2020gma; @Vattis:2020iuz] with traditional binary evolutionary models, but taken at face value, the mass-gap secondary component in the observation represents the discovery of either the heaviest known neutron star (NS) or the lightest known black hole (BH), though see Ref. [@broadhurst20] for an alternative scenario in which the source of GW190814 is conjectured to be a normal NSBH merger amplified via gravitational lensing. Neither the absence of a measurable tidal deformation signature in the gravitational waveform nor the absence of an electromagnetic counterpart would be unexpected [@foucart13] for a NSBH merger at the extreme mass ratio reported in GW190814. However, equation of state inferences [@abbott18] based on GW170817 and properties of its electromagnetic counterpart [@bauswein17; @margalit17; @ruiz18; @rezzolla18; @radice18] suggest that such heavy neutron stars would be challenging to describe with traditional neutron star equations of state founded in nuclear physics models well constrained up to one or two times normal nuclear densities. Given the highly uncertain nature of matter at densities exceeding two to three times normal nuclear matter density ($n_0 = 0.16$fm$^{-3} = 2.4 \times 10^{14}$g/cm$^3$), where there exists no theoretical description of the strong interaction with controlled uncertainties, in this work we explore the extreme scenario in which the high-density equation of state is maximally stiff and therefore can support the heaviest neutron stars. Our low-density equation of state is constrained by nuclear theory and experiment as well as recent radius and tidal deformability measurements of $\sim 1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars, while the transition region to the maximally stiff equation of state is varied between $2-4n_0$. We explore the minimum transition density required to support $2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars and find that it lies in the region $n \sim 2.5n_0$, which is below the central density of neutron stars with masses $M\sim 1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$. Nevertheless, we find that the existence of massive $2.5-2.6{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars does not strongly constrain the bulk properties of typical lighter neutron stars, and only the softest equations of state with small radii and tidal deformabilities are excluded. In contrast, the radii and tidal deformabilities of heavy neutron stars with $M \sim 2.0\,{M_{\odot}}$ differ more significantly under the two competing scenarios that the secondary component of GW190814 is a black hole or a neutron star. [*Bayesian modeling of the neutron star equation of state—*]{} Experimentally measured nuclear binding energies and bulk oscillation modes constrain [@dutra12; @dutra14] the nuclear equation of state around normal nuclear density $n_0$ for matter consisting of nearly equal numbers of neutrons and protons. Neutron-rich matter, on the other hand, is challenging to produce and study in the laboratory, and therefore the principal nuclear physics constraints on the neutron star equation of state rely in one way or another on nuclear theory models, which nowadays have a firm foundation in chiral effective field theory [@weinberg79; @epelbaum09rmp; @machleidt11], the low-energy realization of quantum chromodynamics. Previously, we have constructed [@lim18a; @lim19a] Bayesian posterior probability distributions for the neutron star equation of state that incorporate constraints from chiral effective field theory [@holt17prc; @holt18] and experiment [@PhysRevC.85.035201; @tews17]. When these models were extrapolated to high densities, the maximum neutron star mass was found to be $M\simeq 2.3\,{M_{\odot}}$. Numerous other works have employed chiral effective field theory to study the neutron matter equation of state [@hebeler2010; @coraggio13; @gezerlis13; @carbone14; @drischler16; @tews16; @Piarulli:2019pfq; @drischler2019; @drischler20], neutron star radii [@hebeler10prl; @raaijmakers19; @Capano19], tidal deformabilities [@annala18; @most18; @tews18gw], and moments of inertia [@Lim2019b; @greif20]. In describing the properties of the heaviest neutron stars, whose central densities can reach up to $n=5-10n_0$, all of these models perform extrapolations into regions where the composition and dynamics are poorly understood. We take as a model for the low-density equation of state a Taylor series expansion in the Fermi momentum $k_F \sim n^{1/3}$. This is justified since the bulk nuclear matter equation of state is parametrized by baryon number densities with polytropic index[@hebeler13; @Greif19] even in the presence of quark matter or phase transitions. The energy density functional for neutron star matter is built from both the pure neutron matter and isosopin-symmetric nuclear matter equations of state, interpolated to beta equilibrium conditions ($\mu_n = \mu_p + \mu_e$) enforcing a well-justified [@Lagaris81] quadratic dependence on the proton-neutron asymmetry parameter $\delta = (n_n-n_p)/(n_n+n_p)$: $$\label{eq:fun} \begin{aligned} \mathcal{E}(n,\delta) = \frac{1}{2m}\tau_n + \frac{1}{2m}\tau_p + [1-\delta^2] f_s(n) + \delta^2 f_n(n) \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_n$ $(\tau_p)$ is the neutron (proton) kinetic energy densities and $f_s$ ($f_n$) refers to the isospin-symmetric nuclear matter (pure neutron matter) potential energy density expanded as follows: $$\label{eq:fns} f_s(n) = \sum_{i=0}^3 a_i\, n^{(2+i/3)} \,, \quad f_n(n) = \sum_{i=0}^3 b_i\,n^{(2+i/3)}\,.$$ In Eq. (\[eq:fns\]) the isospin-symmetric nuclear matter coefficients $\vec a = \{a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3\}$ are obtained by fitting to 10 equation of state calculations in chiral effective field theory [@holt17prc] up to the density $2n_0$. We have shown in previous works [@lim18a] that lowering the maximum fitting density to $1.5n_0$ does not qualitatively modify our prior distributions. We then implemented experimental likelihood functions involving the $\{a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3\}$ parameters from empirical nuclear matter properties, such as the saturation energy, saturation density, incompressibility, and skewness averaged over 205 realistic mean field models fitted to the binding energies and bulk properties of finite nuclei [@dutra12]. For the parameters $\vec b = \{b_0,b_1,b_2,b_3\}$ entering in the pure neutron matter energy density functional $f_n(n)$, we first fit to a set of 10 chiral effective field theory neutron matter calculations [@holt17prc] up to the density $2n_0$. The resulting multivariate distribution is then refined by imposing nuclear experimental constraints on the isospin-asymmetry energy at saturation density and its higher-order derivatives in the density [@holt18; @margueron18]. In all of our neutron star structure models, we construct a realistic outer and inner crust using the same parameters $(\vec a, \vec b)$ in a unified way implementing the liquid drop model as explained in more detail in Ref. [@lim17]. To explore the widest range of maximum neutron star masses, we extend this previous model for the equation of state probability distribution to include a transition to the maximally-stiff equation of state consistent with relativity, defined when the speed of sound is equal to the speed of light. The transition density $n_t$ is taken to have a uniform prior in the range $2n_0 < n_t < 4n_0$. A critical density beyond $4n_0$ is of course possible, but we find that it gives no significant modification to the equation of state prior. Formally, we employ a second-order phase transition where the phase transition starts at ${\mathcal{E}}={\mathcal{E}}_1$ and ends at ${\mathcal{E}}={\mathcal{E}}_2$. Beyond ${\mathcal{E}}_2$, the speed of sound is assumed to be equal to the speed of light, and thus the pressure and energy density have a linear relation. Between ${\mathcal{E}}_1$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_2$, the speed of sound is assumed to increase linearly as a function of energy density: $${c_s^2}({\mathcal{E}}) = c_1^2 + (1-c_1^2)\frac{{\mathcal{E}}- {\mathcal{E}}_1}{{\Delta \mathcal{E}}}\,,\quad {\Delta \mathcal{E}}= {\mathcal{E}}_2 - {\mathcal{E}}_1\,.$$ The pressure between the phase transition density is then obtained from the integration of the speed of sound: $$P = P_1 + c_1^2({\mathcal{E}}-{\mathcal{E}}_1) + \frac{(1-c_1^2)}{2{\Delta \mathcal{E}}}({\mathcal{E}}-{\mathcal{E}}_1)^2 \,,$$ where ${\Delta \mathcal{E}}= \frac{{\mathcal{E}}_1}{10}$. The approach described above defines the prior distribution $\pi(\cdot)$ associated with the neutron star equation of state parameters $\theta = (\vec a; \vec b)^{\rm T}$. We construct Bayesian posterior probability distributions as follows. Having observed neutron star tidal deformabilities associated with GW170817 [@abbott17; @abbott18; @de2018; @tidal170817] and simultaneous mass-radius measurements [@Miller2019; @Riley2019] of PSR J0030+045 from the NICER mission, the posterior distribution of $\theta$ is proportional to $\m L(\theta) \, \pi(\theta)$, where $$\label{eq:lik} \m L(\theta) = \bigg\{ \prod_{i=1}^2 \m L_i^{\nicer}(\theta) \bigg\} \, \bigg\{ \prod_{i=1}^2 \m L_i^{\ligo}(\theta) \bigg\},$$ is the likelihood function of $\theta$. In Eq. (\[eq:lik\]), $\m L_i^{\nicer}(\theta)$ for $i = 1, 2$ denotes the likelihood contribution from the two NICER mass-radius measurements, and $\m L_i^{\ligo}(\theta)$ for $i = 1, 2$ denotes the same from the two LIGO mass-tidal deformability measurements. Since these are four independent measurements, the likelihood assumes a product form. We now detail the construction of the $\m L^{\nicer}$ likelihood (the $\m L^{\ligo}$ terms are similarly derived and we omit the details here). We first introduce some notation to connect the parameter $\theta$ to the NICER mass-radius measurements. Let $R_\theta(M)$ denote the (unique) radius-versus-mass curve corresponding to the set of parameters in $\theta$. Each $R_\theta(\cdot)$ curve has its own maximum mass $M_\theta^{\max}$ above which the neutron star would collapse to a black hole, and hence the domain of $R_\theta(\cdot)$ is $(M_\theta^{\min}, M_\theta^{\max})$, where in all cases we take $M_\theta^{\min} = 1.0\,{M_{\odot}}$. The exact choice of $M_\theta^{\min}$ is not particularly crucial, since neither NICER nor LIGO measurements have significant statistical weight around $1\,{M_{\odot}}$. The main purpose of this additional notation is to provide a prescription to randomly generate a $(M, R)$ pair [*a priori*]{}, which proceeds by (i) sampling $\theta \sim \pi$, (ii) given $\theta$, sampling $M$ uniformly between $(M_\theta^{\min}, M_\theta^{\max})$, and (iii) setting $R = R_\theta(M)$. The uniform generation of $M$ is justified since the equation of state is agnostic about the location on an $R(M)$ curve. Although the correlated uncertainty corresponding to either NICER measurement resembles a tilted ellipse, a closer inspection of the contour plots reveal departures from normality. As a result, we refrain from using a parametric Gaussian likelihood function, and instead build a non-parametric likelihood using a kernel density estimator (kde). Specifically, we separately fit kernel density estimators $\widehat{f}_1$ and $\widehat{f}_2$ to the $(M, R)$ posterior samples corresponding to Fig. 7b of Ref. [@Miller2019] and Fig. 19 (“ST+PST”) of Ref. [@Riley2019]. We used the `R` package `ks` to fit the kde, employing a Gaussian kernel and the bivariate smoothed cross-validation estimator for the bandwidth matrix. Then, we consider an “average" of these fitted densities over an $R(M)$ curve as the corresponding likelihood, i.e., for $i = 1, 2$, $$\label{eq:int_lik} \m L_i^{\nicer}(\theta) = \int_{M_\theta^{\min}}^{M_\theta^{\max}} \widehat{f}_i \big(M, R_\theta(M) \big) \,\frac{dM}{M_\theta^{\max}-M_\theta^{\min}}.$$ Next, we describe how we incorporate the secondary “mass-gap” object into our likelihood function. That its distribution is constrained in the interval $2.50-2.67\,{M_{\odot}}$ makes it a candidate for either the lightest BH or the heaviest NS ever observed. From Fig. 4 of [@abbott18], the distribution of the secondary mass $M_\mathrm{s}$ resembles a Gaussian distribution $\mbox{N}(\mu_\mathrm{s}, \sigma_\mathrm{s}^2)$ with mean and 90% intervals given by $2.59^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$. This leads to $\mu_\mathrm{s} = 2.59$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{s} = 0.048636$. Hence, for a given value of $\theta$ from the equation of state, the secondary object is realizable as a neutron star with probability given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:s_NS} \mathbb{P}(M_\mathrm{s} \leq M_\theta^{\max}) = \Phi\bigg(\frac{M_\theta^{\max} - \mu_\mathrm{s}}{\sigma_\mathrm{s}} \bigg), \end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi(\cdot)$ denotes the standard Gaussian cumulative distribution function, $\Phi(x) = \int_{-\infty}^x (2\pi)^{-1/2} e^{-x^2/2} dx$. Eq. then defines the likelihood of the object assuming it to be a neutron star, denoted $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\NS}(\theta)$, which when multiplied with $\m L(\theta)$ defined in Eq. gives the overall likelihood for $\theta$. Similarly, if we assume the object is a black hole, then the likelihood involves the probability given by $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta) :\,= 1- \Phi\big\{(M_\theta^{\max} - \mu_\mathrm{s})/\sigma_\mathrm{s}\}$. ![(Color online) Mass and radius probability distributions for the (top-left) prior without high-density extrapolation, (top-right) prior with high-density extrapolation, (bottom-left) posterior supporting $\sim2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars, and (bottom-right) posterior not supporting $\sim2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars. The green [@Riley2019] and blue [@Miller2019] contours represent the NICER 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) credibility bands.[]{data-label="fig:mrdist"}](mr_2x2_dist_nicer.pdf) [*Results—*]{} In Fig. \[fig:mrdist\] we show the mass and radius probability distributions based on the Bayesian analysis described above. In all subpanels of Fig. \[fig:mrdist\] the green and blue contours represent the $68\%$ (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) credibility bands obtained from our kernel density estimators associated with the Riley [*et al.*]{}[@Riley2019] and Miller [*et al.*]{}[@Miller2019] analyses of NICER x-ray waveform data from PSR J0030+045. The top-left figure is our previous prior [@lim18a] without a high-density extrapolation, the top-right panel is our new prior with uniformly varying transition density $2n_0 < n_t < 4n_0$. In order to support $\sim 2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars, we find that the transition density must satisfy $n_t<2.6n_0$, indicating that the relatively soft neutron star equations of state predicted by chiral effective field theory must become fairly stiff soon after their natural breakdown scale in the range $1-2n_0$. We see that the inclusion of the maximally stiff equation of state at high densities naturally leads to much larger maximum neutron star masses, up to $M_{\max} = 2.9\,{M_{\odot}}$ for the lowest value of the transition density considered $n_t=2n_0$. We note that this new maximum neutron star mass of $M_{\max} = 2.9\,{M_{\odot}}$ is almost certainly unphysical since it lies above the total mass $M_{\mathrm{tot}} \simeq 2.7\,{M_{\odot}}$ of the GW170817 remnant, which is expected [@2017Natur.551...80K] to have collapsed to a black hole after being supported initially through differential rotation. The bottom-left and bottom-right panels of Fig. \[fig:mrdist\] represent the posterior mass-radius probability distributions under the assumption that the secondary in GW190814 was a neutron star or a black hole, respectively. Interestingly, we see that for typical neutron stars with masses $M\sim 1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$, the distribution of radii is not strongly different under the two interpretations of the GW190814 secondary. This is due to the fact that the bulk properties of the average neutron star are strongly correlated [@0004-637X-550-1-426; @lim18a; @Tsang:2019mlz] with the pressure of beta-equilibrium matter at the density $n=2n_0$, which is close to the regime where nuclear physics places strong constraints on the equation of state. However, we do observe that the existence of massive ($2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$) neutron stars would rule out the softest equations of state. ![(Color online) Radius distribution for a heavy neutron star with mass $2.14\,{M_{\odot}}$ (shaded) under the two assumptions that the GW190814 secondary was a black hole (blue) or a neutron star (red). The dashed lines correspond to varying neutron star masses in the range $2.04-2.24\,{M_{\odot}}$ with spacing $\Delta M = 0.01\,{M_{\odot}}$.[]{data-label="fig:m214rdist"}](nicer_ligo_pdf_rad214_dist_all.pdf) Our previous finding [@lim18a] for the radius of a $1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron star at the $95\%$ credibility level was $10.3 \le R_{1.4} \le 12.9$km with the most probable radius as $12.2$km. Including the new kde constraints from the two NICER and GW170817 analyses now give at the $95\%$ credibility level $10.7 \le R_{1.4} \le 12.8$km under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ and $11.6 \le R_{1.4} \le 12.9$km under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$. Our finding is consistent with the determination of mass and radius from the cooling tail method [@Suleimanov16], where the source for the analysis is different. We see from Fig. \[fig:mrdist\] that heavy neutron stars, such as PSR J0740+6620 with mass $2.14^{+0.10}_{-0.09}\,{M_{\odot}}$ [@Cromartie19], have significantly different radius probability distributions under our two assumptions for the GW190814 likelihood, $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$. In Fig. \[fig:m214rdist\] we show in the shaded regions the posterior probability distributions for the radius of a $2.14\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron star under the two assumptions that the GW190814 secondary was a black hole (blue) or a neutron star (red). The notation $P(R | M_{\max} > 2.59\,{M_{\odot}})$ corresponds to the likelihood assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$ and likewise $P(R | M_{\max} < 2.59\,{M_{\odot}})$ corresponds to $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$. The stiff equations of state needed to support the heaviest neutron stars produce a narrow and large neutron star radius at this mass, while softer equations of state lead to statistically significant smaller radii. In Fig. \[fig:m214rdist\] the dashed lines correspond to different heavy neutron star masses ranging from $2.04-2.24\,{M_{\odot}}$ at spacing $\Delta M = 0.01\,{M_{\odot}}$. The radius distributions for the lightest neutron stars extend to the smallest radii for both posteriors. We find at the 95% credibility level that the radius of a $2.14\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron star is $10.1 < R_{2.14} < 12.3$km under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ and $11.9 < R_{2.14} < 13.2$km under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$. In Fig. \[fig:lmdist\] we show the two posterior probability distributions for the tidal deformability as a function of mass under the two assumption for the likelihood $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$. In both subpanels the blue and green contours denote the 68% (solid lines) and 95% (dashed lines) credibility bands from our kde associated with the primary and secondary components, respectively, of GW170817. In Fig. \[fig:l214dist\] we show the tidal deformability of a typical $1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron star under the assumptions that the GW190814 secondary was a neutron star (red) or black hole (blue). Our previous 95% credibility interval in Ref. [@lim18a] was found to be $136 < \Lambda_{1.4} < 519$. From the new posterior distribution including NICER and GW170817 measurements as well as the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$, we find $170 < \Lambda_{1.4} < 530$. Under the opposite scenario, $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$, we likewise find $313 < \Lambda_{1.4} < 575$ at the 95% credibility level. There remains a significant overlap between the two distributions, but we observe a broad low tidal deformability region possible only in the absence of heavy neutron stars with masses $2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$. ![(Color online) Probability distributions for the tidal deformability versus mass under the two assumptions $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$ (left) and $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ (right). The blue and green contours show the 68% (solid) and 95% (dashed) credibility bands associated with the primary and secondary in GW170817, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:lmdist"}](mlambda_nicer_ligo_2x1_2sig.pdf) ![(Color online) Probability distributions for the tidal deformability of a $1.4\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron star under the assumption that the GW190814 secondary was a black hole (blue) or a neutron star (red).[]{data-label="fig:l214dist"}](nicer_ligo_pdf_lamb14_dist.pdf) Following the discovery of the double pulsar system J0737-3039, it was suggested [@lyne04; @lattimer05] that precise radio timing measurements could enable the extraction of spin-orbit coupling effects on the system’s periastron advance and hence the moment of inertia of PSR J0737-3039A. The mass of PSR J0737-3039A is precisely known to be $1.338\,{M_{\odot}}$, and in Fig. \[fig:m1338Idist\] we plot the associated predictions for its moment of inertia assuming that the equation of state can support $2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars (red) or not (blue). For such a relatively light neutron star, there is an even smaller difference between the moment of inertia probability distributions under the two assumptions $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$. Previously, we found [@Lim2019b] that at the 95% credibility level the moment of inertia of J0737-3039A should lie in the range $1.04\times 10^{45} < I_{1.338} < 1.51\times 10^{45}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^2$. In our revised modeling, including NICER and GW170817 data, we now find a new statistical range $1.09\times 10^{45} < I_{1.338} < 1.53\times 10^{45}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^2$ under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{BH}}(\theta)$ and $1.25\times 10^{45} < I_{1.338} < 1.56\times 10^{45}\,\mathrm{g\,cm}^2$ under the assumption $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{NS}}(\theta)$. After accounting for the NICER likelihood functions, we predict a somewhat larger moment of inertia for $1.338\,M_\odot$ as well as a reduced statistical uncertainty. ![(Color online) Probability distributions for the moment of inertia of PSR J0737-3039A with mass $1.338\,{M_{\odot}}$ under the two assumptions that the GW190814 secondary was a black hole (blue) or a neutron star (red).[]{data-label="fig:m1338Idist"}](nicer_ligo_pdf_moi1338_dist.pdf) [*Summary—*]{} The existence of heavy neutron stars with masses $2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ are a challenge to explain with equations of state smoothly extrapolated from the low-density regime ($1-2n_0$) constrained by nuclear physics to the highest density regime ($5-10n_0$) encountered in neutron star cores. We have demonstrated that a modification of the highly uncertain supra-saturation density equation of state allows for the support of $2.5-2.6\,{M_{\odot}}$ neutron stars consistent with state-of-the-art nuclear theory modeling within the framework of chiral effective field theory, nuclear experiments involving medium-mass and heavy isotopes, as well as current observations of neutron star radii and tidal deformabilities, all integrated within a consistent Bayesian statistical framework. While the nature of the secondary in GW190814 cannot be determined within our present modeling (see also Refs. [@Most:2020bba; @Tan:2020ics; @Fattoyev:2020cws; @Tsokaros:2020hli]), we note that we have observed strong correlations between the maximum neutron star mass and the radii of heavy neutron stars. We suggest that measurements of very massive ($\sim 2.0\,{M_{\odot}}$) neutron star radii (or tidal deformabilities), such as a NICER measurement of the PSR J0740+6620 radius, may provide a useful and strong constraint on the nuclear equation of state at supra-saturation density. Y. Lim was supported by the Max Planck Society and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – Project ID 279384907 – SFB 1245. Dr. Pati and Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledge support from NSF DMS (1854731, 1916371) and NSF CCF 1934904 (HDR-TRIPODS). In addition, Dr. Bhattacharya acknowledges NSF CAREER 1653404 for supporting this project. The work of J. W. Holt is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY1652199 and by the U. S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under Grant No. DE-NA0003841. Portions of this research were conducted with the advanced computing resources provided by Texas A&M High Performance Research Computing. [61]{}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 [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevC.101.045801),  @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [ ()]{},  @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [****,  ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{}

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'For a finite graph $\Gamma$, let $G(\Gamma)$ be the right-angled Artin group defined by the complement graph of $\Gamma$. We show that, for any linear forest $\Lambda$ and any finite graph $\Gamma$, $G(\Lambda)$ can be embedded into $G(\Gamma)$ if and only if $\Lambda$ can be realised as a full subgraph of $\Gamma$. We also prove that if we drop the assumption that $\Lambda$ is a linear forest, then the above assertion does not hold, namely, for any finite graph $\Lambda$, which is not a linear forest, there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that $G(\Lambda)$ can be embedded into $G(\Gamma)$, though $\Lambda$ cannot be embedded into $\Gamma$ as a full subgraph.' address: 'Department of Mathematics, Hiroshima University, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashi-Hiroshima, 739-8526, Japan' author: - Takuya Katayama title: 'Right-angled Artin groups and full subgraphs of graphs' --- [^1] Introduction and statement of results {#intro} ===================================== Let $\Gamma$ be a finite simplicial graph (abbreviated a finite graph), with the vertex set $V(\Gamma) = \{ v_1 , v_2 , \ldots , v_n \} $ and the edge set $E(\Gamma)$. In this paper, we denote an element of $E(\Gamma)$ by $[v_i, v_j]$. Then the [*right-angled Artin group*]{} (abbreviated [*RAAG*]{}) on $\Gamma$ is the group given by the following presentation: $$A(\Gamma) = \langle \ v_1 , v_2 , \ldots , v_n \ \mid \ v_i v_j v_i^{-1} v_j^{-1} = 1 \ \mbox{if} \ [ v_i,v_j ] \in E(\Gamma) \ \rangle .$$ In this paper, we denote $G(\Gamma)$ to be $A(\Gamma^c)$, where $\Gamma^c$ is the [*complement*]{} or the [*opposite graph*]{} of $\Gamma$, namely, $\Gamma^c$ is the graph consisting of the vertex set $V(\Gamma^c) = V(\Gamma)$ and the edge set $E(\Gamma^c)= \{ [u, v ] \mid u,v \in V(\Gamma), \ [u , v ] \notin E(\Gamma) \}$. Namely, $$G(\Gamma) = \langle \ v_1 , v_2 , \ldots , v_n \ \mid \ v_i v_j v_i^{-1} v_j^{-1} = 1 \ \mbox{if} \ [ v_i,v_j ] \notin E(\Gamma) \ \rangle .$$ The following question was raised by S. Kim and T. Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-1 Question 1.1] (see also [@Crisp-Sageev-Sapir]). Is there an algorithm to decide whether there exists an embedding between two given RAAGs? \[CSS\] Several studies have demonstrated that the embeddability of RAAGs can be understood via certain graph theoretical concepts (e.g. [@Casals-Ruiz], [@Casals-Ruiz-Duncan-Kazachkov], [@Kim], [@Kim-Koberda-1], [@Kim-Koberda-2] and [@Lee-Lee]). In fact, theorems due to Kim and Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-1] state that the following for any finite graphs $\Lambda$ and $\Gamma$. 1. Any embedding of $\Lambda$ into the “extension graph" of $\Gamma$ gives rise to an embedding of $A(\Lambda)$ into $A(\Gamma)$. 2. Any embedding of $A(\Lambda)$ into $A(\Gamma)$ gives rise to an embedding of $\Lambda$ into the “clique graph" of the “extension graph" of $\Gamma$. These studies suggest us that certain graph theoretical tools can be useful to study Question \[CSS\] to which we do not know the answer. This paper mainly concentrates on giving a complete answer to Question \[CSS-induced-condition\] (see below), which concerns possibly the simplest graph theoretical obstruction to the existence of embeddings between RAAGs. In order to state Question \[CSS-induced-condition\], we prepare some terminology. A subgraph $\Lambda$ of a graph $\Gamma$ is said to be [*full*]{} or [*induced*]{} if $E(\Lambda)$ contains every $e \in E(\Gamma)$ whose end points both lie in $V(\Lambda)$. Note that the full subgraph $\Lambda$ of $\Gamma$ is uniquely determined by its vertex set $V':= V(\Lambda) \subset V(\Gamma)$. So we denote $\Lambda$ by $\Gamma[V']$ and say that $V'$ induces $\Lambda = \Gamma[V']$. Besides we denote by $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$ if there exists an full subgraph of $\Gamma$, which is isomorphic to $\Lambda$. We denote by $G \hookrightarrow H$ if there exists an injective homomorphism (abbreviated an [*embedding*]{}) from a group $G$ into a group $H$. It is well-known that the implication $\Lambda \leq \Gamma \Rightarrow G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$ is always true. However, in general, the converse implication $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma) \Rightarrow \Lambda \leq \Gamma $ is false. In fact $G(K_3) = F_3 \hookrightarrow F_2 = G(K_2)$, though $K_3 \not\leq K_2$, where $K_2$ (resp. $K_3$) denotes the complete graph on $2$ (resp. $3$) vertices. So, we can ask the following natural question. Which finite graph $\Lambda$ satisfies the following property $(*)$? $(*)$ For any finite graph $\Gamma$, $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$ implies $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$. \[CSS-induced-condition\] Before stating our results, we define some symbols and terminology of graphs. 1. $K_n$: the [*complete graph*]{} on $n$ vertices, i.e., $V(K_n)$ has $n$ elements and each pair of vertices in $V(K_n)$ spans an edge. 2. $P_n$: the [*path graph*]{} on $n$ vertices, i.e., $P_n$ is the connected graph consisting of $(n-2)$ vertices of degree $2$ and two vertices of degree $1$. A [*linear forest*]{} is the disjoint union of path graphs. 3. $C_n$: the [*cyclic graph*]{} on $n \ (\geq 3)$ vertices, i.e., $C_n$ is the connected graph consisting of $n$ vertices of degree $2$. The main theorem of this paper is the following. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite graph. 1. If $\Lambda$ is a linear forest, then $\Lambda$ has property $(*)$, namely, for any finite graph $\Gamma$, $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$ implies $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$. 2. If $\Lambda$ is not a linear forest, then $\Lambda$ does not have property $(*)$, namely, there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$, though $\Lambda \not\leq \Gamma$. \[Main-theorem\] Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1) generalises the following well-known fact: for any finite graph $\Gamma$, $ \mathbb{Z}^n = A(K_n) \hookrightarrow A(\Gamma)$ implies $K_n \leq \Gamma$ (see e.g. [@Charney-Vogtmann]). In terms of the opposite convention it says that, for any finite graph $\Gamma$, $G(K_n^c) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$ implies $K_n^c \leq \Gamma$. Hence, $K_n^c$ has our property $(*)$ and the graph $K_n^c$ is in fact a linear forest ($n$ isolated vertices). Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1) also generalises the result of Kim-Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-1], which states that the linear forests $P_3^c = P_1 \sqcup P_2$ (the symbol $\sqcup$ means the disjoint union), $P_4^c = P_4$ and $C_4^c = P_2 \sqcup P_2$ have property $(*)$. As a consequence of Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1) and a result of Kim [@Kim], we obtain the following result concerning embeddability between RAAGs on finite graphs whose underlying spaces are connected $1$-manifolds. Let $m$ and $n$ be positive integers. Then the following hold. 1. $G(P_m) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ if and only if $m \leq n$. 2. $G(C_m) \hookrightarrow G(C_n)$ if and only if $m \leq n$. 3. $G(P_m) \hookrightarrow G(C_n)$ if and only if $m+1 \leq n$. For embedding $G(C_m)$ into $G(P_n)$, we have the following. 1. $G(C_3) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ if and only if $2 \leq n$. 2. $G(C_4) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ if and only if $3 \leq n$. 3. Suppose that $5 \leq m$. If $G(C_m) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$, then $m - 1 \leq n$. \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\] The “only if" parts of Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\](1), (2), (3), (4-1), (4-2) and (4-3) are direct consequences of Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1). The “if" part of Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\](2) is nothing other than the result of Kim [@Kim Corollary 4.3]. We will give a proof to the result by using subdivision technique (Lemma \[Complementary-subdivision\]). Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\](4-3) is not best possible. In fact, the result of C. Droms [@Droms Theorem 1] implies that $G(C_5)$ cannot be embedded into $G(P_4)$ though $(m,n)=(5,4)$ satisfies the inequality. Moreover, E. Lee and S. Lee [@Lee-Lee] proved that $G(C_m) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ if $2m-2 \leq n$. We note that Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1) has an application to the existence of embeddings of RAAGs into mapping class groups. Let $\Sigma_{g,n}$ be the orientable surface of genus $g$ with $n$ punctures and $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ the curve graph on $\Sigma_{g,n}$. The mapping class group of $\Sigma_{g,n}$ is defined by $$\mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n}) = \pi_0(\mathrm{Homeo}^{+} (\Sigma_{g,n})),$$ namely, $\mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ is the group of orientation-preserving self-homeomorphisms of $\Sigma_{g,n}$ which preserve the set of punctures, up to isotopy. Assume that $\chi(\Sigma_{g,n}) = 2 -2g - n < 0$. Under this setting, Koberda [@Koberda] proved that if $\Lambda$ is a finite full subgraph of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, then $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$. Regarding this result, Kim-Koberda proposed the following. [@Kim-Koberda-3 Question 1.1] Is there an algorithm to decide whether there exists an embedding of a given RAAG into the mapping class group of a given compact orientable surface? \[RAAG\_Map\] Motivated by this question, we deduce a partial converse of Koberda’s embedding theorem above, as an immediate consequence of Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1) in this paper. Suppose that $\Lambda$ is the complement of a linear forest. Then $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ implies $\Lambda \leq \mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$. \[mapping-class-groups\] Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\] is a generalisation of the following well-known result due to J. Birman, A. Lubotzky and J. McCarthy [@Birman-Lubotzky-McCarthy Theorem A]: if $\mathbb{Z}^m \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, then $m$ does not exceed the maximum order (defined in the next paragraph) of the complete subgraph of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$. After completing the first draft of this paper, Koberda informed the author of the recent paper [@Bering-Conant-Gaster] by E. Bering IV, G. Conant, J. Gaster, which gives another combinatorial test for embedding RAAGs into mapping class groups. In the final section of this paper, we discuss relation among the result in [@Bering-Conant-Gaster], a result due to Kim-Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-3] and Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\]. In Section \[plus-minus-technique\] of this paper, we refine an embedding theorem established by Kim-Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-2 Theorem 1.1], which states that, for any finite graph $\Gamma$, there exists a finite tree $T$ such that $G(\Gamma) \hookrightarrow G(T)$. In order to state and explain our refinement, we recall some standard terminology of graph theory. For a graph $\Gamma$, the [*order*]{}, $|\Gamma|$, of $\Gamma$ is the number of the vertices of $\Gamma$. The [*degree*]{} of a vertex $v$ of a graph $\Gamma$, $\mathrm{deg}(v, \Gamma)$, is the number of the edges of $\Gamma$, incident with $v$. The [*maximum degree*]{} of (the vertices in) $\Gamma$ is denoted by $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Gamma)$. For each finite graph $\Lambda$, there exists a finite tree $T$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(T)$ and $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(T)\leq 3$. \[Anti-trees-deg3\] Here, we give some comments on Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\]. 1. In the assertion of Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\], we have $$|T| \leq \begin{cases} |\Lambda| \cdot 2^{|\Lambda|} -4 & (\mbox{if }\Lambda \mbox{ is not a tree}) \\ 2|\Lambda| - 4 & (\mbox{if }\Lambda \mbox{ is a tree of maximum degree} >3). \end{cases}$$ 2. The embedding in the assertion of Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\] can be realised as a quasi-isometric embedding of the Cayley graph of $G(\Lambda)$ into the Cayley graph of $G(T)$. 3. I. Agol [@Agol Theorem 1.1] and D. Wise [@Wise Theorem 14.29] proved that, for any finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold $M$, there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that the fundamental group $\pi_1(M)$ is virtually embedded into $G(\Gamma)$. Thus, together with Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\], this implies that for any finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold $M$, there exists a finite tree $T$ such that $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(T) \leq 3$ and that $\pi_1(M)$ is virtually embedded into $G(T)$. \[Remark-anti-trees\] This paper is organised as follows. In Section \[Preliminaries\], we recall some facts on embeddings between RAAGs. We prove Theorems \[Main-theorem\](1), \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\] and Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\] in Section \[Obstruction\]. Theorems \[Main-theorem\](2) and \[Anti-trees-deg3\] are proved in Section \[plus-minus-technique\]. Lastly, we discuss in Section \[final\] a question related to Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\] and relation between Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\] and recent results in [@Bering-Conant-Gaster] and [@Kim-Koberda-3]. Preliminaries \[Preliminaries\] =============================== In this section we recall some terminology of graph theory and some results on embeddings between RAAGs. Let $\Gamma$ be a finite graph. 1. The [*extension graph*]{} $\Gamma^e$ is the graph whose vertex set consists of the words in $A(\Gamma)$ that are conjugate to the vertices of $\Gamma$, and two vertices of $\Gamma^e$ are adjacent if and only if those two vertices commute as words in $A(\Gamma)$. 2. The [*link*]{} of the vertex $v$, $\mathrm{Lk}(v, \Gamma)$, is the full subgraph of $\Gamma$ whose vertex set consists of all of the vertices adjacent to $v$. Obviously, $|\mathrm{Lk}(v, \Gamma)|= \mathrm{deg}(v, \Gamma)$. 3. The [*star*]{} of $v$, $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$, is the full subgraph of $\Gamma$, whose vertex set consists of $v$ and $V(\mathrm{Lk}(v, \Gamma))$. 4. The [*double*]{} of $\Gamma$ along $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$, $D_{v}(\Gamma)$, is the graph obtained from the disjoint union $\Gamma \sqcup \Gamma'$ by identifying $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$ and its copy $\mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma') (\leq \Gamma')$, where $\Gamma'$ is a copy of $\Gamma$ and $v'$ is the copy corresponding to $v$ in $\Gamma'$. Obviously, $\Gamma \leq D_{v}(\Gamma)$ and $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma) = \mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma') = \mathrm{St}(v, D_{v}(\Gamma))$ hold. Besides, we often denote the double $D_{v}(\Gamma)$ by $\Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$. The following theorems play important roles in the proofs of the main results. First of all, the following Theorem \[Kim-Koberda\] is fundamental for studying embeddings between RAAGs. Let $\Lambda$ and $\Gamma$ be finite graphs. 1. We have $A(D_{v}(\Gamma)) \hookrightarrow A(\Gamma)$. 2. Suppose that $\Lambda$ is a finite full subgraph of the extension graph $\Gamma^e$ of $\Gamma$. Then there exists a finite increasing sequence of full subgraphs of $\Gamma^e$, $$\Gamma = \Gamma_0 \leq \Gamma_1 \leq \Gamma_2 \leq \cdots \leq \Gamma_n \leq \Gamma^e ,$$ such that 1. $\Gamma_i$ is the double of $\Gamma_{i-1}$ along the star of a vertex of $\Gamma_{i-1}$. 2. $\Lambda \leq \Gamma_n$. \[Kim-Koberda\] Casals-Ruiz reduced the embedding problem for certain RAAGs to a graph theoretical problem: Suppose that $\Lambda$ is the complement of a forest and $\Gamma$ is a finite graph. Then $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow A(\Gamma)$ implies $\Lambda \leq \Gamma^e$. \[Casals-Ruiz\] The following is a refinement (due to Lee-Lee) of the embedding theorem of Kim-Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-2 Theorem 3.5]. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite connected graph and $\widetilde{\Lambda}$ be a universal cover of $\Lambda$. Then there exists a finite tree $T \leq \widetilde{\Lambda}$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow A(T)$ and $|T| \leq |\Lambda| \cdot 2^{(|\Lambda| -1)}$. \[Anti-trees-theorem\] Proof of Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1): an obstruction theorem on embeddings between right-angled Artin groups \[Obstruction\] ============================================================================================================================ In this section, we prove Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1) and some consequences of this result, Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\] and Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\]. We frequently consider a given graph and its complement at the same time. The following lemma is obvious from the definitions of the complement of a graph and the double of a graph and the uniqueness of a full subgraph. Let $\Lambda$ and $\Gamma$ be finite graphs and $v$ a vertex of $\Gamma$. 1. $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$ if and only if $\Lambda^c \leq \Gamma^c$. 2. In the double $D_v(\Gamma)= \Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$ of $\Gamma$, the following hold. For each $u \in V(\Gamma) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma))$ and $w' \in V(\Gamma') \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma'))$, $u$ and $w'$ span an edge in the complement of $\Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$, but do not in the original graph $\Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$. 3. Let $V'$ be a subset of $V(\Lambda)$. If $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$, then $\Lambda[V'] = \Gamma[V']$, where $\Lambda[V']$ (resp. $\Gamma[V']$) denotes the full subgraph of $\Lambda$ (resp. $\Gamma$) induced by $V'$. \[Obvious\] The following lemma is used in the proof of Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1). The [*join*]{} $\Lambda_1 * \Lambda_2 * \cdots * \Lambda_m$ of finite graphs $\Lambda_1, \Lambda_2, \ldots, \Lambda_m$ is the finite graph obtained from the disjoint union $\Lambda_1 \sqcup \Lambda_2 \sqcup \cdots \sqcup \Lambda_m$ by adding all of the edges of the form $[ v_i , v_j ]$ to $\Lambda_1 \sqcup \Lambda_2 \sqcup \cdots \sqcup \Lambda_m$ for all $v_i \in \Lambda_i, \ v_j \in \Lambda_j \ (i \neq j)$. We call each $\Lambda_i$ a [*join-component*]{} of $\Lambda_1 * \Lambda_2 * \cdots * \Lambda_m$. Suppose that $\Lambda$ is the complement of a linear forest, $\Gamma$ is a finite graph and $v$ is a vertex of $\Gamma$. Then $\Lambda \leq D_{v}(\Gamma)$ implies $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$. \[Extension\] In this proof, we denote $D_v(\Gamma)= \Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$ by $D$ for simplicity. By the assumption, $\Lambda^c = \sqcup_{i=1}^{m} P_{n_i}$ and so $\Lambda = *_{i=1}^{m} P_{n_i}^c$. By setting $\Lambda_i = P_{n_i}^c$, we have $\Lambda = *_{i=1}^{m} \Lambda_i$. We now suppose $\Lambda \leq D = \Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$. If $V(\Lambda)$ is contained in either $V(\Gamma)$ or its copy $V(\Gamma')$ in $D$, then we immediately obtain the desired result, so we assume that $V(\Lambda)$ is contained in neither $V(\Gamma)$ nor $V(\Gamma')$. After changing of indices, we may assume that $$V(\Lambda) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, D)) = V(\Lambda_1) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, D)).$$ \[The-join-component\] By the assumption, there are vertices $u_1, w_1' \in V(\Lambda)$ such that $u_1 \in V(\Gamma)) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma))$ and $w_1' \in V(\Gamma') \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma'))$. Then, by Lemma \[Obvious\](2), $u_1$ and $w_1'$ do not span an edge in $D$. Since $\Lambda$ is a subgraph of $D$, $u_1$ and $w_1'$ do not span an edge in $\Lambda$. This shows that $u_1$ and $w_1'$ are contained in the same join-component of $\Lambda$, say $\Lambda_1$. Pick any vertex $x$ of $V(\Lambda) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, D))$. If $x \in V(\Gamma)$, then by the above argument, we see that $x$ and $w_1'$ belong to the same join-component of $\Lambda$, and so $x \in V(\Lambda_1)$. Similarly, if $x \in V(\Gamma')$, then again we have $x \in V(\Lambda_1)$. Thus we obtain $V(\Lambda) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, D)) \subset V(\Lambda_1) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, D))$. Since the converse inclusion is obvious, we obtain the desired result. Let $\check{\Lambda}_1$ be the full subgraph $\Lambda[ V(\Lambda_1) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, D))]$ of $\Lambda \leq D$. The full subgraph $\check{\Lambda}_1$ is ismorphic to either $P_2^c$ or $P_3^c$. \[P3\] We first show that $|\check{\Lambda}_1| \leq 3$. Suppose to the contrary that $|\check{\Lambda}_1| \geq 4$. Then, since each of $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ contains a vertex of $\check{\Lambda}_1$, we can find four vertices of $\check{\Lambda}_1$ as in Figure \[a\], which imply that $\Lambda_1^c$ has either $C_4$ (as a subgraph) or a vertex of degree $\geq 3$. ![ In this schematic figure of $D = \Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, D)} \Gamma'$, dotted lines represent edges of the complement $D^c$. The left picture illustrates a (possibly non-induced) cycle of length $4$ in the complement of the double $D$. The right picture illustrates a vertex of degree $\geq 3$ in the complement of the double $D$.[]{data-label="a"}](./Double_anti_cycle_deg_3.pdf) This contradicts to the assumption that $\Lambda_1^c \cong P_{n_1}^c$ is a path graph. Thus we have $2 \leq |\check{\Lambda}_1| \leq 3$. Suppose first that $|\check{\Lambda}_1| = 2$. By Lemma \[Obvious\](2), the two vertices of $\check{\Lambda}_1$ do not span an edge in $\check{\Lambda}_1$. Hence, $\check{\Lambda}_1 \cong P_2^c$. Suppose next that $|\check{\Lambda}_1| = 3$. Then, by Lemma \[Obvious\](2), $\check{\Lambda}_1$ contains at most one edge. Hence, $\check{\Lambda}_1$ is isomorphic to either $P_3^c$ or $K_3^c = C_3^c$. However, $\check{\Lambda}_1 \cong C_3^c$ implies $C_3^c \leq \Lambda_1 = P_{n_1}^c$ and so $C_3 \leq P_{n_1}$ by Lemma \[Obvious\](1), which is impossible. Thus $\check{\Lambda}_1$ must be isomorphic to $P_3^c$. The graph $\Lambda$ does not contain the vertex $v$. \[Nocontain\] Suppose to the contrary that $\Lambda$ contains $v$. Pick vertices $ u, w' \in V(\check{\Lambda}_1)$ so that $u$ and $w'$ satisfy $u \in V(\Gamma) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma))$ and $w' \in V(\Gamma') \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma'))$. Then by the definition of the star, $[v, u ]$ and $[v, w' ]$ are edges in $D^c$. Moreover, $[ u, w' ]$ is an edge in $D^c$. Hence, $v, u, w'$ induces a full subgraph isomorphic to $C_3$ in $D^c$. On the other hand, we have $\Lambda^c \leq D^c$ by the assumption that $\Lambda \leq D$ and Lemma \[Obvious\](1). Thus $C_3$ is a full subgraph of the linear forest $\Lambda^c \cong \sqcup_{i=1}^{m} P_{n_i}$, a contradiction. Before proceeding the proof of Lemma \[Extension\], we now summarize the situation. By Claim \[P3\], almost all part of $\Lambda = *_{i=1}^m \Lambda_i$ is contained in $\mathrm{St}(v, D) = \mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma) = \mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma')$. To be more precise, though the small full subgraph $\check{\Lambda}_1$ of $\Lambda_1$ is not contained in $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$, the remaining vertices of $V(\Lambda_1)$ and the all of the remaining join-components $\Lambda_i \ (2 \leq i \leq m)$ and so $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i$ are contained in $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$. In the remainder of the proof, we find a full subgraph $\Lambda_1'$ of $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma'$ satisfying the following conditions. 1. $\Lambda_1'$ is a full subgraph of $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma'$ isomorphic to either $P_{n_1}^c$ or $P_{n_1 + 1}^c$. 2. $\Lambda_1'$ is “joinable" with $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i$ in $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma'$, and $\tilde{\Lambda}:= \Lambda_1' * (*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i)$ is a full subgraph of $\Gamma$ or $\Gamma'$. Note that the condition (a) is equivalent to the following condition. 1. $(\Lambda_1')^c$ is a full subgraph of $(\Gamma)^c$ or $(\Gamma')^c$ isomorphic to either $P_{n_1}$ or $P_{n+1}$. If we prove (a$'$) and (b), then we obtain the desired result, because the original graph $\Lambda$ is either isomorphic to $\tilde{\Lambda}$ or a full subgraph of $\tilde{\Lambda}$. We divide the proof into two cases according to whether $\check{\Lambda}_1$ is isomorphic to $P_2^c$ or $P_3^c$. [**Case 1**]{} $\check{\Lambda}_1 \cong P_3^c$. We label the vertex set $V(\check{\Lambda}_1)$ by $\{ v_1 , v_2, v_3 \}$ so that $v_1$ and $v_3$ span an edge in $\check{\Lambda}_1 \leq D$. Then $[v_1, v_2 ]$ and $[v_2, v_3 ]$ are edges of $(\check{\Lambda}_1)^c$. Hence, we may assume that $v_1, v_3 \in V(\Gamma) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma))$ and $v_2 \in V(\Gamma') \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma'))$. Let $\Lambda_1' = \Gamma[(V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_2 \}) \sqcup \{ v \}]$ be the full subgraph of $\Gamma$ induced by $(V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_2 \}) \sqcup \{ v \}$. ![Dotted and real lines represent pairs of non adjacent vertices in the double $D$. The left picture illustrates $\Lambda_1$ in the double $D$. The right picture illustrates replacing $v_2$ with $v$. []{data-label="g"}](./Double_along_a_star_1.pdf) Then, as illustrated in Figure \[g\], we can see $(\Lambda_1')^c \cong P_{n_1}$ and hence $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (a$'$). In fact, the map $\phi: V(\Lambda_1) \rightarrow (V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_2 \}) \sqcup \{ v \}$ define by $$\phi(x) = \begin{cases} v & (\mbox{if} \ x = v_2) \\ x & (otherwise) \end{cases}$$ induces an isomorphism from $\Lambda_1^c$ onto $(\Lambda_1')^c$. To see this, observe that $$V(\Lambda_1) \cap V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)) = V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{v_1, v_2, v_3 \}.$$ This implies that the vertex $v$ and a vertex $x \in V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_2 \}$ span an edge in $\Gamma^c$ if and only if $x \in \{ v_1 , v_3\}$. Thus $\phi$ induces an isomorphism. Next we show that $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (b). Note that $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i$ is a full subgraph of $\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$. Therefore, for any $x \in V(*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i)$, the vertices $v$ and $x$ span an edge in $\Gamma$. On the other hand, $\Gamma[V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_2 \}]*( *_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i) \leq \Gamma$. Thus, for any $x_1 \in (V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_2 \}) \sqcup \{ v \}$ and $x_2 \in V(*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i)$, the vertices $x_1$ and $x_2$ span an edge in $\Gamma$. Since $\Lambda_1' \leq \Gamma$ and $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i \leq \Gamma$, wee see $\Lambda_1' * (*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i) \leq \Gamma$, as desired. [**Case 2**]{} $\check{\Lambda}_1 \cong P_2^c$. We label $V(\check{\Lambda}_1)$ by $\{ v_1' , v_2 \}$ so that $v_1' \in V(\Gamma') \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v', \Gamma'))$ and $v_2 \in V(\Gamma) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma))$. Then, $v_1'$ and $v_2$ are not adjacent in $D$. We divide the proof into the following two cases (1) and (2). [**(1)**]{} $\mathrm{deg}(v_1', \Lambda^c) = 1$. Set $\Lambda_1' := \Gamma[(V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_1' \}) \sqcup \{ v \}]$. A similar argument as in Case 1 implies that $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the conditions (a$'$) (in particular we have $(\Lambda_1')^c \cong P_{n_1}$) and (b). [**(2)**]{} $\mathrm{deg}(v_1', \Lambda^c) = 2$. Since $\Gamma = \Gamma'$ and since $v_1' \notin \mathrm{St}(v)$, the set $V(\Gamma) \setminus V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma))$ has the copy, $v_1$, of $v_1'$. We pick the vertex $u \in V(\Lambda_1) \cap V(\mathrm{St}(v, D))$ so that $u$ is not adjacent to $v_1'$ in $\Gamma'$ and that $u \neq v_2$ by using the fact that $\mathrm{deg}(v_1', \Lambda^c) = 2$. Then the vertex $v_2$ is adjacent to $u$ and $v_1$ is not adjacent to $u$. Hence, we have $v_1 \neq v_2$. So we furthermore divide the case (2) into the following two cases (2-i) and (2-ii). ![The left picture illustrates $\Lambda_1 \leq D = \Gamma \cup_{\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)} \Gamma'$. Dotted and real lines represent pairs of non-adjacent vertices. The picture on the centre illustrate replacing $v_1'$ with $v_1$ in the case (2-1) and the right picture illustrates modifying $P_{n_1}^c$ into $P_{n_1 + 1}^c$ in the case (2-2). []{data-label="e"}](./Double_along_a_star_2.pdf) [**(2-i)**]{} The vertices $v_1$ and $v_2$ are not adjacent in $\Gamma$. Set $\Lambda_1' := \Gamma[(V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_1' \}) \sqcup \{ v_1 \}]$. Then as illustrated in the centre of Figure \[e\], $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (a$'$) $ (\Lambda_1')^c \cong P_{n_1}$. Moreover, we can show that $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (b) as follows. We first see $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i \leq \mathrm{St}(v_1, \Gamma)$. Pick any vertex $x \in V(*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i) \subset V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)) = V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma'))$. Then since the vertices $v_1'$ and $x$ span an edge in $\Gamma'$, and since $v_1$ is the copy corresponding to $v_1'$, we see that $v_1$ and $x$ span an edge in $\Gamma$. So $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i \leq \mathrm{St}(v_1, \Gamma)$ holds. Besides, we have $\Gamma[V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_1' \}] * (*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i )\leq \Gamma$. Hence, for any $x_1 \in V(\Lambda_1')$ and $x_2 \in V(*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i)$, the vertices $x_1$ and $x_2$ span an edge in $\Gamma$. Thus $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (b). [**(2-ii)**]{} The vertices $v_1$ and $v_2$ are adjacent in $\Gamma$. Set $\Lambda_1' := \Gamma[(V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_1' \}) \sqcup \{ v, v_1 \}]$. Then as illustrated in the right of Figure \[e\], we have $(\Lambda_1')^c \cong P_{n_1 + 1}$ and so $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (a$'$). It is now a routine work to see the following. 1. $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i \leq \mathrm{St}(v, \Gamma)$. 2. $*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i \leq \mathrm{St}(v_1, \Gamma)$. 3. $\Gamma[V(\Lambda_1) \setminus \{ v_1' \}] * (*_{i=2}^m \Lambda_i )\leq \Gamma$. These show that $\Lambda_1'$ satisfies the condition (b). We prove the following theorem, which is equivalent to Theorem \[Main-theorem\](1). Suppose that $\Lambda$ is the complement of a linear forest and $\Gamma$ is a finite graph. Then $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow A(\Gamma)$ implies $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$. \[main-theorem-2\] Let $\Lambda$ be the complement of a linear forest and $\Gamma$ a finite graph, and suppose that $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow A(\Gamma)$. Then Theorem \[Casals-Ruiz\] implies $\Lambda \leq \Gamma^e$. By Theorem \[Kim-Koberda\](2), there exists a finite increasing sequence of full subgraphs of $\Gamma^e$, $$\Gamma = \Gamma_0 \leq \Gamma_1 \leq \Gamma_2 \leq \cdots \leq \Gamma_n \leq \Gamma^e .$$ such that 1. $\Gamma_i$ is the double of $\Gamma_{i-1}$ along the star of a vertex of $\Gamma_{i-1}$. 2. $\Lambda \leq \Gamma_n$. Hence by repeatedly using Lemma \[Extension\], we see $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$, as desired. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite linear forest and suppose that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$ for some finite graph $\Gamma$. Then $A(\Lambda^c) \hookrightarrow A(\Gamma^c)$ and hence we have $\Lambda^c \leq \Gamma^c$ by Theorem \[main-theorem-2\]. Hence, by Lemma \[Obvious\](1), we have $\Lambda \leq \Gamma$. Suppose that $\phi: A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ is an embedding. Then as in the proof of [@Kim-Koberda-3 Lemma 2.3], there exists an induced subgraph $X$ of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ such that $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow A(X) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$. Thus Theorem \[main-theorem-2\] implies that $\Lambda \leq X$, and so $\Lambda \leq \mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, as desired. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite graph and $\bar{\Lambda}$ be a subdivision of $\Lambda$. Then $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\bar{\Lambda})$. \[Complementary-subdivision\] We may assume that $\bar{\Lambda}$ is obtained from $\Lambda$ by subdividing an edge $[ v, w ]$ of $\Lambda$ into two edges $[v, u]$ and $[u, w]$, where $u$ is a new vertex. Note that $$\begin{aligned} V(\bar{\Lambda}) &= V(\Lambda) \sqcup \{ u \} \\ E(\bar{\Lambda}) &= (E(\Lambda) \setminus \{ [v,w] \}) \sqcup \{ [v, u] , [u,w] \} \\\end{aligned}$$ Then the desired result follows from Claim \[Subdiv\]. $\Lambda^c \leq D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)$ and hence $A(\Lambda^c) \hookrightarrow A(D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c))$, where $\bar{\Lambda}^c = (\bar{\Lambda})^c$ is the complement of $\bar{\Lambda}$. \[Subdiv\] In fact, we have $A(D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)) \hookrightarrow A(\bar{\Lambda}^c)$ by Theorem \[Kim-Koberda\](1) and therefore $$G(\Lambda) = A(\Lambda^c) \hookrightarrow A(D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)) \hookrightarrow A(\bar{\Lambda}^c) = G(\bar{\Lambda}),$$ as desired. To prove the above claim, we note that $V(\mathrm{St}(u, \bar{\Lambda}))$ consists of the three vertex $u, v$ and $w$. Hence, $$V(\mathrm{St}(u, \bar{\Lambda}^c)) = \{u \} \sqcup (V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{v, w \}),$$ and $$V(D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)) = \{ u \} \sqcup \{v, w \} \sqcup \{v', w' \} \sqcup (V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ v, w \}),$$ where $v'$ and $w'$ are the copies of the vertex $v$ and $w$ in $(\bar{\Lambda}^c)'$. Let $\Delta$ be the full subgraph of $D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)$ induced by $V(\Delta):= (V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{w \}) \sqcup \{ w' \}$. Then there exists a natural bijection $\phi: V(\Lambda^c) \rightarrow V(\Delta)$, whose restriction to $V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{w \}$ is the identity map (so $\phi$ maps $w$ to $w'$). To show that $\phi$ induces an isomorphism from $\Lambda^c$ onto $\Delta$, we prove the following. 1. Any two vertices of $V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}$ span an edge of $\Lambda^c$ if and only if they span an edge of $\Delta$. 2. For each vertex $x$ of $V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}$, $[x, w]$ is an edge of $\Lambda^c$ if and only if $[ x, w' ]$ is an edge of $\Delta$. We first prove (i). To this end, we prove the following identities. $$\Lambda^c[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}] = \bar{\Lambda}^c[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}] = (D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c))[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}] = \Delta[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}] .$$ The first identity follows from the following easy facts. 1. $\Lambda[V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ w \}] = \bar{\Lambda}[V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ w \}]$. 2. $(\Lambda[V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ w \}])^c = \Lambda^c[V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ w \}] = \Lambda^c[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}]$. 3. $(\bar{\Lambda}[V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ w \}])^c = \bar{\Lambda}^c[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}]$. The second and third identities follow from the fact that $\bar{\Lambda}^c, \Delta \leq D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)$ and Lemma \[Obvious\](3). Thus we obtain the desired identity $\Lambda^c[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}] = \Delta[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}]$. The assertion (i) is immediate from this identity. We now prove (ii). Pick a vertex $x$ of $V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ w \}$. If $x = v$, then $[v, w]$ is not an edge in $\Lambda^c$ and $[ v, w' ]$ is not an edge in $D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c)$ by Lemma \[Obvious\](2). So we assume $x \neq v$. Then the following hold. $$\begin{aligned} [x, w] \mbox{ is an edge of } \Lambda^c & \Leftrightarrow [x, w] \mbox{ is an edge of } \bar{\Lambda}^c \ \ (x \neq v, w) \\ & \Leftrightarrow [x, w] \mbox{ is an edge of } D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c) \\ & \Leftrightarrow [x, w'] \mbox{ is an edge of } D_u(\bar{\Lambda}^c) \ \ (x \in V(\mathrm{St}(u, \bar{\Lambda}^c))) \\ & \Leftrightarrow [x, w'] \mbox{ is an edge of } \Delta\end{aligned}$$ Thus we obtain the assertion (ii). By using the assertion (i) and (ii), we see that $\phi$ induces an isomorphism from $\Lambda^c$ onto $\Delta$. So we obtain Claim \[Subdiv\] and Lemma \[Complementary-subdivision\]. \(1) Since $P_m$ is a linear forest, $G(P_m) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ if and only if $P_m \leq P_n$. The latter relation is equivalent to the inequality $m \leq n$, hence we obtain the desired result. \(2) The proof is similar as in the proof of (1). \(3) If $m \leq n$, then $C_n$ is a subdivision of $C_m$, and so $G(C_m) \hookrightarrow G(C_n)$ by Lemma \[Complementary-subdivision\]. Suppose that $G(C_m) \hookrightarrow G(C_n)$. To see the converse, note that $P_{m-1} \leq C_m$. This implies that $G(P_{m-1}) \hookrightarrow G(C_m)$. Hence, $G(P_{m-1}) \hookrightarrow G(C_n)$. Thus we have $m-1 \leq n-1$ by Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\](2), that is, $m \leq n$. (4-1) Note that $G(C_3) \cong F_3$ and $G(P_2) \cong F_2$, and $G(P_1) \cong \mathbb{Z}$. Thus $G(C_3) \hookrightarrow G(P_2)$ but $G(C_3)$ does not embed into $G(P_1)$. (4-2) We first show that $G(C_4) \hookrightarrow G(P_3)$. To this end, note that $C_4^c = P_2 \sqcup P_2$ and $P_3^c = P_1 \sqcup P_2$. The double $D_u(P_3^c)$, where $u$ is the isolated vertex of $P_3^c$, is isomorphic to $P_1 \sqcup P_2 \sqcup P_2$, and so $C_4^c$ is a full subgraph of $D_u(P_3^c)$. Hence, we have $$G(C_4) = A(C_4^c) \hookrightarrow A(D_u(P_3^c)) \hookrightarrow A(P_3^c)= G(P_3),$$ where the second embedding $A(D_u(P_3^c)) \hookrightarrow A(P_3^c)$ follows from Theorem \[Kim-Koberda\](1). Thus we have only to show that $G(C_4)$ can not be embedded into $G(P_2)$. But, this follows from the fact that $G(C_4)$ contains $\mathbb{Z}^2$ whereas $G(P_2) \cong F_2$ does not. (4-3) Suppose $G(C_m) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$. Since $G(P_{m-1}) \hookrightarrow G(C_m)$, we have $G(P_{m-1}) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$, and so $m-1 \leq n$ by Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\](1). Proofs of Theorems \[Main-theorem\](2) and \[Anti-trees-deg3\] \[plus-minus-technique\] ======================================================================================= Suppose that $\Lambda$ is not a linear forest and that $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \leq 2$. Then there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$, though $\Lambda \not\leq \Gamma$. \[Anti-deg-2\] Our assumptions imply that each connected component of $\Lambda$ is either a path graph or a cyclic graph and $\Lambda$ contains a cyclic graph. Hence, $\Lambda$ is the disjoint union of path graphs and cyclic graphs and the RAAG $G(\Lambda)$ is isomorphic to the direct product $G(P_{i_1}) \times \cdots \times G(P_{i_m}) \times G(C_{i_{m+1}}) \times \cdots G(C_{i_{m+n}})$, where $i_1, \ldots , i_{m+n}$ are positive integers and $i_{m+1}, \ldots , i_{m+n}$ are not less than $3$. Set $l := 1 + \mathrm{max} \{ i_{j} | 1 \leq j \leq m + n \}$, and consider the graph $\Gamma:= \sqcup^{m+n} C_l$. Then $\Lambda$ cannot be embedded into $\Gamma$, but $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$ by Theorem \[Anti-lines-anti-cycles\](2)(3). Proposition \[Anti-deg-2\] proves Theorem \[Main-theorem\](2) in the case where $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \leq 2$. In the following, we treat the case where $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \geq 3$. Let $\Lambda$ be a finite graph and $u$ a vertex of $\Lambda$ with $\mathrm{deg}(u, \Lambda) \geq 2$. Pick two vertices $w_1$ and $w_2$ from $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$. 1. $\Lambda_u^{-}= \Lambda_u^{-}(w_1, w_2)$ denotes the graph with the following property. 1. $V(\Lambda_u^{-}) = V(\Lambda) \sqcup \{v \}$, where $v$ is a new vertex. 2. $E(\Lambda_u^{-}) = (E(\Lambda) \setminus \{ [u, w_1] , [u, w_2] \}) \sqcup \{ [v, w_1], [v, u], [v, w_2] \}$. 2. $\Lambda_u^{+}= \Lambda_u^{+}(w_1, w_2)$ denotes the graph obtained from $\Lambda_u^{-}$ by adding the edge $[u, w_2]$. See Figure \[b\]. ![ The left picture illustrates $\Lambda$, where $\Lambda_1$ is the full subgraph $\Lambda[V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ u, w_1, w_2 \}]$. Mosaic lines represent possible edges while real lines represent edges (in these pictures we omit the possible edge $[w_1, w_2]$ for simplicity). The centre picture illustrates $\Lambda_u^{-}(w_1, w_2)$. By adding the edge $[ u, w_2 ]$ to the centred picture, we obtain the right picture which illustrates $\Lambda_u^{+}(w_1, w_2)$. []{data-label="b"}](./the_plus_construction.pdf) \[plus-minus\] We can easily see the following lemma from the definitions of the $(\pm)$-construction. Let $\Lambda, \ u, \ w_1, \ w_2$ be as in Definition \[plus-minus\]. 1. $|\Lambda_u^{-}| = |\Lambda| + 1$ and for any vertex $x$ of $\Lambda_u^{-}$, we have $$\mathrm{deg} (x, \Lambda_u^{-}) = \begin{cases} 3 & (\mbox{if} \ x=v) \\ \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda) - 1 & (\mbox{if} \ x=u) \\ \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda) & (otherwise). \end{cases}$$ Moreover, $\Lambda_u^{-}$ is homotopically equivalent to $\Lambda$. 2. $|\Lambda_u^{+}| = |\Lambda| + 1$ and for any vertex $x$ of $\Lambda_u^{+}$, we have $$\mathrm{deg} (x, \Lambda_u^{+}) = \begin{cases} 3 & (\mbox{if} \ x=v) \\ \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda) + 1 & (\mbox{if} \ x = w_2) \\ \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda) & (otherwise). \end{cases}$$ \[Computation\_anti\_degree\] To see that $\Lambda_u^{-}$ is homotopically equivalent to $\Lambda$, contract the edge $[u, v]$ of $\Lambda_u^{-}$ to a single vertex $u$. Let $\Lambda, \ u, \ w_1, \ w_2$ be as in Definition \[plus-minus\]. Then $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Lambda_u^{\epsilon})$ for each $\epsilon= + , -$. \[Heteromorphic\_lemma\] For simplicity, we assume $\epsilon = -$ (the case $\epsilon = +$ can be treated similarly). Let $\Lambda_u^{-c} := (\Lambda_u^{-})^c$ be the complement of $\Lambda_u^{-}$, and consider the double $D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})$ of $\Lambda_u^{-c}$ along $\mathrm{St}(v, \Lambda_u^{-c})$, where $v$ is the vertex of $\Lambda_u^{-c}$ corresponding to the new vertex $v$ of $\Lambda_u^{-}$. We show that the complement $\Lambda^c$ of $\Lambda$ can be embedded into $D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})$ as a full subgraph, and hence $A(\Lambda^c) \hookrightarrow A(D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c}))$. Then we obtain the desired embedding $G(\Lambda) = A(\Lambda^c) \hookrightarrow A(\Lambda_u^{-c}) = G(\Lambda_u^{-})$ by Theorem \[Kim-Koberda\](1). To construct an embedding of $\Lambda^c$ into $D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})$, observe that $$V(\mathrm{St}(v, \Lambda_u^{-c})) = \{ v \} \sqcup V(\Lambda_1) .$$ Let $\Delta$ be the full subgraph of $D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})$, induced by $V(\Delta):= (V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ u \}) \sqcup \{ u' \}$, where $u'$ is the copy of $u$ in the copy of $\Lambda_u^{-c}$, $(\Lambda_u^{-c})'$. Since $V(\Lambda^c) = (V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ u \}) \sqcup \{ u \}$, there exists a natural bijection $\phi: V(\Lambda^c) \rightarrow V(\Delta)$. The following (i) and (ii) imply that $\phi$ induces an isomorphism from $\Lambda^c$ onto $\Delta$, completing the proof. 1. The restriction of $\phi$ to $\Lambda^c[V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ u \}]$ is an isomorphism. 2. For each $x \in V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ u \}$, $[x, u]$ is an edge of $\Lambda^c$ if and only if $[x, u']$ is an edge of $\Delta$. The assertions (i) and (ii) can be proved by an argument similar to the proof of Claim \[Subdiv\] (see Figure \[h\]). ![ Mosaic lines with the characters $c$ represent possible edges in the complement graphs. The left picture illustrates the complement $\Lambda^c$ of $\Lambda$. The centred picture illustrates the complement $\Lambda_u^{-c}$ of $\Lambda_u^{-}$. The right picture illustrates the double $D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})$ of $\Lambda_u^{-c}$, along the star $\mathrm{St}(v, \Lambda_u^{-c}) = v * {\Lambda_1^c}$. The domain, $D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})[V(\Lambda_1^c) \sqcup \{ w_1, u', w_2 \}] = D_v(\Lambda_u^{-c})[(V(\Lambda^c) \setminus \{ u \}) \sqcup \{ u' \}]$, illustrates $\Delta$. []{data-label="h"}](./the_plus_construction_double.pdf) For a finite graph $\Gamma$ and a natural number $n$, set $V_n(\Gamma): = \{ v \in V(\Gamma) | \ \mathrm{deg} (v, \Gamma) = n \}$. If the inequality $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \geq 4$ holds, then there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$, though $\Lambda \not\leq \Gamma$. \[Anti-deg-4\] Pick a vertex $u$ of $\Lambda$ with $\mathrm{deg}(u, \Lambda) = \mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda)\geq 4$ and two vertices $w_1, w_2$ from $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$. Then $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Lambda_u^{-})$ by Lemma \[Heteromorphic\_lemma\], where $\Lambda_u^{-} = \Lambda_u^{-}(w_1, w_2)$. However, we can see that $\Lambda \not\leq \Lambda_u^{-}$ as follows. Suppose on the contrary that $\Lambda \leq \Lambda_u^{-}$. Then there exists a vertex subset $V' \subset V(\Lambda_u^{-})$ such that $\Lambda_u^{-}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. Let $n \geq 4$ be the degree of $u$ in $\Lambda$. Then, Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](1) implies $|V_n(\Lambda_u^{-})| = |V_n(\Lambda)| - 1$. We now claim that $V_n (\Lambda_u^{-}[V']) \subset V_n(\Lambda_u^{-})$. To see this, pick a vertex $x$ of $V_n (\Lambda_u^{-}[V'])$. Then Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](1) implies $$n = \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda_u^{-}[V']) \leq \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda_u^{-}) \leq \mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda_u^{-}) \leq \mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) = n ,$$ and so $x \in V_n(\Lambda_u^{-})$. Therefore, we obtain $V_n (\Lambda_u^{-}[V']) \subset V_n(\Lambda_u^{-})$ and so $$|V_n(\Lambda_u^{-}[V'])| \leq |V_n(\Lambda_u^{-})| = |V_n(\Lambda)| - 1 .$$ This contradicts $\Lambda_u^{-}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. Thus we have $\Lambda \not\leq \Lambda_u^{-}$ . Suppose $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) = 3$ and that for each vertex $x \in V_3(\Lambda)$, $ \mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda)$ does not contain an edge, i.e., $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda) \cong K_3^c$. Then there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$, though $\Lambda \not\leq \Gamma$. \[Anti-deg-3-complete\] Pick a vertex $u$ of $\Lambda$, of degree $3$ and two vertices $w_1, w_2$ of $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$ and consider $\Lambda_u^{+} = \Lambda_u^{+}(w_1, w_2)$. By Lemma \[Heteromorphic\_lemma\], we have $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Lambda_u^{+})$. So we have only to show $\Lambda \not\leq \Lambda_u^{+}$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $\Lambda \leq \Lambda_u^{+}$, namely, there exists a subset $V' \subset V(\Lambda_u^{+})$ such that $\Lambda_u^{+}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. Since $|\Lambda| = |\Lambda_u^{+}| - 1$, there exists a vertex $v' \in V(\Lambda_u^{+})$ such that $V' = V(\Lambda_u^{+}) \setminus \{ v' \}$. [**Case 1.**]{} Suppose that we can choose the above $u, w_1, w_2$ so that $\mathrm{deg}(w_2, \Lambda) \leq 2$. To treat this case we prepare a notation. For a graph $\Gamma$, set $V_3^e(\Gamma):= \{ v \in V_3(\Gamma) | \ \mathrm{Lk}(v, \Gamma) = K_3^c \}$. Note that the assumption of Proposition \[Anti-deg-3-complete\] implies $V_3^e(\Lambda) = V_3 (\Lambda)$. The following hold. 1. $V_3^e (\Lambda_u^{+}) \subset V_3^e (\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \} = V_3 (\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \}$. 2. $V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+}[V']) \subset V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+})$. \[empty\_number\] \(i) Pick a vertex $x$ of $V_3^e (\Lambda_u^{+})$. It obviously follows from the definition of $\Lambda_u^{+}$ (cf. Figure \[b\]) that $u, v, w_2 \notin V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+})$, and so $x \in V(\Lambda_u^{+}) \setminus \{ u, v, w_2 \}$. Then by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2), we have $\mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda) = \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}) = 3$, which implies that $x \in V_3(\Lambda)$, and so $x \in V_3(\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \}$. \(ii) Pick a vertex $x$ of $V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+}[V'])$. If $x \in V(\mathrm{Lk}(v', \Lambda_u^{+}))$, where $v'$ is the removed vertex, then $\mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}) = 4$. However, by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2) and the assumption that $\mathrm{deg}(w_2, \Lambda) \leq 2$ and $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \leq 3$, there is no vertex of degree $4$ in $\Lambda_u^{+}$, a contradiction. Hence, $x \notin V(\mathrm{Lk}(v', \Lambda_u^{+}))$. In this case, we have $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}) = \mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}[V']) \cong K_3^c$, and hence $x \in V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+})$. By the above claim, $|V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+}[V'])| \leq |V_3^e(\Lambda_u^{+})| \leq |V_3^e (\Lambda)| -1$. This contradicts the assumption that $\Lambda_u^{+}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. [**Case 2.**]{} Suppose that for each $x \in V_3(\Lambda)$, every vertex of $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda)$ has degree $3$, i.e., 1. for each $x \in V_3(\Lambda)$, $V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda)) \subset V_3(\Lambda)$ holds. The following fold. 1. $|V_3 (\Lambda_u^{+})| = |V_3 (\Lambda)|$. 2. $V_4(\Lambda_u^{+}) = \{ w_2 \}$ and $V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})) \subset V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$. 3. For each vertex $x$ of $\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})$, the set $V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}))$ consists of $w_2$ and two vertices of degree $3$ in $\Lambda_u^{+}$. \[Around-deg3\] \(i) By Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2) and the assumptions that $\mathrm{deg}(w_2, \Lambda)=3$, we see $v \in V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$, $ w_2 \not\in V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$, and $V_3(\Lambda) \setminus \{ v, w_2 \} = V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}) \setminus \{ v, w_2 \}$. Hence, we have $|V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})| = |V_3(\Lambda)|$. \(ii) By Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2) and the assumption that $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) = 3$, we see $V_4(\Lambda_u^{+}) = \{ w_2 \}$. To prove $V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})) \subset V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$, pick a vertex $x$ of $\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})$. If $x = v$, then $\mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}) = 3$ by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2) and so $x \in V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$. If $x \neq v$, then by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2) again, we have $\mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}) = \mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda)$, which is equal to $3$ by the assumption (A) and the fact that $x$ and $w_2$ are adjacent in $\Lambda$ (because $V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})) = V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda)) \sqcup \{ v \}$). Hence, we have $x \in V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$. \(iii) Let $x$ be a vertex of $\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})$. Then by (ii), $V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}))$ consists of three vertices, one of which is $w_2$. Moreover, by the assumption (A) and Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2), we can prove that each vertex of $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+})$ different from $w_2$ has degree $3$ in $\Lambda_u^{+}$ as follows. Pick a vertex $y$ in $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+})$ different from $w_2$. If $y$ is either $u$ or $v$, then $\mathrm{deg}(y, \Lambda_u^{+})= 3$. If $y = w_1$, then $\mathrm{deg}(y, \Lambda_u^{+})= \mathrm{deg}(y, \Lambda)$ by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2). This is equal to $3$ by the assumption (A) together with the fact that $u$ and $w_1$ are adjacent in $\Lambda$. Suppose $y \not\in \{u, v, w_1, w_2 \}$. Then $y$ is a vertex of the full subgraph $\Lambda_1$ in Figure \[b\], and so $x \neq v$. This implies that the edge $[x, y]$ in $\Lambda_u^{+}$ is actually an edge in $\Lambda$. Hence $y \in V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda))$ and so $\mathrm{deg}(y, \Lambda) = 3$ by the assumption (A). Thus, by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](2), $\mathrm{deg}(y, \Lambda_u^{+}) = \mathrm{deg}(y, \Lambda) = 3$. Since $\mathrm{deg}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+}) = 4$ (Claim \[Around-deg3\](ii)) and since $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) = 3$ (the assumption of Proposition \[Anti-deg-3-complete\]), the removed vertex $v'$ must be contained in $V(\mathrm{St}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})) = \{ w_2 \} \sqcup V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+}))$. Suppose that $v' = w_2$. Then for any $x \in V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+}))$, we have $$V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+}[V'])) \subsetneq V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{+})),$$ and so $x \notin V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}[V'])$. On the other hand, $V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+})) \subset V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$, by Claim \[Around-deg3\](ii). Hence, we have $$\begin{aligned} |V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}[V'])| & \leq |V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})| - |V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+}))| \\ & = |V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})| - 4 \\ & = |V_3(\Lambda)| - 4 \ \ (\mbox{by Claim \ref{Around-deg3}(i)})\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts the assumption $\Lambda \cong \Lambda_u^{+}[V']$. Suppose $v' \in V(\mathrm{Lk}(w_2, \Lambda_u^{+}))$. By Claim \[Around-deg3\](iii), we have $V(\mathrm{Lk}(v', \Lambda_u^{+})) = \{ w_2, x_1, x_2 \},$ where $x_1, x_2$ are elements of $V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})$. By Claim \[Around-deg3\](ii), we see $$w_2 \notin V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}) \ \mbox{but} \ w_2 \in V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}[V']).$$ We can also see that $x_1, x_2 \notin V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}[V'])$. Moreover, since removing $v'$ does not decrease the degrees of the vertices of $V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}) \setminus \{ v', w_2, x_1, x_2 \}$, we can see $V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}[V']) \setminus \{ v', w_2, x_1, x_2 \} = V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}) \setminus \{ v', w_2, x_1, x_2 \}$. Hence, we obtain $$|V_3(\Lambda_u^{+}[V'])| = |V_3(\Lambda_u^{+})| +1 -3 ,$$ which is in turn equal to $|V_3(\Lambda)| - 2$ by Claim \[Around-deg3\](i). This again contradicts the assumption that $\Lambda_u^{+}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. Suppose $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) = 3$ and that there exists a vertex $u \in V_3(\Lambda)$ such that $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$ contains an edge, then there exists a finite graph $\Gamma$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Gamma)$, though $\Lambda \not\leq \Gamma$. \[Anti-deg-3-incomplete\] Pick a vertex $u \in V_3(\Lambda)$ such that the link $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$ contains an edge, and two vertices $w_1, w_2$ of $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$ with $[w_1, w_2] \in E(\Lambda)$. Consider $\Lambda_u^{-} = \Lambda_u^{-}(w_1, w_2)$. Then we have $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(\Lambda_u^{-})$ by Lemma \[Heteromorphic\_lemma\]. So we have only to prove $\Lambda \not\leq \Lambda_u^{-}$. To this end, we first see the following. The following hold. 1. $| \mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda_u^{-})| = 2$. 2. $E(\mathrm{Lk}(v, \Lambda_u^{-})) = \{ [w_1, w_2] \} $. 3. For each element $x$ of $V_3(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{ u, v \}$, we have $ x \in V_3(\Lambda)$ and $$\ |E(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{-}))| \leq |E(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda))| .$$ \[the-number-edges\] \(i) Use the assumption that $\mathrm{deg}(u, \Lambda) = 3$ and Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](1). \(ii) Note that $\mathrm{Lk}(v, \Lambda_u^{-}) = \{ u, w_1, w_2 \}$. By the assumption, $[w_1, w_2]$ is an edge of $\Lambda$, and so this is an edge of $\Lambda_u^{-}$. However, $[u, w_1], [u, w_2]$ are not edges in $\Lambda_u^{-}$. \(iii) Let $x$ be an element of $V_3(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{ u, v \}$. Then by Lemma \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](1), we have $\mathrm{deg}(x, \Lambda) = 3$. Suppose $x = w_1$. Then by the assumption that $[w_1, w_2]$ is an edge in $\Lambda$, we have $V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda)) = \{ u, w_2 , y \}$ and $V(\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{-})) = \{ v, w_2, y \}$, where $y$ is a vertex of $\Lambda_1 = \Lambda [V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ w_1, u , w_2 \}]$ (see Figure \[b\]). Note that $[u, w_2]$ is an edge and $[u, y], [w_2, y]$ are possible edges in the link $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda)$. On the other hand, $[v, w_2]$ is an edge and only $[w_2, y]$ is a possible edge ($v$ and $y$ do not span an edge) in the link $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{-})$. Hence, in case $x = w_1$, (iii) holds. The case $x = w_2$ can be treated similarly. Suppose that $x$ is contained in $V(\Lambda_1) = V(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{w_1, u, v, w_2 \}$. Then since $x$ and $v$ are not adjacent, $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{-})$ is contained in the full subgraph $\Lambda_u^{-}[V(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{ v \}]$. However, since $\Lambda_u^{-}[V(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{ v \}]$ is obtained from $\Lambda$ by removing the two edges $[u, w_1]$ and $[u, w_2]$, the number of the edges of $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda_u^{-})$ is not more than that of $\mathrm{Lk}(x, \Lambda)$. Thus, in any case, (iii) holds. Now suppose to the contrary that $\Lambda \leq \Lambda_u^{-}$. Then there exists a subset $V' \subset V(\Lambda_u^{-})$ such that $\Lambda_u^{-}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. [**Case 1.**]{} The link $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$ is complete. To treat this case we prepare a notation. For a graph $\Gamma$, set $V_3^k(\Gamma):= \{ v \in V_3(\Gamma) | \ \mathrm{Lk}(v, \Gamma) \cong K_3 \}$. We first show $|V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-})| \leq |V_3^k(\Lambda)| - 1$ to obtain a contradiction. Note that $V(\Lambda_u^{-}) = (V(\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \}) \sqcup \{ u, v \}$. By Claim \[the-number-edges\](i) and (ii), we have $u, v \notin V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-})$. Hence, $V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-}) = V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{ u, v\}$. On the other hand, Claim \[the-number-edges\](iii) implies $V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-}) \setminus \{ u, v \} \subset V_3^k(\Lambda)$. Thus we obtain $V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-}) \subset V_3^k(\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \}$, where $u \in V_3^k(\Lambda)$. So we have $$\begin{aligned} |V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-})| & \leq |V_3^k(\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \}| \\ & = |V_3^k(\Lambda)| - 1. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda_u^{-}) = 3$ and $\Lambda_u^{-}[V']$ is a proper subgraph of $\Lambda_u^{-}$, we have $|V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-}[V'])| \leq |V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-})|$ (cf.  the proof of Claim \[empty\_number\](ii)). Thus $|V_3^k(\Lambda_u^{-}[V'])| \leq |V_3^k (\Lambda_u^{-})| \leq |V_3^k (\Lambda)| - 1$, and this contradicts $\Lambda_u^{-}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. [**Case 2.**]{} The link $\mathrm{Lk}(u, \Lambda)$ is not complete. Then, we may assume that $w_1$ and $w_2$ do not span an edge in $\Lambda$, so they do not in $\Lambda_u^{-}$. Then we can see that 1. the link $\mathrm{Lk}(v, \Lambda_u^{-})$ contains no edges. Now, for a finite graph $\Gamma$, set $V_3^{*}(\Gamma):= \{ v \in V_3(\Gamma) | \ \mathrm{Lk}(v, \Gamma) \not\cong K_3^c \}$. Observe that the following hold by Claim \[the-number-edges\](i), (iii) and the above (ii$'$). 1. $V_3^{*}(\Lambda_u^{-}) \subset V_3^{*}(\Lambda) \setminus \{ u \}$ and $u \in V_3^{*}(\Lambda)$. 2. $|V_3^{*}(\Lambda_u^{-}[V'])| \leq |V_3^{*}(\Lambda_u^{-})|$. Hence, we have $|V_3^{*}(\Lambda_u^{-}[V'])| \leq |V_3^{*}(\Lambda_u^{-})| \leq |V_3^{*}(\Lambda)| - 1$, which contradicts $\Lambda_u^{-}[V'] \cong \Lambda$. Thus in both case $\Lambda \not\leq \Lambda_u^{-}$ holds. Propositions \[Anti-deg-2\], \[Anti-deg-4\], \[Anti-deg-3-complete\] and \[Anti-deg-3-incomplete\]. Next, we prove Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\]. Let $T$ be a finite tree such that $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(T) \geq 4$. Then there exists a finite tree $T'$ such that $G(T) \hookrightarrow G(T')$ and that $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(T') \leq 3$ and $|T'| \leq 2|T| - 4.$ \[Anti-degree-3\] For a finite tree $\Lambda$, set $m(\Lambda) := \Sigma_{v \in V(\Lambda)} (\mathrm{max} \{ \mathrm{deg}(v, \Lambda) - 3, 0 \})$. Then $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \geq 4$ if and only if $m(\Lambda) > 0$. Let $T$ be a finite tree such that $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(T) \geq 4$, namely $m(T) > 0$. Then by applying Lemmas \[Computation\_anti\_degree\](1) and \[Heteromorphic\_lemma\] to a vertex $u$ of $T$ with $\mathrm{deg}(u, T) \geq 4$, we obtain a finite tree $T^*$ such that $$|T^*| = |T|+ 1, \ m(T^*) = m(T) -1, \ G(T) \hookrightarrow G(T^*) .$$ Hence, by repeating this argument, we obtain a finite tree $T'$ such that $$|T'| = |T|+ m(T), \ m(T') = 0 \ (\mbox{in particular, } \mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(T') = 3), \ G(T) \hookrightarrow G(T').$$ In the remainder, we show $m(T) \leq |T| - 4$. Pick a vertex $v_0$ of $T$ with $\mathrm{deg}(v_0, T) \geq 4$ and let $T_0$ be a sub-tree of $\mathrm{St}(v_0, T)$, induced by $v_0$ and three vertices adjacent to $v_0$. Note that $|T_0| - 4 = 1 = m(T_0)$. The tree $T$ is obtained from $T$ by successively adding $|T| - 4$ edges to $T_0$. Since each added edge contributes to the number $m (\cdot)$ at most by $1$, we have the desired inequality $m(T) \leq |T| - 4$. Suppose that $\Lambda$ is a finite graph. In the case where $\Lambda$ is a tree of maximum degree $\leq 3$, the assertion is trivial. If $\Lambda$ is a tree of maximum degree $>3$, then we obtain the desired result by Proposition \[Anti-degree-3\]. Hence, we may assume that $\Lambda$ is not a tree. Then by Theorem \[Anti-trees-theorem\] due to Lee-Lee [@Lee-Lee], there exists a finite tree $T$ such that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(T)$ and that $|T| \leq |\Lambda| \cdot 2^{(|\Lambda| -1)}$. We now use Proposition \[Anti-degree-3\]. Then the resulting finite tree $T'$ satisfies the desired property. Further discussions \[final\] ============================= In this section, we first discuss the following question due to S. Lee [@Lee]. For any graph $\Lambda$, is it possible that $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ for some $n$? \[question-anti-lines\] If $\Lambda$ satisfies $\mathrm{deg}_{\mathrm{max}}(\Lambda) \leq 2$, then $G(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ for some $n$ by Kim-Koberda’s theorem [@Kim-Koberda-2 Theorem 3.5] or Lee-Lee’s theorem (Theorem \[Anti-trees-theorem\]). By this fact and Theorem \[Anti-trees-deg3\], the above Question \[question-anti-lines\] is reduced to the case when $\Lambda$ is a finite tree $T$ of maximum degree $3$. By using subdivision technique (see Lemma \[Complementary-subdivision\]), we can further reduce Question \[question-anti-lines\] to the case when $\Lambda = T$ satisfies the following condition. 1. $\forall u \in V_3(T)$, $V(\mathrm{Lk}(u, T)) \subset V_2(T)$. This condition says that $T$ is locally as illustrated in Figure \[d\](1). So, I would like to propose the following question. For a finite tree $T$ satisfying the condition (C), does $G(T)$ embed into $G(P_n)$ for some $n$? In particular, is it possible that $G(T_0) \hookrightarrow G(P_n)$ for the tree $T_0$ in Figure \[d\](2) and some $n$? ![ (1) A local picture of a tree $T$ satisfying the condition (C). (2) The graph $T_0$. []{data-label="d"}](./local_picture_T_0.pdf) We next discuss relation between Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\] and the following two known combinatorial tests for embedding RAAGs into mapping class groups. 1. The colouring test: Kim and Koberda [@Kim-Koberda-3] proved that there exists a finite number $M$ (which depends on $\Sigma_{g, n}$) such that for any finite graph $\Lambda$ with $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, the chromatic number of $\Lambda$ does not exceed $M$. Note that this $M$ must be greater than or equal to the chromatic number of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$. 2. The “nested complexity length" test: Bering IV, Conant and Gaster [@Bering-Conant-Gaster], introduced the “nested complexity length" of a graph and proved that for any finite graph $\Lambda$ with $A(\Lambda) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, the “nested complexity length" of $\Lambda$ does not exceed $6g -6 + 2n$. By using Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\], we prove the following proposition which shows that there exist RAAGs which cannot be embedded into $\mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, though they pass the above colouring and nested complexity length tests. For any pair $(g, n)$ with $2 - 2g - n <0$, there exists a finite graph $\Lambda$ such that $A(\Lambda)$ cannot be embedded into $\mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$, though the chromatic number of $\Lambda$ is not more than that of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ and the nested complexity length of $\Lambda$ is not more than that of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$. \[two\_obst\] To prove this, we prepare the following lemma. Let $K_{r}(2)$ be the complete $r$-partite graph of order $2$ (i.e., the complement of the disjoint union of $r$ copies of $P_2$). Then $A(K_{r}(2)) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ if and only if $r \leq g + \lfloor \frac{g + n}{2} \rfloor -1$. \[r-partite\] By [@Bering-Conant-Gaster Lemma 30], $K_{r}(2) \leq \mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ if and only if $r \leq g + \lfloor \frac{g + n}{2} \rfloor -1$. Hence, we obtain the desired result by using Koberda’s embedding theorem and Corollary \[mapping-class-groups\]. For $r= g + \lfloor \frac{g + n}{2} \rfloor$, $A(K_r(2))$ cannot be embedded into $\mathcal{M}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ by Lemma \[r-partite\]. However, as in the proof of [@Bering-Conant-Gaster Corollary 16], we can easily see that the chromatic number (resp. the nested complexity length) of $K_{r}(2)$ is equal to $r$ (resp.  $2r$) and the chromatic number (resp. the nested complexity length) of $\mathcal{C}(\Sigma_{g,n})$ is not less than $3g - 3 + n$ (resp.  $6g- 6 + 2n$). Set $\Lambda:= K_r(2)$. Acknowledgement =============== The author thanks my supervisor, Makoto Sakuma for carefully reading the first draft and suggesting a number of improvements. The author also thanks Erika Kuno for giving him helpful comments and telling him a question on embeddings of RAAGs into mapping class groups [@Kim-Koberda-3 Question 1.1]. Moreover, the author owes Proposition \[two\_obst\] to Thomas Koberda who informed the author of the paper due to Bering IV, Conant and Gaster [@Bering-Conant-Gaster]. [99]{} I. Agol, ‘The virtual Haken conjecture’, [*Doc. Math.*]{} 18 (2013) 1045–1087. E. Bering IV, G. Conant, J. Gaster, ‘On the complexity of finite subgraphs of the curve graph’, preprint (2016), available at arXiv:1609.02548. J. Birman, A. Lubotzky, J. McCarthy, ‘Abelian and solvable subgroups of the mapping class groups’, [*Duke Math. J.*]{} 50 (1983) 1107–1120. M. Casals-Ruiz, ‘Embeddability and universal equivalence of partially commutative groups’, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} (2015) 13575–13622. M. Casals-Ruiz, A. Duncan, I. Kazachkov, ‘Embedddings between partially commutative groups: two counterexamples’, [*J. Algebra*]{} 390 (2013) 87–99. R. Charney, K. Vogtmann, ‘Finiteness properties of automorphism groups of right-angled Artin groups’, [*Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.*]{} 41 (2009) 94–102. J. Crisp, M. Sageev, M. Sapir, ‘Surface subgroups of right-angled Artin groups’, [*Internat. J. Algebra Comput.* ]{} 18 (2008) 443–491. C. Droms, ‘Graph groups, coherence, and three-manifolds’, [*J. Algebra*]{}, 106 (1987) 484–489. S. Kim, ‘Co-contractions of graphs and right-angled Artin groups ’, [*Algebr. Geom. Topol.*]{} 8 (2008) 849–868. S. Kim, T. Koberda, ‘Embedability between right-angled Artin groups’, [*Geom. Topol.*]{} 17 (2013) 493–530. S. Kim, T. Koberda, ‘An obstruction to embedding right-angled Artin groups in mapping class groups’, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} 2014 (2014) 3912–3918. S. Kim, T. Koberda, ‘Anti-trees and right-angled Artin subgroups of braid groups’, [*Geom. Topol.*]{} 19 (2015) 3289–3306. T. Koberda, ‘Right-angled Artin groups and a generalized isomorphism problem for finitely generated subgroups of mapping class groups’, [*Geom. Funct. Anal.*]{} 22 (2012) 1541–1590. E. Lee, S. Lee, ‘Path lifting properties and embedding between RAAGs’, [*J. Algebra*]{} 448 (2016) 575–594. S. Lee, Talk at the conference ‘The 11th East Asian School of Knots and Related Topics’, January 28 (2016). D. Wise, ‘The structure of groups with a quasiconvex hierarchy’, preprint (2011), available at http://www.math.mcgill.ca/wise/papers.html. [^1]:

ArXiv

--- abstract: | The $\ell$-component connectivity (or $\ell$-connectivity for short) of a graph $G$, denoted by $\kappa_\ell(G)$, is the minimum number of vertices whose removal from $G$ results in a disconnected graph with at least $\ell$ components or a graph with fewer than $\ell$ vertices. This generalization is a natural extension of the classical connectivity defined in term of minimum vertex-cut. As an application, the $\ell$-connectivity can be used to assess the vulnerability of a graph corresponding to the underlying topology of an interconnection network, and thus is an important issue for reliability and fault tolerance of the network. So far, only a little knowledge of results have been known on $\ell$-connectivity for particular classes of graphs and small $\ell$’s. In a previous work, we studied the $\ell$-connectivity on $n$-dimensional alternating group networks $AN_n$ and obtained the result $\kappa_3(AN_n)=2n-3$ for $n\geqslant 4$. In this sequel, we continue the work and show that $\kappa_4(AN_n)=3n-6$ for $n\geqslant 4$. 0.2in [**Keyword:**]{} Interconnection networks, Graph connectivity, Generalized graph connectivity, Component connectivity, Alternating group networks author: - | Jou-Ming Chang$^{1,}$[^1] Kung-Jui Pai$^{2}$ Ro-Yu Wu$^{3}$ Jinn-Shyong Yang$^{4}$\ \ [$^1$ Institute of Information and Decision Sciences,]{}\ [National Taipei University of Business, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC]{}\ [$^2$ Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,]{}\ [Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC]{}\ [$^3$ Department of Industrial Management,]{}\ [Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taoyuan, Taiwan, ROC]{}\ [$^4$ Department of Information Management,]{}\ [National Taipei University of Business, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC]{}\ title: '**The 4-Component Connectivity of Alternating Group Networks[^2]** ' --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ As usual, the underlying topology of an interconnection network is modeled by a connected graph $G=(V,E)$, where $V(=V(G))$ is the set of processors and $E(=E(G))$ is the set of communication links between processors. A subgraph obtained from $G$ by removing a set $F$ of vertices is denoted by $G-F$. A *separating set* (or *vertex-cut*) of a connected graph $G$ is a set $F$ of vertices whose removal renders $G-F$ to become disconnected. If $G$ is not a complete graph, the *connectivity* $\kappa(G)$ is the cardinality of a minimum separating set of $G$. By convention, the connectivity of a complete graph with $n$ vertices is defined to be $n-1$. A graph $G$ is *$n$-connected* if $\kappa(G)\geqslant n$. The connectivity is an important topic in graph theory. In particular, it plays a key role in applications related to the modern interconnection networks, e.g., $\kappa(G)$ can be used to assess the vulnerability of the corresponding network, and is an important measurement for reliability and fault tolerance of the network [@Xu-2001]. However, to further analyze the detailed situation of the disconnected network caused by a separating set, it is natural to generalize the classical connectivity by introducing some conditions or restrictions on the separating set $F$ and/or the components of $G-F$ [@Harary-1983]. The most basic consideration is the number of components associated with the disconnected network. To figure out what kind of separating sets and/or how many sizes of a separating set can result in a disconnected network with a certain number of components, Chartrand et al. [@Chart-1984] proposed a generalization of connectivity with respect to separating set for making a more thorough study. In this paper, we follow this direction to investigate such kind of generalized connectivity on a class of interconnection networks called alternating group networks (defined later in Section \[sec:Background\]). For an integer $\ell\geqslant 2$, the *generalized $\ell$-connectivity* of a graph $G$, denoted by $\kappa_\ell(G)$, is the minimum number of vertices whose removal from $G$ results in a disconnected graph with at least $\ell$ components or a graph with fewer than $\ell$ vertices. A graph $G$ is *$(n,\ell)$-connected* if $\kappa_\ell(G)\geqslant n$. A synonym for such a generalization was also called the *general connectivity* by Sampathkumar [@Sampathkumar-1984] or *$\ell$-component connectivity* (*$\ell$-connectivity* for short) by Hsu et al. [@Hsu-2012], Cheng et al. [@Eddie-2014; @Eddie-2015; @Eddie-2017] and Zhao et al. [@Zhao-2016]. Hereafter, we follow the use of the terminology of Hsu et al. Obviously, $\kappa_2(G)=\kappa(G)$. Similarly, for an integer $\ell\geqslant 2$, the *generalized $\ell$-edge-connectivity* (*$\ell$-edge-connectivity* for short) $\lambda_\ell(G)$, which was introduced by Boesch and Chen [@Boesch-1978], is defined to be the smallest number of edges whose removal leaves a graph with at least $\ell$ components if $|V(G)|\geqslant\ell$, and $\lambda_\ell(G)=|V(G)|$ if $|V(G)|<\ell$. In addition, many problems related to networks on faulty edges haven been considered in [@Hen-2003; @Hsi-2004; @Hsi-2001; @Pan-2003]. The notion of $\ell$-connectivity is concerned with the relevance of the cardinality of a minimum vertex-cut and the number of components caused by the vertex-cut, which is a good measure of robustness of interconnection networks. Accordingly, this generalization is called the *cut-version* definition of generalized connectivity. We note that there are other diverse generalizations of connectivity in the literature, e.g., Hager [@Hager-1985] gave the so-called *path-version* definition of generalized connectivity, which is defined from the view point of Menger’s Theorem. Recently, Sun and Li [@Sun-2017] gave sharp bounds of the difference between the two versions of generalized connectivities. For research results on $\ell$-connectivity of graphs, the reader can refer to [@Chart-1984; @Day-1991; @Day-1999; @Eddie-2014; @Eddie-2015; @Eddie-2017; @Hsu-2012; @Oellermann-1987-A; @Oellermann-1987-B; @Sampathkumar-1984; @Zhao-2016]. At the early stage, the main work focused on establishing sufficient conditions for graphs to be $(n,\ell)$-connected, (e.g., see [@Chart-1984; @Sampathkumar-1984; @Oellermann-1987-A]). Also, several sharp bounds of $\ell$-connectivity related to other graph parameters can be found in [@Sampathkumar-1984; @Day-1999]. In addition, for a graph $G$ and an integer $k\in[0,\kappa_\ell(G)]$, a function called *$\ell$-connectivity function* is defined to be the minimum $\ell$-edge-connectivity among all subgraphs of $G$ obtained by removing $k$ vertices from $G$, and several properties of this function was investigated in [@Day-1991; @Oellermann-1987-B]. By contrast, finding $\ell$-connectivity for certain interconnection networks is a new trend of research at present. So far, the exact values of $\ell$-connectivity are known only for a few classes of networks, in particular, only for small $\ell$’s. For example, $\kappa_\ell(G)$ is determined on the $n$-dimensional hypercube for $\ell\in[2,n+1]$ (see [@Hsu-2012]) and $\ell\in[n+2,2n-4]$ (see [@Zhao-2016]), the $n$-dimensional hierarchical cubic network (see [@Eddie-2014]), the $n$-dimensional complete cubic network (see [@Eddie-2015]), and the generalized exchanged hypercube $GEH(s,t)$ for $1\leqslant s\leqslant t$ and $\ell\in[2,s+1]$ (see [@Eddie-2017]). However, determining $\ell$-connectivity is still unsolved for most interconnection networks. As a matter of fact, it has been pointed out in [@Hsu-2012] that, unlike the hypercube, the results of the well-known interconnection networks such as the star graphs [@Akers-1987] and the alternating group graphs [@Jwo-1993] are still unknown. Recently, we studied two types of generalized 3-connectivities (i.e., the cut-version and the path-version of the generalized connectivities as mentioned before) in the $n$-dimensional alternating group network $AN_n$, which was introduced by Ji [@Ji-1998] to serve as an interconnection network topology for computing systems. In [@Chang-2017], we already determined the 3-component connectivity $\kappa_3(AN_n)=2n-3$ for $n\geqslant 4$. In this sequel, we continue the work and show the following result. \[thm:main\] For $n\geqslant 4$, $\kappa_4(AN_n)=3n-6$. Background of alternating group networks {#sec:Background} ======================================== Let ${\mathbb Z}_n=\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ and $A_n$ denote the set of all even permutations over ${\mathbb Z}_n$. For $n\geqslant 3$, the *$n$-dimensional alternating group network*, denoted by $AN_n$, is a graph with the vertex set of even permutations (i.e., $V(AN_n)=A_n$), and two vertices $p=(p_1p_2\cdots p_n)$ and $q=(q_1q_2\cdots q_n)$ are adjacent if and only if one of the following three conditions holds [@Ji-1998]: : \(i) $p_1=q_2$, $p_2=q_3$, $p_3=q_1$, and $p_j=q_j$ for $j\in{\mathbb Z}_n\setminus\{1,2,3\}$. : \(ii) $p_1=q_3$, $p_2=q_1$, $p_3=q_2$, and $p_j=q_j$ for $j\in{\mathbb Z}_n\setminus\{1,2,3\}$. : \(iii) There exists an $i\in\{4,5,\ldots,n\}$ such that $p_1=q_2$, $p_2=q_1$, $p_3=q_i$, $p_i=q_3$, and $p_j=q_j$ for $j\in{\mathbb Z}_n\setminus\{1,2,3,i\}$. The basic properties of $AN_n$ are known as follows. $AN_n$ contains $n!/2$ vertices and $n!(n-1)/4$ edges, which is a vertex-symmetric and $(n-1)$-regular graph with diameter $\lceil 3n/2\rceil-3$ and connectivity $n-1$. For $n\geqslant 3$ and $i\in{\mathbb Z}_n$, let $AN_n^i$ be the subnetwork of $AN_n$ induced by vertices with the rightmost symbol $i$ in its permutation. It is clear that $AN_n^i$ is isomorphic to $AN_{n-1}$. In fact, $AN_n$ has a recursive structure, which can be constructed from $n$ disjoint copies $AN_n^i$ for $i\in{\mathbb Z}_n$ such that, for any two subnetworks $AN_n^i$ and $AN_n^j$, $i,j\in{\mathbb Z}_n$ and $i\ne j$, there exist $(n-2)!/2$ edges between them. Fig. \[fig:AN5\] depicts $AN_5$, where each part of shadows indicates a subnetwork isomorphic to $AN_4$. ![Alternating group network $AN_5$.[]{data-label="fig:AN5"}](AN5.pdf){width="95.00000%"} A path (resp., cycle) of length $k$ is called a *$k$-path* (resp., *$k$-cycle*). For notational convenience, if a vertex $x$ belongs to a subnetwork $AN_n^i$, we simply write $x\in AN_n^i$ instead of $x\in V(AN_n^i)$. The disjoint union of two subnetworks $AN_n^i$ and $AN_n^j$ is denoted by $AN_n^i\cup AN_n^j$. The subgraph obtained from $AN_n$ by removing a set $F$ of vertices is denoted by $AN_n-F$. An edge $(x,y)\in E(AN_n)$ with two end vertices $x\in AN_n^i$ and $y\in AN_n^j$ for $i\ne j$ is called an *external edges* between $AN_n^i$ and $AN_n^j$. In this case, $x$ and $y$ are called *out-neighbors* to each other. By contrast, edges joining vertices in the same subnetwork are called *internal edges*, and the two adjacent vertices are called *in-neighbors* to each other. By definition, it is easy to check that every vertex of $AN_n$ has $n-2$ in-neighbors and exactly one out-neighbor. Hereafter, for a vertex $x\in AN_n$, we use $N(x)$ to denote the set of in-neighbors of $x$, and $\text{out}(x)$ the unique out-neighbor of $x$. Moreover, if $H$ is a subgraph of $AN_n^i$, we define $N(H)=(\bigcup_{x\in V(H)} N(x))\setminus V(H)$ as the *in-neighborhood* of $H$, i.e., the set composed of all in-neighbors of those vertices in $H$ except for those belong to $H$. In what follow, we shall present some properties of $AN_n$, which will be used later. For more properties on alternating group networks, we refer to [@Chen-2006; @Hao-2012; @Ji-1998; @Zhou-2010; @Zhou-2009]. \[lm:basic\] [(see [@Hao-2012; @Zhou-2010; @Zhou-2009])]{} For $AN_n$ with $n\geqslant 4$ and $i,j\in{\mathbb Z}_n$ with $i\ne j$, the following holds: [(1)]{} $AN_n$ has no $4$-cycle and $5$-cycle. [(2)]{} Any two distinct vertices of $AN_n^i$ have different out-neighbors in $AN_n-V(AN_n^i)$. [(3)]{} There are exactly $(n-2)!/2$ edges between $AN_n^i$ and $AN_n^j$. \[lm:subgraphs\] For $n\geqslant 6$ and $i\in{\mathbb Z}_n$, let $H$ be a connected induced subgraph of $AN_n^i$. Then, the following properties hold: [(1)]{} If $|V(H)|=3$, then $H$ is a $3$-cycle or a $2$-path. Moreover, if $H$ is a $3$-cycle [(]{}resp., a $2$-path[)]{}, then $|N(H)|=3n-12$ [(]{}resp., $3n-11\leqslant |N(H)|\leqslant 3n-10$[)]{}. [(2)]{} If $4\leqslant|V(H)|<(n-1)!/4$, then $|N(H)|\geqslant 4n-16$. The two properties can easily be proved by induction on $n$. Now, we only verify the subgraph $H$ in Fig. \[fig:AN5\] for the basis case $n=6$. Recall that every vertex has $n-2$ in-neighbors in $AN_n^i$. For (1), the result of 3-cycle is clear. If $H$ is a 2-path, at most two adjacent vertices in $H$ can share a common in-neighbor, it follows the $3n-11\leqslant|N(H)|\leqslant 3n-10$. For (2), the condition $|V(H)|<(n-1)!/4$ means that the number of vertices in $H$ cannot exceed a half of those in $AN_n^i$. In particular, if $|V(H)|=4$, then $H$ is either a claw (i.e., $K_{1,3}$), a paw (i.e., $K_{1,3}$ plus an edge), or a $3$-path. Moreover, if $H$ is a paw, a claw or a 3-path, then no two adjacent vertices, at most one pair of adjacent vertices, or at most two pair of adjacent vertices in $H$ can share a common in-neighbor, respectively. This shows that $|N(H)|=4n-16$ when $H$ is a paw, $4n-15\leqslant|N(H)|\leqslant 4n-14$ when $H$ is a claw, and $4n-16\leqslant|N(H)|\leqslant 4n-14$ when $H$ is a 3-path. Also, if $4<|V(H)|<(n-1)!/4$, it is clear that $|N(H)|>4n-16$. For designing a reliable probabilistic network, Bauer et al. [@Bauer-1981] first introduced the notion of super connectedness. A regular graph is (*loosely*) *super-connected* if its only minimum vertex-cuts are those induced by the neighbors of a vertex, i.e., a minimum vertex-cut is the set of neighbors of a single vertex. If, in addition, the deletion of a minimum vertex-cut results in a graph with two components and one of which is a singleton, then the graph is *tightly super-connected*. More accurately, a graph is *tightly $k$-super-connected* provided it is tightly super-connected and the cardinality of a minimum vertex-cut is equal to $k$. Zhou and Xiao [@Zhou-2010] pointed out that $AN_3$ and $AN_4$ are not super-connected, and showed that $AN_n$ for $n\geqslant 5$ is tightly $(n-1)$-super-connected. Moreover, to evaluate the size of the connected components of $AN_n$ with a set of faulty vertices, Zhou and Xiao gave the following properties. \[lm:two-components\] [(see [@Zhou-2010])]{} For $n\geqslant 5$, if $F$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n$ with $|F|\leqslant 2n-5$, then one of the following conditions holds: [(1)]{} $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is a trivial component [(]{}i.e., a singleton[)]{}. [(2)]{} $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is an edge, say $(u,v)$. In particular, if $|F|=2n-5$, $F$ is composed of all neighbors of $u$ and $v$, excluding $u$ and $v$. \[lm:three-components\] [(see [@Zhou-2010])]{} For $n\geqslant 5$, if $F$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n$ with $|F|\leqslant 3n-10$, then one of the following conditions holds: [(1)]{} $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is either a singleton or an edge. [(2)]{} $AN_n-F$ has three components, two of which are singletons. Through a more detailed analysis, Chang et al. [@Chang-2017] recently obtained a slight extension of the result of Lemma \[lm:two-components\] as follows. \[lm:two-components-improved\] [(see [@Chang-2017])]{} Let $F$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n$ with $|F|\leqslant 2n-4$. Then, the following conditions hold: [(1)]{} If $n=4$, then $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is a singleton, an edge, a $3$-cycle, a $2$-path, or a paw. [(2)]{} If $n=5$, then $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is a singleton, an edge, or a $3$-cycle. [(3)]{} If $n\geqslant 6$, then $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is either a singleton or an edge. The 4-component connectivity of $AN_n$ {#sec:Cut} ====================================== Since $AN_3$ is a 3-cycle, by definition, it is clear that $\kappa_4(AN_3)=1$. Also, in the process of the drawing of Fig. \[fig:AN5\], we found by a brute-force checking that the removal of no more than five vertices in $AN_4$ (resp., eight vertices in $AN_5$) results in a graph that is either connected or contains at most three components. Thus, the following lemma establishes the lower bound of $\kappa_4(AN_n)$ for $n=4,5$. \[lm:n4n5\] $\kappa_4(AN_4)\geqslant 6$ and $\kappa_4(AN_5)\geqslant 9$. \[lm:lower-bound\] For $n\geqslant 6$, $\kappa_4(AN_n)\geqslant 3n-6$. Let $F$ be any vertex-cut in $AN_n$ such that $|F|\leqslant 3n-7$. For convenience, vertices in $F$ (resp., not in $F$) are called faulty vertices (resp., fault-free vertices). By Lemma \[lm:three-components\], if $|F|\leqslant 3n-10$, then $AN_n-F$ contains at most three components. To complete the proof, we need to show that the same result holds for $3n-9\leqslant|F|\leqslant 3n-7$. Let $F_i=F\cap V(AN_n^i)$ and $f_i=|F_i|$ for each $i\in{\mathbb Z}_n$. We claim that there exists some subnetwork, say $AN_n^i$, such that it contains $f_i\geqslant n-2$ faulty vertices. Since $3(n-2)>3n-7\geqslant|F|$, if it is so, then there are at most two such subnetworks. Suppose not, i.e., every subnetwork $AN_n^j$ for $j\in{\mathbb Z}_n$ has $f_j\leqslant n-3$ faulty vertices. Since $AN_n^j$ is $(n-2)$-connected, $AN_n^j-F_j$ remains connected for each $j\in{\mathbb Z}_n$. Recall the property (3) of Lemma \[lm:basic\] that there are $(n-2)!/2$ independent edges between $AN_n^i$ and $AN_n^j$ for each pair $i,j\in {\mathbb Z}_n$ with $i\ne j$. Since $(n-2)!/2>2(n-3)\geqslant f_i+f_j$ for $n\geqslant 6$, it guarantees that the two subgraphs $AN_n^i-F_i$ and $AN_n^j-F_j$ are connected by an external edge in $AN_n-F$. Thus, $AN_n-F$ is connected, and this contradicts to the fact that $F$ is a vertex-cut in $AN_n$. Moreover, for such subnetworks, it is sure that some of $F_i$ must be a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$. Otherwise, $AN_n-F$ is connected, a contradiction. We now consider the following two cases: [**Case 1**]{}: There is exactly one such subnetwork, say $AN_n^i$, such that it contains $f_i\geqslant n-2$ faulty vertices. In this case, we have $f_j\leqslant n-3$ for all $j\in{\mathbb Z}_n\setminus\{i\}$ and $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$. Let $H$ be the subgraph of $AN_n$ induced by the fault-free vertices outside $AN_n^i$, i.e., $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup F)$. Since every subnetwork $AN_n^j$ in $H$ has $f_j\leqslant n-3$ faulty vertices, from the previous argument it is sure that $H$ is connected. We denote by $C$ the component of $AN_n-F$ that contains $H$ as its subgraph, and let $f=|F|-f_i$ be the number of faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. Since $3n-7\geqslant|F|\geqslant f_i\geqslant n-2$, we have $0\leqslant f\leqslant 2n-5$. Consider the following scenarios: [**Case 1.1**]{}: $f=0$. In this case, there are no faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. That is, $H=AN_n-V(AN_n^i)$. Indeed, this case is impossible because if it is the case, then every vertex of $AN_n^i-F_i$ has the fault-free out-neighbor in $H$. Thus, $AN_n^i-F_i$ belongs to $C$, and it follows that $AN_n-F$ is connected, a contradiction. [**Case 1.2**]{}: $f=1$. Let $u\in F\setminus F_i$ be the unique faulty vertex outside $AN_n^i$. That is, $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup\{u\})$. Since $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$, we assume that $AN_n^i-F_i$ is divided into $k$ disjoint connected components, say $C_1,C_2,\ldots, C_k$. For each $j\in{\mathbb Z}_k$, if $|C_j|\geqslant 2$, then there is at least one vertex of $C_j$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. We now consider a component that is a singleton, say $C_j=\{v\}$. If $\text{out}(v)\ne u$, then $\text{out}(v)$ must be contained in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. Clearly, there exists at most one component $C_j=\{v\}$ such that $\text{out}(v)=u$. In this case, $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components $\{v\}$ and $C$. [**Case 1.3**]{}: $f=2$. Let $u_1,u_2\in F\setminus F_i$ be the two faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. That is, $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup\{u_1,u_2\})$. Since $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$, we assume that $AN_n^i-F_i$ is divided into $k$ disjoint connected components, say $C_1,C_2,\ldots, C_k$. For each $j\in{\mathbb Z}_k$, if $|C_j|\geqslant 3$, then there is at least one vertex of $C_j$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. We now consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=2$, i.e., $C_j$ is an edge, say $(v,w)$. By the property (2) of Lemma \[lm:basic\], we have $\text{out}(v)\ne\text{out}(w)$. If $\{\text{out}(v),\text{out}(w)\}\ne\{u_1,u_2\}$, then at least one of $\text{out}(v)$ and $\text{out}(w)$ must be contained in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. Since $(3n-7)-2\geqslant f_i=|F|-f\geqslant (3n-9)-2$ and $(v,w)$ has $2n-6$ in-neighbors (not including $v$ and $w$) in $AN_n^i$, we have $2n-6<f_i<2(2n-6)$ for $n\geqslant 6$. Thus, there exists at most one such component $C_j=\{(v,w)\}$ such that $\{\text{out}(v),\text{out}(w)\}=\{u_1,u_2\}$. If it is the case of existence, then $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components $\{(v,w)\}$ and $C$. Finally, we consider a component that is a singleton. Since $3n-9\leqslant f_i\leqslant 3n-11$ and every vertex has degree $n-2$ in $AN_n^i$, we have $n-2<f_i<3(n-2)$ for $n\geqslant 6$. Thus, at most two such components exist in $AN_n^i-F_i$, say $C_j=\{v\}$ and $C_{j'}=\{w\}$ where $j,j'\in{\mathbb Z}_k$. If $\text{out}(v),\text{out}(w)\notin\{u_1,u_2\}$, then both $\text{out}(v)$ and $\text{out}(w)$ must be contained in $H$, and thus $C_j$ and $C_{j'}$ belong to $C$. Also, if either $\text{out}(v)\notin\{u_1,u_2\}$ or $\text{out}(w)\notin\{u_1,u_2\}$, then $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components, one of which is a singleton $\{v\}$ or $\{w\}$. Finally, if $\{\text{out}(v),\text{out}(w)\}=\{u_1,u_2\}$, then $AN_n-F$ has exactly three components, two of which are singletons $\{v\}$ and $\{w\}$. [**Case 1.4**]{}: $f=3$. Let $u_1,u_2,u_3\in F\setminus F_i$ be the three faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. That is, $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup\{u_1,u_2,u_3\})$. Since $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$, we assume that $AN_n^i-F_i$ is divided into $k$ disjoint connected components, say $C_1,C_2,\ldots, C_k$. For each $j\in{\mathbb Z}_k$, if $|C_j|\geqslant 4$, then there is at least one vertex of $C_j$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. We now consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=3$, i.e., $C_j$ is either a 3-cycle or a 2-path. Assume that $V(C_j)=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$. If there is a vertex $\text{out}(v_h)\notin\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$ for $1\leqslant h\leqslant 3$, then $\text{out}(v_h)$ must be contained in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. Since $(3n-7)-3\geqslant f_i=|F|-f\geqslant (3n-9)-3$ and, by Lemma \[lm:subgraphs\], we have $3n-12\leqslant |N(C_j)|\leqslant n-10$, it follows that there exists at most one such component $C_j$ such that $\{\text{out}(v_1),\text{out}(v_2),\text{out}(v_3)\}=\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$. If it is the case of existence, then $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components, one of which is either a 3-cycle or a 2-path. Next, we consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=2$, i.e., $C_j$ is an edge, say $(v,w)$. From an argument similar to Case 1.3 for analyzing the membership of $\text{out}(v)$ and $\text{out}(w)$ in the set $\{u_1,u_2,u_3\}$, we can show that $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components $\{(v,w)\}$ and $C$. Finally, we consider a component that is a singleton. Then, an argument similar to Case 1.3 for analyzing singleton components shows that at most two such components exist in $AN_n^i-F_i$. Thus, $AN_n-F$ has either two components (where one of which is a singleton) or three components (where two of which are singletons). [**Case 1.5**]{}: $f=4$. Let $u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4\in F\setminus F_i$ be the four faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. That is, $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4\})$. Since $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$, we assume that $AN_n^i-F_i$ is divided into $k$ disjoint connected components, say $C_1,C_2,\ldots, C_k$. For each $j\in{\mathbb Z}_k$, if $|C_j|\geqslant 5$, then there is at least one vertex of $C_j$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. If $|C_j|\geqslant 4$, by Lemma \[lm:subgraphs\], we have $|N(C_j)|\geqslant 4n-16$. Since $(3n-7)-4\geqslant |F|-f=f_i$, it follows that $|N(C_j)|\geqslant f_i$ for $n\geqslant 6$. Thus, none of component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=4$ exists in $AN_n^i$. Next, we consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=3$ and assume $V(C_j)=\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}$. By Lemma \[lm:subgraphs\], we have $3n-12\leqslant |N(C_j)|\leqslant n-10$. Since $f_i$ is no more than $3n-11$, at most one such component $C_j$ exists in $AN_n^i-F_i$. Furthermore, if such $C_j$ exists, then it is either a 3-cycle or a 2-path. Thus, an argument similar to Case 1.4 for analyzing the membership of $\text{out}(v_1)$, $\text{out}(v_2)$ and $\text{out}(v_3)$ in the set $\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4\}$, we can show that $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components, one of which is a 3-cycle or a 2-path. Finally, if we consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|\leqslant 2$, an argument similar to the previous cases shows that $AN_n-F$ has either two components (where one of which is a singleton or an edge) or three components (where two of which are singletons). [**Case 1.6**]{}: $f=5$. Let $u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5\in F\setminus F_i$ be the five faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. That is, $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5\})$. Since $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$, we assume that $AN_n^i-F_i$ is divided into $k$ disjoint connected components, say $C_1,C_2,\ldots, C_k$. For each $j\in{\mathbb Z}_k$, if $|C_j|\geqslant 6$, then there is at least one vertex of $C_j$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, and thus $C_j$ belongs to $C$. If $|C_j|=4$ or $|C_j|=5$, by Lemma \[lm:subgraphs\], we have $|N(C_j)|\geqslant 4n-16$. Since $(3n-7)-5\geqslant |F|-f=f_i$, it follows that $|N(C_j)|\geqslant f_i$ for $n\geqslant 6$. Thus, none of component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=4$ or $|C_j|=5$ exists in $AN_n^i$. We now consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|=3$. Since $f_i\leqslant 3n-12$, by Lemma \[lm:subgraphs\], if such $C_j$ exists, then it must be a 3-cycle, and thus an argument similar to the previous cases shows that $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components, one of which is a 3-cycle. Finally, if we consider a component $C_j$ with $|C_j|\leqslant 2$, an argument similar to the previous cases shows that $AN_n-F$ has either two components (where one of which is a singleton or an edge) or three components (where two of which are singletons). [**Case 1.7**]{}: $6\leqslant f\leqslant 2n-5$. In this case, we have $(3n-7)-6\geqslant f_i=|F|-f\geqslant (3n-9)-(2n-5)$. Since $AN_n^i$ is isomorphic to $AN_{n-1}$ and $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$ with no more than $3(n-1)-10$ vertices, by Lemma \[lm:three-components\], $AN_n^i-F_i$ has at most three components as follows: [**Case 1.7.1**]{}: $AN_n^i-F_i$ has two components, one of which is either a singleton or an edge. Let $C_1$ and $C_2$ be such two components for which $1\leqslant|C_1|\leqslant 2<|C_2|$. More precisely, $|C_2|=|V(AN_n^i)|-f_i-|C_1|\geqslant (n-1)!/2-f_i-2>(3n-7)-f_i\geqslant |F|-f_i=f$ for $n\geqslant 6$. Clearly, the above inequality indicates that there exist some vertices of $C_2$ such that their out-neighbors are contained in $H$, even if all out-neighbors of vertices in $F\setminus F_i$ are contained in $C_2$. Thus, $C_2$ belongs to $C$. Also, if there is a vertex $v\in C_1$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, then $C_1$ belongs to $C$. Otherwise, $AN_n-F$ has exactly two components, one of which is either a singleton or an edge. [**Case 1.7.2**]{}: $AN_n^i-F_i$ has three components, two of which are singletons. Let $C_1, C_2$ and $C_3$ be such three components for which $|C_1|=|C_2|=1$ and $|C_3|>2$. Since $|C_3|=(n-1)!/2-f_i-2>(3n-7)-f_i\geqslant |F|-f_i=f$ for $n\geqslant 6$, there exist some vertices of $C_2$ such that their out-neighbors are contained in $H$. This shows that $C_2$ belongs to $C$. Since $AN_n^i-F_i$ has three components, the out-neighbor of a vertex $v\in C_1$ or $v\in C_2$ cannot be contained in $H$. Thus, $AN_n-F$ has exactly three components, two of which are singletons. [**Case 2**]{}: There exist exactly two subnetworks, say $AN_n^i$ and $AN_n^j$, such that $f_i,f_j\geqslant n-2$. Since $F$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n$, at least one of the subgraphs $AN_n^i-F_i$ and $AN_n^j-F_j$ must be disconnected. Let $H$ be the subgraph of $AN_n$ induced by the fault-free vertices outside $AN_n^i\cup AN_n^j$, i.e., $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup V(AN_n^j)\cup F)$. Since $2n-4\leqslant f_i+f_j\leqslant|F|\leqslant 3n-7$, we have $f_h\leqslant|F|-f_i-f_j\leqslant (3n-7)-(2n-4)=n-3$ for all $h\in{\mathbb Z}_n\setminus\{i,j\}$. The bound of $f_h$ implies that $AN_n^h-F_h$ is connected, and it follows that $H$ is also connected. We denote by $C$ the component of $AN_n-F$ that contains $H$ as its subgraph. Since $n-2\leqslant f_i\leqslant (3n-7)-f_j\leqslant(3n-7)-(n-2)=2n-5$, we consider the following scenarios: [**Case 2.1**]{}: $f_i=2n-5$. Clearly, $f_j\leqslant(3n-7)-f_i=n-2$. Since we have assumed $f_j\geqslant n-2$, it follows that $f_j=n-2$ and there exist no faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i\cup AN_n^j$. That is, $H=AN_n-(V(AN_n^i)\cup V(AN_n^j))$. Indeed, this case is impossible because if it is the case, then there exist a vertex of $(AN_n^i\cup AN_n^j)-F$ such that its out-neighbor is contained in $H$. Thus, $(AN_n^i\cup AN_n^j)-F$ belongs to $C$, and it follows that $AN_n-F$ is connected, a contradiction. [**Case 2.2**]{}: $n-1\leqslant f_i\leqslant 2n-6$. Since $f_i+f_j\leqslant|F|\leqslant 3n-7$, it implies $f_j\leqslant (3n-7)-f_i\leqslant (3n-7)-(n-1)=2n-6$. Since $AN_n^i$ is isomorphic to $AN_{n-1}$ and $f_i\leqslant 2(n-1)-4$, by Lemma \[lm:two-components-improved\], if $AN_n^i-F_i$ is disconnected, then it has exactly two component, one of which is either a singleton or an edge. Suppose $AN_n^i-F_i=C_1\cup C_2$, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are disjoint connected components such that $1\leqslant|C_1|\leqslant 2<|C_2|$. More precisely, $|C_2|=|V(AN_n^i)|-f_i-|C_1|=(n-1)!/2-f_i-2>(3n-7)-f_i\geqslant|F|-f_i$ for $n\geqslant 6$, where the last term $|F|-f_i$ is the number of faulty vertices outside $AN_n^i$. Clearly, the above inequality indicates that there exist some vertices of $C_2$ such that their out-neighbors are contained in $H$, even if all out-neighbors of vertices in $F\setminus F_i$ are contained in $C_2$. Thus, $C_2$ belongs to $C$. Also, if there is a vertex of $C_1$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, then $C_1$ belongs to $C$. By contrast, we can show that $AN_n^i-F_i$ belongs to $C$ by a similar way if it is connected. Thus, $AN_n-F$ contains at most one component (which is either a singleton or an edge) such that this component is a subgraph of $AN_n^i$. Similarly, since $f_j\leqslant 2n-6$, $AN_n-F$ contains at most one component (which is either a singleton or an edge) such that this component is a subgraph of $AN_n^j$. Thus, there are at most three components in $AN_n-F$. We claim that $AN_n-F$ cannot simultaneously contain both an edge $(u,v)$ and a singleton $w$ as components. Suppose not and, without loss of generality, assume $u,v\in AN_n^i$ and $w\in AN_n^j$. Then, at least two out-neighbors of $u,v$ and $w$ are not contained in $N(u)\cup N(v)\cup N(w)$. Otherwise, $AN_n$ produces a 4-cycle or 5-cycle, which contradicts to the property (1) of Lemma \[lm:basic\]. Thus, the number of faulty vertices of $AN_n$ requires at least $(2n-6)+(n-2)+2=3n-6\geqslant|F|$, a contradiction. Similarly, we claim that $AN_n-F$ cannot simultaneously contain two disjoint edges $(u_1,v_1)$ and $(u_2,v_2)$ as components. Suppose not. By an argument similar above, we can show that either $AN_n$ has $2(2n-6)+2>3n-7\geqslant|F|$ faulty vertices for $n\geqslant 6$ or it contains a 4-cycle or 5-cycle. However, both the cases are not impossible. Consequently, if $AN_n-F$ contains three component, then two of which are singletons, one is a vertex of $AN_n^i$ and the other is of $AN_n^j$. [**Case 2.3**]{}: $f_i=n-2$. Clearly, $f_j\leqslant(3n-7)-f_i=2n-5$. Since $AN_n^i$ is isomorphic to $AN_{n-1}$ and $n\geqslant 6$, it is tightly $(n-2)$-super-connected. Also, since $f_i=n-2$, if $F_i$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n^i$, then it must be a minimum vertex-cut. Particularly, there are two components in $AN_n^i-F_i$, one of which is a singleton, say $v$. That is, all in-neighbors of $v$ are faulty vertices (i.e., $N(v)=F_i$). Otherwise, $AN_n^i-F_i$ is connected and thus belongs to $C$. On the other hand, we consider all situations of $AN_n^j-F_j$ as follows. Clearly, if $AN_n^j-F_j$ is connected, then it belongs to $C$, and this further implies that $AN_n^i-F_i$ must be disconnected. In this case, $AN_n-F$ contains exactly two components, one of which is a singleton $v$. We now consider the case that $AN_n^j-F_j$ is not connected and claim that it has at most two disjoint connected components. Suppose not. Since $AN_n^j$ is isomorphic to $AN_{n-1}$, by Lemma \[lm:two-components-improved\], the number of faulty vertices in $AN_n^j$ is at least $2(n-1)-3$. Since $f_j\leqslant 2n-5$, it follows that $f_j=2n-5$. Thus, this situation is a symmetry of Case 2.1 by considering the exchange of $f_i$ and $f_j$, which leads to a contradiction. Suppose $AN_n^j-F_j=C_1\cup C_2$, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are disjoint connected components such that $|C_1|\leqslant|C_2|$. Since $|C_2|\geqslant (|V(AN_n^j)|-f_j)/2>(n-1)!/4-f_j>(3n-7)-f_j\geqslant|F|-f_j$ for $n\geqslant 6$, where the last term $|F|-f_j$ is the number of faulty vertices outside $AN_n^j$. Clearly, the above inequality indicates that there exist some vertices of $C_2$ such that their out-neighbors are contained in $H$, even if all out-neighbors of vertices in $F\setminus F_j$ are contained in $C_2$. Thus, $C_2$ belongs to $C$. Also, if there is a vertex of $C_1$ with its out-neighbor in $H$, then $C_1$ belongs to $C$. Otherwise, $C_1$ is a component of $AN_n-F$. By Lemma \[lm:subgraphs\], since $f_j=2n-5<4n-16$ when $n\geqslant 6$, we have $|C_1|<4$. Moreover, since $2n-5\leqslant 3n-11$ when $n\geqslant 6$, if $|C_1|=3$, then $C_1$ must be a 3-cycle. If $|C_1|\leqslant 2$, then $C_1$ is either a singleton or an edge. Note that if $C_1$ is a 3-cycle or an edge, then $AN_n-F$ cannot contain the the singleton $v\in V(AN_n^i-F_i)$ as its component. Otherwise, an argument similar to Case 2.2 shows that $AN_n$ either has more than $3n-7$ faulty vertices or produces a 4-cycle or 5-cycle, a contradiction. From the proof of Lemma \[lm:lower-bound\], we obtain the following result, which is an extension of Lemma \[lm:three-components\]. For $n\geqslant 5$, if $F$ is a vertex-cut of $AN_n$ with $|F|\leqslant 3n-7$, then one of the following conditions holds: [(1)]{} $AN_n-F$ has two components, one of which is either a singleton, an edge, a $3$-cycle, or a $2$-path. [(2)]{} $AN_n-F$ has three components, two of which are singletons. [**Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].**]{} Lemmas \[lm:n4n5\] and \[lm:lower-bound\] show that $\kappa_4(AN_n)\geqslant 3n-6$ for $n\geqslant 4$. To complete the proof, we need to show the upper bound $\kappa_4(AN_n)\leqslant 3n-6$ for $n\geqslant 4$. Consider an induced 6-cycle $H=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,v_5,v_6)$ in $AN_n$ (the existence of such a cycle can be verified in Fig \[fig:AN5\]). Let $F$ be the set composed of all neighbors of vertices in $\{v_1,v_3,v_5\}$. Since every vertex of $AN_n$ has $n-1$ neighbors and any two vertices in $\{v_1,v_3,v_5\}$ share a common neighbor, it is clear that $|F|=3(n-1)-3=3n-6$. Then, the removal of $F$ from $AN_n$ leads to the surviving graph with a large connected component and three singletons $v_1,v_3$ and $v_5$. Concluding remarks {#sec:Conclusion} ================== In this paper, we follow a previous work to investigate a measure of network reliability, called $\ell$-component connectivity, in alternating group networks $AN_n$. Although we have known that $\kappa_3(AN_n)=2n-3$ and $\kappa_4(AN_n)=3n-6$, at this stage it remains open to determine $\kappa_\ell(AN_n)$ for $\ell\geqslant 5$. Also, as aforementioned, by now little work has been done in determining the $\ell$-component connectivity for most interconnection networks, even if for smaller integer $\ell$. In the future work, we would like to study the $\ell$-component connectivity of $AN_n$ with larger $\ell$, or some popular interconnection networks such as star graphs (and their super class of graphs called $(n,k)$-star graphs and arrangement graphs), bubble-sort graphs, and alternating group graphs. [99]{} S.B. Akers, D. Harel, and B. Krishnamurthy, The star graph: An attractive alternative to the $n$-cube, in: *Proc. Int. Conf. Parallel Processing* (ICPP’1987), University Park, August 1987, pp. 393–400. D. Bauer, F. Boesch, C. Suffel, and R. Tindell, Connectivity extremal problems and the design of reliable probabilistic networks, *The Theory and Application of Graphs*, Y. Alavi and G. Chartrand (Editors), Wiley, New York, 1981, pp. 89–98. F.T. Boesch, S. Chen, A generalization of line connectivity and optimally invulnerable graphs, *SIAM J. Appl. Math.* 34 (1978) 657–665. J.-M. Chang, K.-J. Pai, J.-S. Yang, R.-Y. Ro, Two kinds of generalized 3-connectivities of alternating group networks, in: *Proc. 12th International Frontiers of Algorithmics Workshop* (FAW 2018), Guangzhou, China, May 8-10, 2018, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 12-23. G. Chartrand, S.F. Kapoor, L. Lesniak, D.R. Lick, Generalized connectivity in graphs, *Bull. Bombay Math. Colloq.* 2 (1984) 1–6. B. Chen, W. Xiao, B. Parhami, Internode distance and optimal routing in a class of alternating group networks, *IEEE Trans. Comput.* 55 (2006) 1645–1648. E. Cheng, K. Qiu, Z. Shen, Connectivity results of hierarchical cubic networks as associated with linearly many faults, in: *Proc. Int. Symp. Pervasive Systems, Algorithms, and Networks* (I-SPAN 2014), Chengdu, China, Dec. 19-21, 2014, pp. 1213–1220. E. Cheng, K. Qiu, Z. Shen, Connectivity results of complete cubic networks as associated with linearly many faults, *J. Interconnec. Networks* 15 (2015) paper 155007. E. Cheng, K. Qiu, Z. Shen, Structural properties of generalized exchanged hypercubes, in: *Emergent Computation: Emergence, Complexity, Computation*, A. Adamatzky, ed., Vol. 24, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 215–232. D.P. Day, O.R. Oellermann, H.C. Swart, The $l$-connectivity function of trees and complete multipartite graphs, *J. Comb. Math. Comb. Comput.* 10 (1991) 183–192. D.P. Day, O.R. Oellermann, H.C. Swart, Bounds on the size of graphs of given order and $l$-connectivity, *Discrete Math.* 197/198 (1999) 217-223. M. Hager, Pendant tree-connectivity, *J. Comb. Theory Ser. B* 38 (1985) 179–189. R.-X. Hao, J.-X. Zhou, Characterize a kind of fault tolerance of alternating group network, *Acta Math. Sinica* (Chinese Ser.) 55 (2012) 1055–1066. F. Harary, Conditional connectivity, *Networks* 13 (1983) 347–357. K. Hennayake, H.-J. Lai, D. Li, J. Mao, Minimally $(k,k)$-edge-connected graphs, *J. Graph Theory* 44 (2003) 116–131. S.-Y. Hsieh, C.-H. Chen, Pancyclicity on Möbius cubes with maximal edge faults, *Parallel Comput.* 30 (2004) 407–421. S.-Y. Hsieh, G.-H. Chen, C.-W. Ho, Longest fault-free paths in star graphs with edge faults, *IEEE Trans. Comput.* 50 (2001) 960–971. L.-H. Hsu, E. Cheng, L. Lipták, J.J.M. Tan, C.-K. Lin, T.-Y. Ho, Component connectivity of the hypercubes, *Int. J. Comput. Math.* 89 (2012) 137–145. Y.-H. Ji, A class of Cayley networks based on the alternating groups, *Adv. Math.* 4 (1998) 361–362. (in Chinese) J. Jwo, S. Lakshmivarahan, S.K. Dhall, A new class of interconnection networks based on the alternating group, *Networks* 23 (1993) 315–326. X. Li, Y. Mao, Generalized Connectivity of Graphs, Springer Briefs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2016. X. Li, Y. Mao, A survey on the generalized connectivity of graphs, arXiv:1207.1838v9 (2014). O.R. Oellermann, On the $l$-connectivity of a graph, *Graph Comb.* 3 (1987) 285–291. O.R. Oellermann, A note on the $l$-connectivity function of a graph, *Cong. Num.* 60 (1987) 181–188. X. Pan, J. Mao, H. Liu, Minimally $(k,k-1)$-edge-connected graphs, *Australas. J. Comb.* 28 (2003) 39–49. E. Sampathkumar, Connectivity of a graph – A generalization, *J. Combin. Inform. Sys. Sci.* 9 (1984) 71–78. Y. Sun, X. Li, On the difference of two generalized connectivities of a graph, *J. Comb. Optim.* 33 (2017) 283–291. J.M. Xu, Topological Structure and Analysis of Interconnection Networks, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, 2001. S. Zhao, W. Yang, S. Zhang, Component connectivity of hypercubes, *Theor. Comput. Sci.* 640 (2016) 115–118. S. Zhou, W. Xiao, Conditional diagnosability of alternating group networks, *Inform. Process. Lett.* 110 (2010) 403–409. S. Zhou, W. Xiao, B. Parhami, Construction of vertex-disjoint paths in alternating group networks, *J. Supercomput.* 54 (2010) 206–228. [^1]: Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] [^2]: This research was partially supported by the grant MOST-107-2221-E-141-001-MY3 from the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Leading denoising methods such as 3D block matching (BM3D) are patch-based. However, they can suffer from frequency domain artefacts and require to specify explicit noise models. We present a patch-based method that avoids these drawbacks. It combines a simple and fast patch reordering with a non-linear smoothing. The smoothing rewards both patch and pixel similarities in a multiplicative way. We perform experiments on real world images with additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), and on electron microscopy data with a more general additive noise model. Our filter outperforms BM3D in 77% of the experiments, with improvements of up to 29% with respect to the mean squared error.' address: | Mathematical Image Analysis Group,\ Saarland University, 66041 Saarbr[ü]{}cken, Germany.\ {bodduna,weickert}@mia.uni-saarland.de bibliography: - 'myrefs.bib' title: | IMAGE DENOISING WITH LESS ARTEFACTS:\ NOVEL NON-LINEAR FILTERING ON FAST PATCH REORDERINGS --- non-local patch-based methods, diffusion methods, image denoising, additive white Gaussian noise Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ Non-local patch-based methods [@BCM05; @LBM2013; @DFKE07; @ram2013image; @ram2013imageNL; @pierazzo2015da3d] have been producing superior image denoising results since quite a few years now. These models offer two main advantages: Firstly, the assumption that similar pixels have similar neighbourhoods around them, is quite robust in a noisy scenario. Secondly, one can access similar data from distant regions in the image. The non-local Bayes (NLB) [@LBM2013a; @LBM2013] and BM3D [@DFKE07; @Lebrun2012] approaches produce state-of-the-art results. NLB uses Bayesian modelling while BM3D employs Fourier domain filtering. However, it is well known that when the assumptions about noise-free images are violated, one can see artefacts in the denoised images. The idea that we can find completely similar patches within an image in general need not be satisfied. Thus, there is a risk that data from dissimilar regions can diffuse into each other, which leads to the above mentioned artefacts. This observation is well documented for both NLB and BM3D [@pierazzo2015da3d]. One remedy to eliminate these artefacts is to use an additional post-processing step [@pierazzo2015da3d]. Another possibility which was proposed by Ram et al. [@ram2013image; @ram2013imageNL] is to employ a smooth reordering of patches for subsequent filtering. However, the underlying reason why the latter method is better than BM3D is not well understood. It appears plausible to us that it minimises information exchange between dissimilar regions with the help of patch reordering, thus reducing the artefacts and consequently leading to better results. However, this comes at a computationally very expensive reordering step, which basically requires to solve a travelling salesman problem. [**Our Contribution.**]{} We introduce a new method to solve the above artifact problem without the need of an additional post-processing step and also within a relatively low computational time. In contrast to the methods of Ram et al. [@ram2013image; @ram2013imageNL], we use a simpler and much faster patch reordering, and combine it with a more sophisticated non-linear filtering. Hence, we call our method *non-linear filtering on fast patch reorderings (NFPR)*. In particular, we employ a filtering technique which is a novel combination of weights that reward both patch and pixel similarities. Moreover, we always use disc-shaped windows, thus leading to a rotationally invariant model. In contrast to NLB and BM3D, we avoid an explicit AWGN assumption and hence are more robust with respect to the noise type. [**Paper Structure.**]{} In Section \[sec:modelling\], we introduce our proposed NFPR framework for noise elimination along with proper motivations. In Section \[sec:expAndDisc\], we showcase a comparative evaluation of NFPR with NLB, BM3D and the method of Ram et al. [@ram2013image], for both real-world test images and electron microscopy data. Finally, in Section \[sec:concAndOutlook\], we conclude with a summary of our contribution and an outlook to future work. Image $\sigma$ $\lambda$ $k_{\textrm{max}}$ NFPR NLB BM3D ------- ---------- ----------- -------------------- ------------ -------- ------------ L40 150 11.5 16 74.00 69.30 **68.27** L60 160 15.5 16 **104.58** 109.3 104.83 L80 175 20.0 14 **139.37** 154.40 143.23 L100 175 23.5 16 **164.85** 198.89 183.78 L120 190 27.0 15 **196.96** 254.90 228.39 L140 195 31.5 15 **231.48** 312.95 273.09 B40 130 15.0 13 254.87 233.36 **233.34** B60 160 20.5 8 333.37 333.22 **315.37** B80 165 26.0 9 400.71 425.61 **391.02** B100 180 30.5 9 457.70 486.65 **453.37** B120 180 34.5 10 **505.86** 551.94 512.38 B140 190 36.5 11 **556.54** 616.51 572.44 H40 140 10.5 27 58.77 62.16 **56.01** H60 160 12.0 27 **81.24** 104.85 92.15 H80 180 15.0 23 **116.63** 156.88 130.64 H100 185 17.5 17 **153.27** 218.91 187.60 H120 205 22.5 17 **192.11** 289.12 235.53 H140 200 25.0 19 **233.62** 356.59 300.88 P40 155 11.5 16 **57.73** 60.03 58.91 P60 160 16.0 17 **83.73** 95.22 91.16 P80 185 18.5 15 **112.39** 128.95 124.08 P100 195 21.0 15 **139.05** 171.88 160.88 P120 205 25.0 15 **167.70** 216.02 200.58 P140 205 29.5 15 **198.83** 266.79 241.20 \[table1\] Modelling of our denoising algorithm {#sec:modelling} ==================================== Our NFPR technique consists of two parts: The goal of the first step is to achieve a fast patch-based reordering of the pixels. In the second step, we employ a non-linear smoothing on the reordered pixels which yields the denoised image. In the following we describe these steps in detail. **Step 1 : Fast Patch Reordering.** In order to compute a smooth reordering of pixels, we employ a patch-based similarity approach: We first consider a disc-shaped search region $B_\textrm{search}$ of radius $\rho_\textrm{search}$ around every pixel $u_i$ in the 2D image domain. We then compute the $L_2$ norm $d_{ij}$ between disc-shaped patches of radius $\rho_{\textrm{sim}}$, centered around $u_i$ and $u_j,$ for all $j \in B_\textrm{search}$. This is followed by constructing a set $P_i$ of $N$ pixels within $B_\textrm{search}$ which have the least distance from $u_i$ according to $d_{ij}$. This set characterises the desired smooth reordering of pixels. In contrast to Ram et al. [@ram2013image; @ram2013imageNL] who solve instances of the NP-hard travelling salesman problem, we compute the reordering using just a simple sort operation. Ideally, when we average noisy versions of the same greyvalue, we should not introduce artefacts. However, we have noisy versions of approximately equal grey values in the set $P_i$. Moreover, the above simple reordering is achieved at the cost of some disordered pixels in $P_i$, that come from areas of dissimilar greyvalues. In the second step of the algorithm, we employ a very robust non-linear smoothing technique, to deal with both problems.\ **Step 2 : Non-linear Smoothing.** The goal of this step is to optimally combine the set of pixels $P_i$, obtained from the first step, and compute a final denoised image. To this end, we apply a non-linear smoothing process on this set. This can be thought of as diffusing information between pixels in a space defined by the neighbourhood similarity distances $d_{ij}$ instead of the generally used spatial distances. We utilise two assumptions which form the core of our structure preserving smoothing technique: Firstly, similar pixels have relatively smaller absolute tonal differences $|u_j - u_i|$. Secondly, they also have similar neighbourhoods around them. Although we have already used such an idea for patch reordering, we will be re-using the distances $d_{ij}$ through a multiplicative combination of both assumptions. This gives us an advantage in scenarios where one of the assumptions might be violated in the presence of noise. The discrete evolution equation for our smoothing process is given by $$\begin{aligned} \label{discretization} &\frac{u_i^{k+1} - u_i^{k}}{\tau} = a_i^k \cdot \left( \sum_{\substack{j \in P_i^k} } g \left({u^{k}_{\sigma j}} - {u^{k}_{\sigma i}}\right) h \left( d_{ij}^k \right) \left( u_j^k - u_i^k \right) \right. \\ &+ \left. \sum_{\substack{j \in P^{\textrm{add},k}_{i}} } g \left({u^{k}_{\sigma j}} - {u^{k}_{\sigma i}}\right) h \left( d_{ij}^k \right) \left( u_j^k - u_i^k \right) \right) {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}.\end{aligned}$$ This equation has two terms on the right hand side, which model two types of information exchange: Remember that $P_i$ denotes the set of pixels which are closest to pixel $u_i$ according to the distance $d_{ij}$. Every pixel in the image will have its own reordered set. Thus, the pixel $u_i$ could also be part of sets other than $P_i$. The symbol $P^{\textrm{add}}_{i}$ denotes an additional set of pixels in whose corresponding reordered sets, $u_i$ is present. The two terms mentioned in the above equation represent interactions with these two sets of pixels $P_i$ and $P^{\textrm{add}}_{i}$, respectively. This can also be seen as collaborative filtering similar to BM3D and NLB. Image $\sigma$ $\lambda$ $k_{\textrm{max}}$ NFPR REC ------- ---------- ----------- -------------------- ------------ ------------ L50 150 14.5 17 91.36 **82.90** L75 170 19.0 15 126.90 **123.75** L100 175 23.5 16 164.85 **163.05** H50 160 11.0 23 **70.94** 74.45 H75 165 15.5 23 **108.71** 120.41 H100 185 17.5 17 **153.27** 167.52 \[table2\] \ {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} {width="0.17\linewidth"} \ {width="0.24\linewidth"} {width="0.24\linewidth"} {width="0.4\linewidth"} Let us now discuss the details of the above two individual terms: The functions $g$ and $h$ model the above mentioned tonal and neighbourhood similarity assumptions, respectively. However, if we look closely at the argument of $g$, we have ${u_{\sigma j}} - {u_{\sigma i}}$ instead of ${u_{ j}} - {u_{i}}$ which are the real tonal differences. This idea of calculating the tonal differences on a denoised image $\bm{u}_{\sigma}$, for a robust performance, is inspired from diffusion-based methods [@CLMC92]. We have chosen a collaborative version of the non-local means approach [@BCM05] for this initial denoising process: $$\begin{aligned} \label{discretization_1} u^{k}_{\sigma i} = b_i^k \cdot \left( \sum_{\substack{j \in P_i^k} } h\left( d_{ij}^k \right) u_j^k + \sum_{\substack{j \in P^{\textrm{add},k}_{i}} } h \left( d_{ij}^k \right) u_j^k \right) {\addtocounter{equation}{1}\tag{\theequation}}.\end{aligned}$$ The symbols $a_i$ and $b_i$ in and , respectively, are the normalisation constants. The functions $g$ [@We97] and $h$ in are chosen as $$\begin{gathered} \label{diffusivity} g\left( s \right) = 1 - \text{exp}\left( \frac{-3.31488}{\left(\frac{s}{\lambda}\right)^8} \right), \\ h(s) = \text{exp}\left(\frac{-s^2}{2\sigma^2}\right).\end{gathered}$$ The time step size $\tau$ in is selected such that the maximum-minimum principle is not violated. This means that the dynamic range of the denoised image does not exceed that of the initial noisy image. We can achieve this by choosing $a_i$ = $b_i/M_i$, where $M_i$ is the sum of number of elements in $P_i$ and $P_i^{\textrm{add}}$, and $\tau \le 1$. Finally, we iterate NFPR for $k_\textrm{max}$ times. We initialise the non-linear smoothing with the initial noisy image $\bm{f}$ and the patch reordering using a Gaussian smoothed version of $\bm{f}$ with standard deviation $\sigma_G$. Experiments and Discussion {#sec:expAndDisc} ========================== In order to test the robustness of our method with respect to the noise type, we have performed denoising experiments on both real-world test images and electron microscopy data. For saving time, we have restricted the usage of our patch reordering step to just two iterations. This has negligible effect on the denoising output. We have fixed the following parameters: $\rho_\textrm{search} = 10$, $\rho_\textrm{sim} = 10$, $\sigma_G = 2.5$, $\tau = 0.95$ and the number of elements in the reordered set $N = 35$. In order to have a correspondence for the parameter $\sigma$ between real-world and electron microscopy data, we have performed an affine rescaling of the distances $d_{ij}$ within the set $P_i$, to \[0, 255\]. Thus, we just optimise the parameters $\sigma$, $\lambda$ and $k_\textrm{max}$. As already mentioned, our denoising experiments employ NLB, BM3D, Ram et al. [@ram2013image] for comparison purposes with available implementations and detailed parameter studies in [@LBM2013a; @Lebrun2012; @BW20; @ram2013image]. We first present our results on the real-world images Lena, Bridge, House and Peppers[^1], which have been corrupted with AWGN. We use the mean squared error (MSE) for both measuring the quality of the denoised images and optimising the parameters. Figure \[fig:res1\] and Table \[table1\] show the comparison with NLB and BM3D. Visual advantages in terms of less artefacts and more pleasant edges are larger than MSE advantages would suggest. From Table \[table2\], we can conclude that our method is competetive with the approach of Ram et al. [@ram2013image]. Experiments on a GPU[^2] show that our method takes just 2 and 6.5 seconds for denoising the $256 \times 256$ sized House and $512 \times 512$ sized Lena images ($\sigma_{\textrm{noise}}=100$), respectively. This implementation could further be improved with pre-computing the weighting functions and also through faster implementations of patch-similarity computations. The available non-parallel CPU[^3] implementation of [@ram2013image] takes 1128 and 7021 seconds in the above scenarios. This is very expensive, even if we take into account the technical differences in the implementations. We have also considered ribosomal data in yeast cells acquired using an electron microscope. For measuring the quality of the denoised images, we use a popular frequency domain measure in electron microscopy called Fourier ring correlation (FRC). It computes a cross-correlation coefficient between the denoised versions of two different images of the same scene at different frequency levels [@SB1982; @P2010]. Figure \[fig:res3\] shows the corresponding results. We observe higher correlation coefficients for NFPR in the FRC curves. This indicates that it does a better job in preserving image structures during the denoising process. All the above results can be attributed to the previously mentioned modelling advantages of NFPR. In contrast to NLB and BM3D, it also benefits by avoiding an explicit AWGN noise approach. This leads to even better NFPR results for electron microscopy data, as such kind of data is generally approximated with a more general additive noise model (see Chapter 11 of [@Fr2013]). On the other hand, there are certainly some cases when NLB, BM3D and Ram et al. [@ram2013image] are better than NFPR for real-world images like Lena and Bridge which have some amount of texture. We observe that an important message from the above results is in accordance with the conclusion in our multi-frame denoising research [@BW20]: The process of choosing the combination of pixels that undergo non-linear smoothing is as important as choosing the type of non-linearity itself. In BM3D and NLB, we filter a group of similar patches altogether. In NFPR, we utilise a carefully chosen set of pixels and subsequently filter them using a robust procedure. This is superior although we do not use any explicit spatial context in the filtering process. Unlike NLB and BM3D, we apply it only for patch reordering. In [@BW20], we observed that a linear temporal filter can outperform a non-linear one, but only if the pixels that undergo the denoising process are chosen carefully. Conclusions and Outlook {#sec:concAndOutlook} ======================= Although most people would agree that artifact avoidance is desirable in denoising, this goal has hardly been addressed in practice. It appears that smooth patch reordering is helpful in that aspect, but its computational workload is usually very high. The message of our paper is that this patch reordering can be fairly simplistic and therefore fast, provided that one comes up with more sophisticated non-linear filters that reward pixel and patch similarities in a multiplicative manner. Moreover, refraining from explicit noise models can be beneficial in real-world applications that may deviate from ideal noise assumptions. We believe that these are fairly general design principles that deserve further exploration in the future. This is also part of our ongoing work. [^1]: http://sipi.usc.edu/database/ [^2]: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 graphics card using C++ and CUDA [^3]: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 CPU 3.4 GHz machine using MATLAB/C

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Andrew E. Chubykalo' title: 'On the necessity to reconsider the role of “action-at-a-distance” in the problem of the electro-magnetic field radiation produced by a charge moving with an acceleration along an axis' --- [*Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Serrano 123, 28006 Madrid, Spain*]{} $$$$ $$$$ [**Summary**]{}. - Some inadequacy in the traditional description of the phenomenon of electro-magnetic field radiation created by a point charge moving along a straight line with an acceleration is found and discussed in this paper in detail. The possibility of simultaneous coexistence of Newton instantaneous long-range interaction and Faraday-Maxwell short-rang interaction is pointed out. $$$$ $$$$ PACS numbers: 03.50.De, 03.50.Kk $$$$ The problem of [*interaction at a distance*]{} was raised for the first time more than 300 years ago by Newton in the first edition of his book “Matematical origins of natural philosophy” and has not lost relevance nowadays (see e.g.\[1\]). The question concerning the choice of one or another conception of interaction at a distance, namely - [*Newton instantaneous long-rang interaction*]{} (NILI) or [*Faraday-Maxwell short-rang interaction*]{} (FMSI), - seems to have been solved finally in favour of the latter one. But lately some authors (see e.g.\[2-4,6\]) have time and again resorted to NILI - a concept which was given up by contemporary physics long ago. The necessity of introducing (or, at least, taking into account) NILI is based either on the possible incompleteness of Maxwell theory \[3\] or some possible inaccuracy of the main theses of the Special relativistic theory (SRT) \[2,6\]. Sometimes correspondent conclusions are connected with the experiments: for example, the results of Graneau experiments \[5\] are interpreted in \[3\] as an indication of the existence of a difference between electrical lepton-lepton and hadron-hadron interactions. The author \[3\] explains this differene by the existence of NILI, allthough in this case the energy transfer occurs with some delay, because it is carried out by the exchange with the zero energetic quantum-mechanical background. Thus, we see that the author, to avoid coming in conflict with SRT, has to resort to the help of quantum mechanics when discussing a completely nonquantum problem. At the same time, a number of authors indicate the incompleteness of Maxwell theory without referring to the NILI problem \[7-9\]. In this short note we shall use a simple mental experiment to show that in the case of rectilinear accelerated motion of a charge Maxwell theory cannot give a completely correct description of the process [*until*]{} NILI is not taken into account. $$$$ $$$$ Let a charge $q$ move in a reference laboratory system with a constant velocity ${\bf V}$ along the positive direction of the [*X-*]{}axis. Then, let us consider the electric field ${\bf E}({\bf R})$ in a general point ${\bf R}=(x,y,z)$.It is straightforward to show applying the STR transformations, that the electric field ${\bf E}({\bf R})$ is directed radially along the vector ${\bf R}$, since the delay effect is absent in our case of constant speed ${\bf V}$. (Note that in the case of an accelerated motion the field ${\bf E}$ is not directed radially everywhere, only in the direction of charge movement \[10\]). It can be easily shown \[10\] that the module $E(R)=\vert{\bf E}({\bf R})\vert$of the electric field in the point [**R**]{} of the reference system is given by: $$E(R)=\frac{q(1-\beta^{2})}{R^{2}(1-\beta^{2}\sin^{2}\alpha)^{3/2}},$$ where $R(t)=\vert{\bf R}\vert=[(x-Vt)^{2}+y^{2}+z^{2}]^{1/2}$is the distance between the charge and a point of observation $P$ lying on the [*X*]{}-axis, $\beta=V/c$, $c$ being the velocity of light, $\alpha$ is the angle between the vectors [**V**]{} and [**R**]{}, $V=\vert{\bf V}\vert$and $t$ is the time in the reference system. In the case under consideration the coordinates $y$ and $z$ are equal to zero, and $\vert x-Vt\vert $represent the distance between the charge and the point $P$ in the reference laboratory system. Now let us apply the concepts of momentum and energy densities to our “moving” field. The momentum density is given by $${\bf p}=\frac{1}{4\pi c}{\bf S},\qquad{\bf S}=\frac{c}{4\pi}[{\bf E},{\bf H}],$$ where [**S**]{} is the Pointing-Umov (energy-flux) vector. The energy density is $$W=\frac{E^{2}+H^{2}}{8\pi},$$ and the energy conservation condition for the electro-magnetic field, in the differential form, is: $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}=-\nabla\cdot{\bf S}.$$ In the case of the charge movement considered here the change of $W$ with time on the left-hand side of (4) is: $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}=\frac{q^{2}V^{2}(1-\beta^{2})}{2\pi(x-Vt)^{5}}.$$ Since ${\bf H}\equiv 0$along the direction of the charge motion, which follows from the Maxwell equations, the vector [**S**]{}, as well as the momentum density (2), turn out to be also [*zero*]{} along the same axis. But what will happen if we suddenly accelerate the charge in the direction of the axis $X$? In this case expressions (2), (3) and (4) must be true as previously everywhere including the axis $X$. In the classic electrodynamics an electric field created by an arbitrarilly moving charge is given by the following expression: $${\bf E}=q\frac{({\bf R}-R\frac{{\bf V}}{c})(1-\frac{V^{2}}{c^{2}})}{(R-{\bf R}\frac{{\bf V}}{c})^{3}}+q\frac{[{\bf R},[({\bf R}-R\frac{{\bf V}}{c}),\frac{{\bf {\dot{V}}}}{c^{2}}]]}{(R-{\bf R}\frac{{\bf V}}{c})^{3}}$$ We remind that here the value of [**E**]{} is taken in a moment of time $t$ and the values of [**R**]{},[**V**]{} and [**[V]{}**]{} are taken in a former moment of time $t_0=t-\tau$, where $\tau$ is “retarded time”. In our approach since all the vectors are collinear, the second term in (6) is canceled, and we obtain $${\bf E}(t)=q\frac{(1-\frac{V^{2}(t_0)}{c^{2}})}{x^{2}(t_0)(1 -\frac{V(t_0)}{c})^{2}}{\bf i},$$ where [**i**]{} is an unit vector along the [*X*]{}-axis. In the case $V=const$ it is easy to prove that (7) can be reduced to (1). But the vectors [**S**]{}, and consequently [**p**]{}, are identically [*zero*]{} along the whole axis $X$. On the other hand, from (3) and (4) we see that $W$ and $\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}$ must differ from [*zero*]{} everywhere along $X$ and there is a linear connection between $W$ and $E^{2}$. I.e. conflict takes place: if, for example, the charge is vibrating in some mechanic way along the axis $X$, then the value of $W$ (which is a point function like $E$) on the same axis will be [*also*]{} oscillating. Then the question arises: [*how does the point of observation, lying at some fixed distance from the charge on the continuation of axis $X$, “know” about the charge vibration?*]{} The fact of “[*knowing*]{}” is obvious. The presence of “retarded time” $\tau$ in (7) indicates that along the [*X*]{}-axis a longitudinal perturbation should be spreaded with energy transfer (contrary to Eq.(2)). And since the energy-flux vector [**S**]{} is the product of the energy density and its spreading velocity $${\bf S}=W {\bf v}$$ (here [**v**]{} is the velocity of the perturbation spread), then we can assume, for istance, that this velocity equals [*zero*]{} everywhere along $X$ exept the region where the charge is localised, i.e. [*the energy transfer or radiation transfer is not carried out along X*]{}! It is known that Maxwell equations forbid the spreading of [*any*]{} longitudinal electro-magnetic perturbation in vacuum. But P.A.M.Dirac writes (\[11\], p.32): “As long as we are dealing only with transverse waves, we cannot bring in the Coulomb interactions between particles. To bring them in, we have to introduce longitudinal electromagnetic waves... The longitudinal waves can be eliminated by means of mathematical transformation. ...Now, when we do make this transformation which results in eliminating the longitudinal electromagnetic waves, we get a new term appearing in the Hamiltonian. This new term is just the Coulomb energy of interaction between all the charged partiles: $$\sum_{(1,2)}\frac{e_{1} e_{2}}{r_{12}}$$ ...This term appears [*automatically*]{} when we make the transformation of the elimination of the longitudinal waves.” But in this term “the delay effect” is not taken into account! So if we place a test charge $q_{o}$ on the axis $X$ at some fixed distance from the vibrating charge $q$, then the test charge will “feel” the influence of the charge $q$ in [*an unknown way*]{}! Dirac writes \[11\]: “...but it also means a rather big departure from relativistic ideas”. Now if $W$ in (8) is supposed to be [*zero*]{}, then the question on the meaning of [**v**]{} loses sense. And we have to assume that energy is not stored in the field along $X$. Moreover, calculations made in the book \[12\] (see also \[10\] ch.IV, [§]{} 33) can give us some indirect proof that the “own” field of charge particles [*does not directly contain*]{} energy. Indeed, it possible to show that the total 4-momentum of the system of charge particles interacting with the electro-magnetic field $$P_i=\sum_{\alpha}p_i^{\alpha}+\int_{\cal V} \Theta_{i4}d{\cal V},$$ where $\Theta_{i4}$ is the symmetric 4-momentum tensor of electro-magnetic field \[10,12\], is represented by the sum of the 4-momentums of [*free*]{} particles and [*free*]{} field. We must note that such a field is always transversal in vacuum. The analogous statement is true for the 4-angular-momentum, i.e. it is just the sum of the 4-angular-momentums of [*free*]{} particles and [*free*]{} field \[12\]. $$$$ $$$$ In one of the latest works \[13\], the authors also discuss the paradox which is considered in our paper. They note quite truelly that if one decomposes the total eletric field in terms of its transverse and longitudinal components, one must deal with the fact that the longitudinal component is propagated [*instantaneously*]{}. Then, [*imposing*]{} the same condition on the longitudinal component as on the transverse one about the limit of the spread velocity of the interaction, they could demonstrate that a space-time transverse electric field appears, which contains a term that exactly cancels the instantaneous longitudinal electric field. However, in their speculations the authors made the obvious logical error: the absence of the instantaneous “action-at-a-distance” was derived from the [*hypothesis*]{} of its no-existence (see Eq.(8) in\[13\]). It follows from the mental experiment considered above that an [*instantaneous long-range interaction*]{} must exist as [*a direct consequence*]{} of the Maxwell theory. Indeed, we found that the energy (or radiation) transfer is not carried out along the $X$-axis. Nevertheless, placing a test charge on the axis at some fixed point away from the vibrating charge $q$, we must observe [*an influence*]{} of the latter which [*cannot be explained satisfactorily staying*]{} on the position of the FMSI. Of course, it is quite desirable to save [*both*]{} the STR and the Maxwell theory. On the other hand, an instantaneous long-range interaction must also exist. That is why it seems reasonable to introduce a certain [*principle of electrodynamical supplementarity*]{}. According to this, both pictures, the NILI and the FMSI, have to be considered as two [*supplementary*]{} descriptions of one and the same reality. Each of the descriptions is only [*partly*]{} true. In other words, both Faraday and Newton in their external argument about the nature of interaction at a distance turned out right: instantaneous long-range interaction takes place not [*instead of*]{}, but [*along with*]{} the short-range interaction in the classic field theory. $$$$ $$$$ I am grateful to Jaime Julve Pérez and Roman Smirnov-Rueda for many stimulating discussions. I am indebted to the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science for the award of a Postdoctoral Grant, during which this work was done. $$$$ $$$$ Masani Alberto: [*G. astron*]{}, [**15**]{}, N.1, 12 (1989). \[2\]K. Kraus: [*Found. Phys. Lett.*]{}, [**2**]{}, N.1, 9 (1989). \[3\]H. Aspden: [*Hadronic J.*]{}, [**11**]{}, N.6, 307 (1988). \[4\]R. I. Sutherland: [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**30**]{}, N.8, 1721 (1989). \[5\]P. Graneau [*et al.*]{}: [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{}, [**46**]{}, 468 (1985). \[6\]J. V. Narlikar: [*Astrofisica e Cosmologia Gravitazione Quanti e Relativita (Negli sviluppi del pensiero scientifico di Albert Einstein. “Centenario di Einstein” 1879-1979*]{}. (Giunti Barbera, Firenze 1979). \[7\]T. W. Barret: [*Ann. Found. Louis de Broglie*]{}, [**15**]{}, N.2, 143 (1990). \[8\]C. K. Whitney: [*Hadronic J.*]{}, [**11**]{}, N.3, 147 (1988). \[9\]C. K. Whitney: [*Hadronic J.*]{}, [**11**]{}, N.5, 257 (1988). \[10\] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz:[*Theory of Field*]{} (Nauka, Moscow 1973), (English translation: Pergamon, Oxford/New York, 1978). \[11\] P. A. M. Dirac: [*Directions in Physics*]{}, edited by H. Hora and J. R. Shepanski.(John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1978). \[12\] B. V. Medvedev: [*Nachala Teoretiheskoi Fiziki*]{} (Nauka, Moscow 1977), (In Russian). \[13\] R. Donnelly and R. W Ziolkowski: [*Am. J. Phys.*]{}, [**62**]{}, N.10, 916 (1994).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'Network data are increasingly collected along with other variables of interest. Our motivation is drawn from neurophysiology studies measuring brain connectivity networks for a sample of individuals along with their membership to a low or high creative reasoning group. It is of paramount importance to develop statistical methods for testing of global and local changes in the structural interconnections among brain regions across groups. We develop a general Bayesian procedure for inference and testing of group differences in the network structure, which relies on a nonparametric representation for the conditional probability mass function associated with a network-valued random variable. By leveraging a mixture of low-rank factorizations, we allow simple global and local hypothesis testing adjusting for multiplicity. An efficient Gibbs sampler is defined for posterior computation. We provide theoretical results on the flexibility of the model and assess testing performance in simulations. The approach is applied to provide novel insights on the relationships between human brain networks and creativity.' address: - ' University of Padova, Department of Statistical Sciences. Via Cesare Battisti, 241, 35121 Padova, Italy. ' - ' Duke University, Department of Statistical Science. Box 9025, Durham, NC 27708-0251 USA ' author: - - bibliography: - 'example.bib' title: | Bayesian Inference and Testing of\ Group Differences in Brain Networks --- Introduction {#sec:intro} ============ There has been an increasing focus on using neuroimaging technologies to better understand the neural pathways underlying human behavior, abilities and neuropsychiatric diseases. The primary emphasis has been on relating the level of activity in brain regions to phenotypes. Activity measures are available via electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) — among others — and the aim is to produce a spatial map of the locations in the brain across which activity levels display evidence of change with the phenotype [e.g @Gen_2002; @tans_2014]. ![[]{data-label="F1"}](pi_intro_data.pdf){width="12.3cm"} Although the above analyses remain an active area of research, more recently there has been a paradigm shift in neuroscience away from the modular approach and towards studying brain connectivity networks and their relationship with phenotypes [@fust_2000; @fust_2006]. It has been increasingly realized that it is naive to study region-specific activity in isolation, and the overall circuit structure across the brain is a more important predictor of phenotypes [@bres_2010]. Brain connectivity data are now available to facilitate this task, with non-invasive imaging technologies providing accurate brain network data at increasing spatial resolution; see @stir_2008, @cra_2013 and @wang_2014 for an overview and recent developments. A common approach for constructing brain network data is based on the covariance in activity across brain regions estimated from fMRI data. For example, one can create a functional connectivity network from the inverse covariance matrix, with low values of the precision matrix suggesting evidence of conditional independence between pairs of brain regions [e.g @rams_2010; @smit_2011; @simps_2013]. Although functional connectivity networks are of fundamental interest, the recent developments in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) technologies [@cra_2013] have motivated an increasing focus on structural brain network data measuring anatomical connections made by axonal pathways. DTI maps the diffusion of water molecules across biological tissues, thereby providing a better candidate to estimate axonal pathways. As directional diffusion of water within the brain tends to occur along white matter tracts, current connectome pre-processing pipelines [e.g @cra_2013; @ronc_2013] can produce an adjacency matrix $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ for each individual $i=1, \ldots, n$, with elements $A_{i[vu]}=A_{i[uv]}=1$ if there is at least one white matter fiber connecting brain regions $v=2,\ldots,V$ and $u=1, \ldots, v-1$ in individual $i$ and $A_{i[vu]}=A_{i[uv]}=0$ otherwise. In our applications $V=68$ and each node in the network characterizes a specific anatomical brain region according to the Desikan atlas [@des_2006], with the first $34$ in the left hemisphere and the remaining $34$ in the right; see Figure \[F1\] for an illustration. Refer also to @sporns_2013 for a discussion on functional and structural connectivity networks. Motivating application and relevant literature ---------------------------------------------- Recent studies provide brain networks along with a categorical variable. Examples include presence or absence of a neuropsychiatric disease, cognitive trait and rest-stimulus states. There is a need for methods assessing how the brain connectivity structure varies across groups. We are specifically interested in studying the relationship between the brain connectivity structure and creative reasoning. For each individual $i=1,\ldots,n$, data consist of an indicator of creative reasoning $y_i$ and an adjacency matrix $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ representing the undirected structural brain network. We focus on dataset MRN-111 available at <http://openconnecto.me/data/public/MR/>, preselecting subjects having high ($>111$, $y_i=2$) or low ($<90$, $y_i=1$) creative reasoning scores. The first group comprises 19 subjects and the second 17, with thresholds chosen to correspond to the $0.15$ and $0.85$ quantiles. Creativity scores are measured via the composite creativity index (CCI) [@jung_2010]. We are interested in assessing evidence of differences in brain connectivity between the low and high creativity groups, while additionally inferring the types of differences and learning which connections are responsible for these variations. Note that we are not attempting to estimate a network, as in graphical modeling, but we are focused on testing of differences between groups in network-valued data. Flexible statistical methods for analyzing brain networks have lagged behind the increasingly routine collection of such data in neuroscience. A major barrier to progress in this area is that the development of statistical methodologies for formal and robust inference on network data is a challenging task. Networks represent a type of object data — a concept encompassing a broad class of non-standard data types, ranging from functions to images and trees; refer to @wang_2007 and the references cited therein for an overview. Such data require adaptations of classical modeling frameworks to non-standard spaces. This is particularly true for inference on network data in which the set of methodologies and concepts required to test for changes in underlying connectivity structures is necessarily distinct from standard data analysis strategies. There has been some emphasis in the literature on developing methods for addressing our goals; see @Bull_2009, @Stam_2014 and the references cited therein. The main focus is on reducing each observed network $\boldsymbol{A}_i$, $i=1, \ldots, n$ to a vector of summary statistics $\boldsymbol{\theta}_i=(\theta_{i1},\ldots,\theta_{ip})^{\T}$ and then apply standard procedures, such as the multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), to test for changes in these vectors across groups. Summary statistics are commonly chosen to represent global network characteristics of interest, such as the number of connections, the average path length and the clustering coefficient [@Rub_2010]. Similar procedures have been recently employed in exploring the relationship between the brain network and neuropsychiatric diseases, such as Parkinson’s [@Old_2014] and Alzheimer’s [@Mad_2013], but analyses are sensitive to the chosen network topological measures, with substantially different results obtained for different types of summary statistics. @simps_2011 and @Simp_2012 improve choice of network summary statistics via a data driven procedure which exploits exponential random graph models [e.g @fra_1986; @wass_1996] and related validation procedures [@hunt_2008; @hunt_20081] to detect the topological measures that better characterize the observed networks. Although this is a valuable procedure, inference is still available only on the scale of the network summary statistics, which typically discard important information about the brain connectivity architecture that may crucially explain differences across groups. Refer to @ard_2010 for a review on inconsistencies in results relating brain connectivity networks to creative reasoning. An alternative approach is to avoid discarding information by separately testing for differences between groups in each edge probability, while adjusting the significance threshold for multiple testing via false discovery rate (FDR) control. As there are $V(V-1)/2$ pairs of brain regions under study — with $V=68$ using the Desikan atlas [@des_2006] — the number of tests is substantial. Such massively univariate approaches do not incorporate network information, leading to low power [@Fornito_2013], and underestimating the variations of the brain connections across groups. Recent proposals try to gain power by replacing the common @ben_1995 approach, with thresholding procedures that account for the network structure in the data [@Zalesky_2010]. However, such approaches require careful interpretation, while being highly computationally intensive, requiring permutation testing and choice of suprathreshold links. Instead of controlling FDR thresholds, @scott_2014 gain power in multiple testing by using auxiliary data — such as spatial proximity — to inform the posterior probability that specific pairs of nodes interact differently across groups or with respect to a baseline. @gine_2014 focus instead on assessing evidence of global changes in the brain structure by testing for group differences in the expected Laplacians. @scott_2014 and @gine_2014 substantially improve state of the art in local and global hypothesis testing for network data, respectively, but are characterized by a similar key issue, motivating our methodology. Specifically, previous procedures test for changes across groups in marginal [@scott_2014] or expected [@gine_2014] structures associated with the network-valued random variable, and hence cannot detect variations in the probabilistic generative mechanism that go beyond their focus. Similarly to much simpler settings, substantially different joint probability mass functions (pmf) for a network-valued random variable can have equal expectation or induce the same marginal distributions — characterized by the edge probabilities. Hence, these procedures are expected to fail in scenarios where the changes in the network-valued random variable are due to variations in more complex functionals. Model misspecification can have a major effect on the quality of inference [@deeg_1976; @begg_1990; @diri_2001], providing biased and inaccurate conclusions. Outline of our methodology -------------------------- In order to avoid the issues discussed above, it is fundamental to define a statistical model which is sufficiently flexible to accurately approximate any probabilistic generative mechanism underlying the observed data. @dur_2014 recently proposed a flexible mixture of low-rank factorizations to characterize the distribution of a network-valued random variable. We generalize their statistical model to allow the probabilistic generative mechanism associated with the brain networks to change across groups, without reducing data to summary measures prior to statistical analysis. We accomplish the above goal by factorizing the joint pmf for the random variable generating data $(y_i, \boldsymbol{A}_i)$, $i=1, \ldots,n$ as the product of the marginal pmf for the categorical predictor and the conditional pmf for the network-valued random variable given the group membership defined by the categorical predictor. By modeling the collection of group-dependent pmfs for the network-valued random variable via a flexible mixture of low-rank factorizations with group-specific mixing probabilities, we develop a simple global test for assessing evidence of group differences in the entire distribution of the network-valued random variable, rather than focusing inference only on changes in selected functionals. Differently from @gine_2014, our procedure additionally incorporates local testing for changes in edge probabilities across groups, in line with @scott_2014 — which in turn do not consider global tests. By explicitly borrowing strength within the network via matrix factorizations, we substantially improve power in our multiple local tests compared to standard FDR control procedures. In Section \[sec:model\] we describe the model formulation, with a key focus on the associated testing procedures. Prior specification, theoretical properties and posterior computation are considered in Section \[sec:prior\]. Section \[sec:sim\] provides simulations to assess inference and testing performance of our procedures. Results for our motivating neuroscience application are discussed in Section \[sec:app\]. Concluding remarks are provided in Section \[sec:disc\]. Model formulation and testing {#sec:model} ============================= Notation and motivation ----------------------- Let $(y_i, \boldsymbol{A}_i)$ represent the creativity group and the undirected network observation, respectively, for subject $i=1, \ldots, n$, with $y_i \in \mathbb{Y}=\{1, 2\}$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ the $V \times V$ adjacency matrix characterizing the edges in the network. As the brain network structure is available via undirected edges and self-relationships are not of interest, we model $(y_i, \boldsymbol{A}_i)$ by focusing on the random variable $\{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})\}$ generating data $\{y_i, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_i)\}$ with $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_i)=(A_{i[21]}, A_{i[31]}, \ldots, A_{i[V1]}, A_{i[32]}, \ldots, A_{i[V2]}, \ldots, A_{i[V(V-1)]})^{\T} \in \mathbb{A}_V= \{0,1\}^{V(V-1)/2}$ the vector encoding the lower triangular elements of $\boldsymbol{A}_i$, which uniquely define the network as $A_{i[vu]}=A_{i[uv]}$ for every $v=2, \ldots, V$, $u=1, \ldots, v-1$ and $i=1, \ldots, n$. Let ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}=\{{p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a}): y \in \mathbb{Y}, \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V\}$ denote the joint pmf for the random variable $\{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})\}$ with ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})=\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{Y}=y, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})=\boldsymbol{a}\}$, $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$ a network configuration. Assessing evidence of global association between $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ — under the above notation — formally requires testing the global null hypothesis $$\begin{aligned} H_0: {p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})= {p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y){p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(\boldsymbol{a}), \label{global_test}\end{aligned}$$ for all $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$, versus the alternative $$\begin{aligned} H_1: {p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})\neq {p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y){p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(\boldsymbol{a}), \label{global_test_1}\end{aligned}$$ for some $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$, where ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)=\mbox{pr}(\mathcal{Y}=y)$, $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ characterizes the marginal pmf of the grouping variable, whereas ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(\boldsymbol{a})=\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) =\boldsymbol{a}\}$, $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$ denotes the unconditional pmf for the network-valued random variable. The system of hypotheses – assesses evidence of global changes in the entire probability mass function, rather than on selected functionals or summary statistics, and hence is more general than @gine_2014 and joint tests on network measures. Recalling our neuroscience application, rejection of $H_0$ implies that there are differences in the brain architecture across creativity groups, but fails to provide insights on the reasons for these variations. Global differences may be attributable to several underlying mechanisms, including changes in specific interconnection circuits. As discussed in Section \[sec:intro\], local testing of group differences in the edge probabilities is of key interest in neuroscience applications in highlighting which brain connection measurements $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l \in \{0,1 \}$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$ — characterizing the marginals of $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ — are potentially responsible for the global association between $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$. Hence, consistently with these interests, we also incorporate in our analyses the multiple local tests assessing — for each pair $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$ — evidence against the null hypothesis of independence between $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l $ and $ \mathcal{Y}$ $$\begin{aligned} H_{0l}: {p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(y, a_l)={p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y){p}_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l), \label{local_test}\end{aligned}$$ for all $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $a_l \in \{0,1\}$, versus the alternative $$\begin{aligned} H_{1l}: {p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(y, a_l)\neq {p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y){p}_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l), \label{local_test_1}\end{aligned}$$ for some $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $a_l \in \{0,1\}$. In hypotheses –, the quantity $p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(y,a_l)$ denotes $\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{Y}=y, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l=a_l\}$, while $p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)=\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l=a_l\}$. In order to develop robust methodologies to test the global system –, and the multiple locals –, it is fundamental to consider a representation for ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ which is provably flexible in approximating any joint pmf for data $(y_i, \boldsymbol{A}_i)$, $i=1, \ldots,n$. As $ \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ is a highly multidimensional variable on a non-standard space, we additionally seek to reduce dimensionality in characterizing ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$, while looking for a representation which facilitates simple derivation of $p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(y,a_l)$ and $p_{ \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)$ from ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$. Dependent mixture of low-rank factorizations -------------------------------------------- According to the goals described above, we start by factorizing ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ as $$\begin{aligned} p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})= p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})=\mbox{pr}(\mathcal{Y}=y)\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) =\boldsymbol{a} \mid \mathcal{Y}=y\}, \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ for every $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$. It is always possible to define the joint probability mass function ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ as the product of the marginal pmf ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}=\{{p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y): y \in \mathbb{Y} \}$ for the grouping variable and the conditional pmfs ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}=\{p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a}): \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V \}$ for the network-valued random variable given the group $y \in \mathbb{Y}$. This also favors inference on how the network structure varies across the two groups, with ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}$ and ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}$ fully characterizing such variations. Although we treat $\mathcal{Y}$ as a random variable through a prospective likelihood, our methodology remains also valid for studies that sample the groups under a retrospective design. Under factorization , the global test – coincides with assessing whether the conditional pmf of the network-valued random variable remains equal or shifts across the two groups. Hence, under hypotheses – reduce to $$\begin{aligned} H_0: {p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}(\boldsymbol{a})= {p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}(\boldsymbol{a}), \quad \mbox{for all} \ \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V, \label{global_test1} \end{aligned}$$ versus the alternative $$\begin{aligned} \ \ \ \ H_1: {p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}(\boldsymbol{a})\neq {p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}(\boldsymbol{a}), \quad \mbox{for some} \ \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V. \label{global_test2} \end{aligned}$$ In order to develop a provably general and robust strategy to test – the key challenge relies in flexibly modeling the conditional pmfs ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}$ and ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}$ characterizing the distribution of the network-valued random variable in the first and second group, respectively. In fact, for every group $y \in \mathbb{Y}$, one needs a parameter $p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})$ for every possible network configuration $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$ to uniquely characterize ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}$, with the number of configurations being $|\mathbb{A}_V|=2^{V(V-1)/2}$. For example, in our neuroscience application $|\mathbb{A}_{68}|=2^{68(68-1)/2}-1=2^{2{,}278}-1$ free parameters are required to uniquely define the pmf of the brain networks in each group $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ under the usual restriction $\sum_{\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_{68}} p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})=1$. Clearly this number of parameters to test is massively larger than the sample size available in neuroscience applications. Hence, to facilitate tractable testing procedures it is necessary to substantially reduce dimensionality. However, in reducing dimension, it is important to avoid making overly restrictive assumptions that lead to formulations sensitive to issues arising from model misspecification. Focused on modeling a network-valued random variables’ pmf, ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$, without considering hypothesis testing or additional data on a categorical response, @dur_2014 proposed a mixture of low-rank factorizations which reduces dimensionality by exploiting network information while retaining flexibility. Although this provides an appealing building block for our testing procedures, global and local testing and inference on group differences is not a straightforward add on to their approach. As a first step towards constructing our tests, we generalize their model to allow group differences via $$\begin{aligned} p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})=\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) =\boldsymbol{a} \mid \mathcal{Y}=y\}= \sum_{h=1}^{H} \nu_{hy} \prod_{l=1}^{V(V-1)/2} (\pi_{l}^{(h)})^{a_l} (1- \pi^{(h)}_{l})^{1-a_l}, \label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ for each configuration $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_{V}$ and group $y \in \{1,2\}$, with the edge probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}=(\pi_1^{(h)}, \ldots, \pi_{V(V-1)/2}^{(h)} )^{\T} \in (0,1)^{V(V-1)/2}$ in each mixture component, defined as $$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}=\left\{1+\exp({-\boldsymbol{Z}-\boldsymbol{D}^{(h)}})\right\}^{-1},\quad \boldsymbol{D}^{(h)}=\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}^{(h)} \boldsymbol{X}^{(h)\T}), \quad h=1, \ldots, H, \label{eq2_1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)} \in \Re^{V\times R}$, $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}^{(h)}$ diagonal with $R$ non-negative weights $\lambda^{(h)}_{1}, \ldots, \lambda^{(h)}_{R}$, and $\boldsymbol{Z} \in \Re^{V(V-1)/2}$. Representation defines ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}$ and ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}$ via a flexible dependent mixture model, which borrows strength across the two groups in characterizing the shared mixture components, while allowing flexible modeling of the conditional pmfs $p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}$ via group-specific mixing probabilities $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{y}=(\nu_{1y}, \ldots, \nu_{Hy})$, $y \in \{1,2\}$, with $\nu_{hy} \in (0,1)$ for all $h=1, \ldots, H$ and $\sum_{h=1}^H\nu_{hy} =1$ for every $y \in \{1,2\}$. In order to reduce dimensionality and efficiently borrow information within the network, the characterization of the mixture components in adapts concepts from the literature on latent variable modeling of networks. Refer to @now_2001, @air_2008, @hof_2002 and @hof_2008 for popular specifications in modeling of a single network observation. Within each mixture component, connections among pairs of nodes are characterized as conditionally independent Bernoulli random variables given their component-specific edge probabilities $\pi_l^{(h)}$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$, with these probabilities further characterized as a function of node-specific latent variables. In equation , we define each component-specific log-odds vector as the sum of a shared similarity $\boldsymbol{Z} \in \Re^{V(V-1)/2}$ and a component-specific one $\boldsymbol{D}^{(h)} \in \Re^{V(V-1)/2}$ arising from the weighted dot product of node-specific latent coordinate vectors defining the rows of the $V \times R$ — typically $R \ll V$ — matrix $\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)}$, for $h=1, \ldots, H$. In fact, letting $l$ denote the pair of nodes $v$ and $u$, $v>u$, under , the probability of an edge between $v$ and $u$ in component $h$ increases with $Z_l$ and $\sum_{r=1}^{R}\lambda^{(h)}_r X^{(h)}_{vr} X^{(h)}_{ur}$. Representation provides an over-complete factorization — a common approach providing several benefits in Bayesian hierarchical modeling of multidimensional data [e.g @bha_2011; @ghosh_2009]. Factorization is appealing in reducing dimensionality, accommodating key topological network properties [@hof_2008] and improving mixing performance [@gelm_2012]. Our focus is on using the resulting flexible and tractable formulation – to draw inference on changes in identified functionals of interest arising from the pmf of our network-valued random variable and develop robust procedures for global and local testing. =\[circle, minimum size = 13mm, thick, draw =black!80, node distance = 16mm\] =\[-latex, thick\] =\[rectangle, draw=black!100\] (theta) [$\boldsymbol{\nu}_y$ ]{}; (z) \[right=of theta\] [$G_i$]{}; (d) \[below=of z\] [$y_i$ ]{}; (p) \[left=of d\] [${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}$ ]{}; (w) \[right=of z\] [$\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_i)$ ]{}; (pi) \[above=of w\] [$\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ ]{}; (x) \[right=of pi\] [$\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)}$ ]{}; (la) \[left=of pi\] [$\boldsymbol{\Lambda}^{(h)}$ ]{}; (zeta) \[above=of pi\] [$\boldsymbol{Z}$ ]{}; (theta) edge \[connect\] (z) (z) edge \[connect\] (w) (pi) edge \[connect\] (w) (d) edge \[connect\] (z) (p) edge \[connect\] (d) (x) edge \[connect\] (pi) (la) edge \[connect\] (pi) (zeta) edge \[connect\] (pi); ; ; ; ; at (0.1,-1) [$y \in \{1, 2\}$]{}; at (6.2,-4) [$i=1, \ldots, n$]{}; at (8.9,1.8) [$h=1, \ldots, H$]{}; Figure \[F\_dep\] outlines the mechanism to generate data $\{y_i, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_i)\}$ from the random variable $\{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})\}$ with pmf factorized as in and –. According to Figure \[F\_dep\] the indicator group $y_i$ is sampled from ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}$. The network $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_i)$ is instead generated conditioned on $y_i$ under the mixture representation in . In particular, given $y_i=y$ we first choose a mixture component by sampling the latent indicator $G_i \in \{1, \ldots, H\}$ with conditional pmf defined by the mixing probabilities, so that ${p}_{G_i \mid y}(h)=\nu_{hy}$. Then, given $G_i=h$ and the corresponding edge probability vector $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ — factorized as in — the network $ \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_i)$ is generated by sampling its edges $\mathcal{L}({A}_i)_l$, $l=1,\ldots, V(V-1)/2$ from conditionally independent Bernoulli variables. Hence, the dependence on the groups is introduced in the assignments to the mixture components via group-specific mixing probabilities, so that brain networks in the same component share a common edge probability vector $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$, with the probability assigned to each component changing across the two groups. This simple generative mechanism is appealing in facilitating tractable posterior computation and inference. A key aspect in representation – is that it allows dimensionality reduction, while preserving flexibility. As stated in Proposition \[lem1\] such a representation is sufficiently flexible to characterize any collection of group-dependent pmfs ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}$, ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}$. Any collection of group-dependent probability mass functions ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y} \in \mathcal{P}_{| \mathbb{A}_V |}=\{{p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}: 0\leq{p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})\leq 1 \ \mbox{for all} \ \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V, \sum_{\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V}{p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})=1\}$, $y \in \{1,2\}$ can be characterized as in for some $H$ with component-specific edge probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$, $h=1, \ldots, H$ factorized as in for some $R$. \[lem1\] This additionally ensures that any joint probability mass function ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ for the random variable $\{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})\}$ admits representation , – and hence our formulation can be viewed as fully general and robust against model misspecification in testing –, given sufficiently flexible priors for the components. See the online supplementary materials for proofs. Global and local testing under the proposed statistical model ------------------------------------------------------------- Including group dependence only in the mixing probabilities favors borrowing of information across the groups in modeling $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$, $h=1, \ldots, H$, while massively reducing the number of parameters to test in – from $2\{2^{V(V-1)/2}-1\}$ to $2(H-1)$. In fact, the characterization of ${p}_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}$ in – further simplifies the system – to only testing the equality of the group-specific mixing probability vectors $$\begin{aligned} H_0: (\nu_{11},\ldots, \nu_{H1})=(\nu_{12},\ldots, \nu_{H2}) \ \ \mbox{versus} \ \ H_1: (\nu_{11},\ldots, \nu_{H1})\neq (\nu_{12},\ldots, \nu_{H2}). \ \ \label{eq_mix_test}\end{aligned}$$ Recalling Proposition \[lem1\], under our formulation, the system uniquely characterizes the global hypotheses –. In developing methodologies for the multiple local tests in – under our model formulation, we measure the association between $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l$ and $ \mathcal{Y}$ exploiting the model-based version of the Cramer’s V proposed in @dun_2009, obtaining $$\begin{aligned} \rho^2_{l}&=&\frac{1}{\mbox{min}\{2,2\}-1}\sum_{y=1}^2 \sum_{a_l=0}^1\frac{\left\{p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(y,a_l)- p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)\right\}^2}{p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)}\nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{y=1}^2 \sum_{a_l=0}^1\frac{\left\{p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l \mid y}(a_l)- p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)\right\}^2}{p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)}\nonumber \\ &=&\sum_{y=1}^2 p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y) \sum_{a_l=0}^1\frac{\left\{p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l \mid y}(a_l)-p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l }(a_l)\right\}^2}{p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l }(a_l)}. \label{ro}\end{aligned}$$ Measuring the local association with $\rho_{l} \in (0,1)$ provides an appealing choice in terms of interpretation, with $\rho_{l} = 0$ meaning that ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(y, a_l)={p}_{\mathcal{Y}}(y){p}_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l}(a_l)$, for all $y \in \mathbb{Y}$ and $a_l \in \{0,1\}$, and hence the random variable $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l$ modeling the presence or absence of an edge among the $l$th pair of nodes, has no differences across groups. Beside incorporating a fully general and tractable global test, our model formulation is particularly appealing also in addressing issues associated to local multiple testing in the network framework. First, as stated in Proposition \[lem2.1\], each $\rho_l$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$, can be easily computed from the quantities in our model. Based on factorizations and , $p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l \mid y}(1)=1-p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l \mid y}(0)=\sum_{h=1}^{H}\nu_{hy}\pi^{(h)}_l$, and $p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l }(1)=1-p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l }(0)=\sum_{y=1}^{2}p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)\sum_{h=1}^{H}\nu_{hy}\pi^{(h)}_l$. \[lem2.1\] Second, the shared dependence on a common set of node-specific latent coordinates characterizing the construction of the edge probability vector $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ within each mixture component $h=1, \ldots, H$ in , explicitly accounts for specific dependence structures in brain connections. According to @hof_2008, factorization can accurately accommodate key topological properties including block structures, homophily behaviors and transitive edge patterns — among others. As a result — in line with @scott_2014 — informing our local testing procedures about these structures, is expected to substantially improve power compared to standard FDR control procedures. Prior specification and posterior computation {#sec:prior} ============================================= Prior specification and properties ---------------------------------- We specify independent priors ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}\sim\Pi_{y}$, $\boldsymbol{Z}=(Z_1, \ldots, Z_{V(V-1)/2})^{\T} \sim \Pi_Z$, $\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)} \sim \Pi_{X}$, $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(h)}=(\lambda^{(h)}_{1}, \ldots, \lambda^{(h)}_{R})^{\T} \sim \Pi_{\lambda}$, $h=1, \ldots, H$ and $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{y}=(\nu_{1y}, \ldots, \nu_{Hy})\sim \Pi_{\nu}$, $y \in \{1, 2\}$, to induce a prior $\Pi$ on the joint pmf ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ with full support in $\mathcal{P}_{2 \times | \mathbb{A}_V |}=\{{p}_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}: 0\leq{p}_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})\leq 1 \ \mbox{for all} \ y \in \{1,2\}, \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V, \ \mbox{with} \ \sum_{y \in \{1,2\}, \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V}{p}_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})=1\}$, while obtaining desirable asymptotic behavior, simple posterior computation and allowance for testing. Prior support is a key property to retain the flexibility associated with our statistical model and testing procedures, when performing posterior inference. As ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}$ is the pmf for a categorical variable on $2$ levels, we let $1-p_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)=p_{\mathcal{Y}}(1) \sim \mbox{Beta}(a, b)$, and consider the same prior specification suggested by @dur_2014 for the quantities in by choosing Gaussian priors for the entries in $\boldsymbol{Z}$, standard Gaussians for the elements in the coordinates matrix $\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)}$ and multiplicative inverse gammas for $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(h)} \sim \mbox{MIG}(a_1,a_2)$, $h=1, \ldots, H$, [@bha_2011]. This choice for $\Pi_{\lambda}$ favors shrinkage, with elements in $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(h)}$ increasingly concentrated close to $0$ as $r$ increases, so as to shrink towards lower dimensional representations and adaptively penalize high dimensional ones. A key property of our prior specification is incorporation of global testing in the definition of $\Pi_{\nu}$. Specifically letting $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}=(\upsilon_1, \ldots, \upsilon_H)$ and $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_y=(\upsilon_{1y}, \ldots, \upsilon_{Hy})$, we induce $\Pi_{\nu}$ through $$\begin{aligned} \boldsymbol{\nu}_{y} &=&(1-T)\boldsymbol{\upsilon}+T\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{y}, \quad y\in \{1, 2\},\nonumber\\ \boldsymbol{\upsilon} &\sim& \mbox{Dir}(1/H, \ldots, 1/H), \quad \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{y} \sim \mbox{Dir}(1/H, \ldots, 1/H), \ y\in \{1, 2\}, \label{eq5} \\ T &\sim& \mbox{Bern}\{\mbox{pr}(H_1)\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In (\[eq5\]), $T$ is a hypothesis indicator, with $T=0$ for $H_0$ and $T=1$ for $H_1$. Under $H_1$, we generate group-specific mixing probabilities independently, while under $H_0$ we have equal probability vectors. By choosing small values for the parameters in the Dirichlet priors, we favor automatic deletion of redundant components [@rou_2011]. In assessing evidence in favor of the alternative, we can rely on the posterior probability, $\mbox{pr}[H_1 \mid \{\boldsymbol{y},\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]=1-\mbox{pr}[H_0 \mid \{\boldsymbol{y},\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]$ which can be easily obtained from the output of the Gibbs sampler proposed below. Specifically, under prior and exploiting the hierarchical structure of our dependent mixture model — summarized in Figure \[F\_dep\] — the full conditional $\mbox{pr}(T=1 \mid -)=\mbox{pr}(H_1 \mid -)=1-\mbox{pr}(H_0 \mid -)$ is with $n_{hy}=\sum_{i:y_i=y}\mbox{1}(G_i=h)$, $n_h=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\mbox{1}(G_i=h)$, $\boldsymbol{\bar{n}}_y=(n_{1y}, \ldots, n_{Hy})$, $\boldsymbol{\bar{n}}=(n_1, \ldots, n_H)$, $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=(1/H, \ldots, 1/H)$, and $\mbox{B}(\cdot)$ is the multivariate beta function. It is easy to derive the equalities $\int(\prod_{h=1}^{H}\upsilon_h^{n_h})d \Pi_\upsilon=\mbox{B}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\bar{n}})/ \mbox{B}(\boldsymbol{\alpha})$ and $\int(\prod_{h=1}^{H}\upsilon_{hy}^{n_{hy}})d \Pi_{\upsilon_y}= \mbox{B}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\bar{n}}_y)/ \mbox{B}(\boldsymbol{\alpha})$, $y \in \{1,2\}$ exploiting the Dirichlet-multinomial conjugacy. Although providing a key choice for performing global testing, it is impractical to adopt formulation (\[eq5\]) for each local point null $H_{0l}: \rho_l =0$ versus $H_{1l}: \rho_l \neq 0$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$. Hence, we replace local point nulls with small interval nulls $H_{0l}: \rho_l \leq \epsilon$ versus $H_{1l}: \rho_l > \epsilon$. This choice allows $\mbox{pr}[H_{1l} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y},\mathcal{L}\boldsymbol{(A)}\}]=1-\mbox{pr}[H_{0l} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y},\mathcal{L}\boldsymbol{(A)}\}]$ to be easily estimated as the proportion of Gibbs samples in which $\rho_l >\epsilon$, for each $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$. Moreover — as noted in @berg_1987 and @berg_1988 — testing the small interval hypothesis $H_{0l}: \rho_l \leq \epsilon$ is in general more realistic and provides — under a Bayesian paradigm — comparable results to those obtained when assessing evidence of $H_{0l}: \rho_l =0$. Beside providing key computational benefits, as stated in Proposition \[lem2\], our choices induce a prior $\Pi$ for ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ with full $L_1$ support over $\mathcal{P}_{2 \times | \mathbb{A}_V |}$, meaning that $\Pi$ can generate a ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ within an arbitrarily small $L_1$ neighborhood of the true data-generating model ${p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$, allowing the truth to fall in a wide class. Based on our priors $\Pi_{y}, \Pi_Z, \Pi_{X}, \Pi_{\lambda}$, $\Pi_{\nu}$, and letting $\mathbb{B}_{\epsilon}({p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})})=\{{p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}:\sum_{y=1}^{2} \sum_{\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V} |p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})- p^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})|< \epsilon \}$ denote the $L_1$ neighborhood around ${p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$, then for any ${p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}\in \mathcal{P}_{2 \times | \mathbb{A}_V |}$ and $\epsilon>0$, $\Pi\{\mathbb{B}_{\epsilon}({p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})})\}>0$. \[lem2\] Full prior support is a key property to ensure accurate posterior inference and testing, because without prior support about the true data-generating pmf, the posterior cannot possibly concentrate around the truth. Moreover, as ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$ is characterized by finitely many parameters $p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})$, $y\in \mathbb{Y}$, $\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V$, Proposition \[lem2\] is sufficient to guarantee that the posterior assigns probability one to any arbitrarily small neighborhood of the true joint pmf as $n \rightarrow \infty$, meaning that $\Pi[\mathbb{B}_{\epsilon}({p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}) \mid \{y_1,\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_1)\}, \ldots, \{y_n,\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_n)\}]$ converges almost surely to $1$, when the true joint pmf is ${p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}$. Posterior computation --------------------- Posterior computation is available via a simple Gibbs sampler, exploiting our representation in Figure \[F\_dep\]. Specifically, the MCMC alternates between the following steps. 1. Sample $p_{\mathcal{Y}}(1)=1-p_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)$ from the full conditional $p_{\mathcal{Y}}(1) \mid -\sim \mbox{Beta}(a+n_1, b+n_2) $, with $n_y= \sum_{i=1}^n \mbox{1}(y_i=y)$. 2. For each $i=1, \ldots, n$, update $G_i$ from the discrete variable with probabilities, $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{pr}(G_i=h \mid - )= \frac{ \nu_{h y_{ _i}} \prod_{l=1}^{V(V-1)/2}(\pi_{l}^{(h)})^{ \mathcal{L}(A_i)_l} (1- \pi^{(h)}_{l})^{1- \mathcal{L}(A_i)_l}}{\sum_{q=1}^{H}\nu_{q y_{ _i}} \prod_{l=1}^{V(V-1)/2}(\pi_{l}^{(q)})^{ \mathcal{L}(A_i)_l} (1- \pi^{(q)}_{l})^{1- \mathcal{L}(A_i)_l}},\end{aligned}$$ for $h=1, \ldots, H$, with each $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ factorized as in 3. Given $G_i$, $i=1, \ldots, n$, the updating for quantities $\boldsymbol{Z}$, $\boldsymbol{X}^{(h)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\lambda}^{(h)}$, $h=1, \ldots, H$ proceeds via the recently developed Polyá-gamma data augmentation scheme for Bayesian logistic regression [@pol_2013] as in @dur_2014. 4. Sample the testing indicator $T$ from a Bernoulli with probability (\[eq6\]). 5. If $T=0$, let $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{y}=\boldsymbol{\upsilon}$, $y\in \{1,2\}$ with $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}$ updated from the full conditional Dirichlet $(\upsilon_1, \ldots, \upsilon_H) \mid -\sim \mbox{Dir}(1/H+n_1, \ldots, 1/H+n_H)$. Otherwise, if $T=1$, update each $\boldsymbol{\nu}_{y}$ independently from $(\nu_{1y}, \ldots, \nu_{Hy}) \mid -\sim \mbox{Dir}(1/H+n_{1y}, \ldots, 1/H+n_{Hy})$. Since the number of mixture components in and the dimensions of the latent spaces in are not known in practice, we perform posterior computation by fixing $H$ and $R$ at conservative upper bounds. The priors $\Pi_{\nu}$ and $\Pi_{\lambda}$ are chosen to allow adaptive emptying of the redundant components, with the posteriors for the corresponding parameters controlling unnecessary dimensions concentrated near zero. Simulation studies {#sec:sim} ================== We consider simulation studies to evaluate the performance of our method in correctly assessing the global hypothesis of association among the network-valued random variable $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ and the categorical predictor $\mathcal{Y}$, and in identifying local variations in each edge probability across groups. For comparison we also implement a MANOVA procedure — see e.g. @krz_1988 — to test for global variations across groups in the random vector of summary measures $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$, with realization $\boldsymbol{\theta}_i$ from $\boldsymbol{\Theta}$ comprising the most common network summary statistics — covering network density, transitivity, average path length and assortativity — computed for each simulated network $\boldsymbol{A}_i$. Refer to @kan_2013 for an overview on these topological network measures and @Bull_2009, @bull_2012 for a discussion on their importance in characterizing wiring mechanisms within the brain. For local testing, we compare our procedure to the results obtained when testing on the association between $\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ via separate two-sided Fisher’s exact tests for each $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$ — see e.g. @agr_2002. We consider exact tests to avoid issues arising from $\chi^2$ approximations in sparse tables. Simulation settings ------------------- We simulate $n=50$ pairs $(y_i,\boldsymbol{A}_i)$ from our model and –, with $y_i$ from a categorical random variable having two equally likely groups ${p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}}(1)=p^0_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)=0.5$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ a $V \times V$ network with $V=20$ nodes. We consider $H=2$ mixture components, with $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(h)}$ defined as in . Brain networks are typically characterized by tighter intra-hemispheric than inter-hemispheric connections [@ronc_2013]. Hence, we consider two node blocks $V_1=\{1,\ldots,10 \}$ and $V_2=\{11, \ldots, 20 \}$ characterizing left and right hemisphere, respectively, and generate entries in $\boldsymbol{Z}^0$ to favor more likely connections between pairs in the same block than pairs in different blocks. To assess performance in local testing, we induce group differences in the connections for a small subset of nodes $V^*\subset \{1, \ldots, V\}$. To include this scenario we consider $R=1$, $\lambda_1^{0(1)}=\lambda_1^{0(2)}=1$ and let $X_{v1}^{0(h)} \neq 0$ only for nodes $v \in V^*$, while fixing the latent coordinates of the remaining nodes to $0$. As a result, no variations in edge probabilities are displayed when the mixing probabilities remain constant, while only local differences are highlighted when the mixing probabilities shift across groups. Under the dependence scenario, data are simulated with group-specific mixing probabilities $\boldsymbol{\nu}_1^0=(0.8,0.2)$, $\boldsymbol{\nu}_2^0=(0.2,0.8)$. Instead, equal mixing probabilities $\boldsymbol{\nu}_1^0=\boldsymbol{\nu}_2^0=(0.5,0.5)$ are considered under independence. Although we focus on only $V=20$ nodes to facilitate graphical analyses, the mixture representation in and the low-rank factorization in allows scaling to higher $V$ settings. As shown in Figures \[F2\]–\[F3\], although our dependence simulation scenario may appear — at first — simple, it provides a challenging setting for procedures assessing evidence of global association by testing on variations in the network summary measures. In fact, we choose values $X_{v1}^{0(h)}$ for the nodes $v \in V^*$ such that the resulting summary statistics for the simulated networks do not display changes across groups also in the dependence scenario. Hence, a global test relying on network summary measures is expected to fail in detecting association between $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$, as variations in the networks’ pmf are only local — i.e. in a subset of its marginals $\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l$. On the other hand, powerful local testing procedures are required to efficiently detect this small set of edge probabilities truly changing across the two groups. In both scenarios, inference is accomplished by considering $H=R=10$, $\mbox{pr}(H_1)=\mbox{pr}(H_0)=0.5$ and letting $1-p_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)=p_{\mathcal{Y}}(1) \sim \mbox{Beta}(1/2,1/2)$. For priors $\Pi_Z, \Pi_X$ and $\Pi_{\lambda}$, we choose the same default hyperparameters suggested by @dur_2014. We collect $5{,}000$ Gibbs iterations, discarding the first $1{,}000$. In both scenarios convergence and mixing are assessed via @gelm_1992 potential scale reduction factors (PSRF) and effective sample sizes, respectively. The PSRFs are obtained by splitting each chain in four consecutive sub-chains of length $1{,}000$ after burn-in, and comparing between and within sub-chains variance. Convergence and mixing assessments focus on parameters of interest for inference, including the Cramer’s V coefficients $\rho_l$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$ for local testing and the group-specific edge probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{y}$, with elements $\bar{\pi}_{yl}=p_{\mathcal{L}({\mathcal{A}})_l \mid y}(1)=\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l=1 \mid \mathcal{Y}=y \}$ defined in Proposition \[lem2.1\]. This vector coincides with the group-specific mean network structure $\mbox{E}\{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid \mathcal{Y}=y\}=\sum_{\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V}\boldsymbol{a} \times p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})=\sum_{h=1}^{H}\nu_{hy}\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ under factorization (\[eq2\]). In both scenarios, most of the effective samples sizes are around $2{,}000$ out of $4{,}000$ samples, demonstrating excellent mixing performance. Similarly, all the PSRFs are less than $1.1$, providing evidence that convergence has been reached. Global and local testing performance ------------------------------------ Our testing procedure allows accurate inference on the global association between $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ and $\mathcal{Y}$. We obtain $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_1 \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]>0.99$ for the dependence scenario and $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_1 \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]<0.01$ when $y_i$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_i$, $i=1, \ldots, n$ are generated independently. Instead, the MANOVA testing procedure on the summary statistics vector fails to reject the null hypothesis of no association in both scenarios at a level $\alpha=0.1$ — as expected. This result further highlights how global network measures may fail in accurately characterizing the whole network architecture. Focusing on local testing in the dependence scenario, Figure \[F5\] shows how accounting for sparsity and network information — via our dependent mixture of low-rank factorizations — provides accurate inference on local variations in edge probabilities, correctly highlighting pairs of nodes whose connectivity differs across groups and explicitly characterizing uncertainty through the posterior distribution. Conducting inference on each pair of nodes separately provides instead poor estimates — refer to left plot in Figure \[F3\] — with the sub-optimality arising from inefficient borrowing of information across the edges. This lack of efficiency strongly affects also the local testing performance as shown in Figure \[F6\], with our procedure having higher power than the one obtained via separate Fisher’s exact tests. In Figure \[F6\], each Fisher’s exact test $p$-value is calibrated via $1/(1-e p_l \log p_l)$ if $p_l <1/e$ and $0.5$ otherwise, to allow better comparison with $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1l} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]$ [@sel_2001]. Moreover, we adjust for multiplicity in the Fisher’s exact tests by rejecting all the local nulls having a $p$-value below $p^*$, with $p^*$ the @ben_1995 threshold to maintain a false discovery rate FDR $\leq 0.1$. Under our local Bayesian testing procedure we reject all $H_{0l}$ such that $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1l} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]> 0.9$, with $\epsilon=0.1$. We do not explicitly control for FDR in order to assess whether our Bayesian procedures contain the intrinsic adjustment for multiple testing we expect. According to Figure \[F6\], thresholding the posterior probability of the local alternatives allows implicit adjustment for multiple testings. When explicit FDR control is required, one possibility is to define the threshold following the notion of Bayesian false discovery rate in [@Newton_2004]. To assess frequentist operating characteristics, we repeated the above simulation exercise for 100 simulated datasets under both dependence and independence scenarios. The MANOVA test is performed under a threshold $\alpha=0.1$, while the decision rule in the local Fisher’s exact tests is based on the @ben_1995 threshold to maintain a false discovery rate FDR $\leq 0.1$. Under our Bayesian procedure we reject the global null if $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]>0.9$. As the prior odds are $\mbox{pr}(H_1)/\mbox{pr}(H_0)=1$, the chosen value $0.9$ implies a threshold on the Bayes factor for significance close to the strong evidence bar suggested by @kass_1995. According to sensitivity analyses, moderate changes in the threshold do not affect the final conclusions. Consistently with our initial simulation, we reject local nulls if $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1l} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]>0.9$. Also in this case results are not substantially affected by moderate changes in the threshold both in simulation and application; hence, we maintain this choice to preserve coherence in our analyses. \[tab:1\] Type I error Type II error FWER FDR ------------------------------------ -------------- --------------- ---------- ---------- Mixture of low-rank factorizations $0.01$ $0.01$ MANOVA on summary measures $0.09$ $0.90$ Mixture of low-rank factorizations $0.0004$ $0.0587$ $0.0600$ $0.0023$ Separate Fisher’s exact tests $0.0036$ $0.5983$ $0.4000$ $0.0387$ : []{data-label="tab:1"} \[tab:2\] Minimum Mean Median Maximum ------------------------------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- Mixture of low-rank factorizations $0.969$ $0.999$ $1.000$ $1.000$ Separate Fisher’s exact tests $0.810$ $0.921$ $0.923$ $0.989$ : []{data-label="tab:2"} Table \[tab:1\] confirms the superior performance of our approach in maintaining all error rates close to zero, in both global and local testing, while intrinsically adjusting for multiplicity. The information reduction via summary measures for the global test and the lack of a network structure in the local Fisher’s exact tests lead to procedures with substantially less power. Although Table \[tab:1\] has been constructed using an FDR control of $0.1$ in the Fisher’s exact tests and a threshold of $0.9$ under our local testing procedure, we maintain superior performance allowing the thresholds to vary, as shown in Table \[tab:2\]. In considering sample size versus type I and type II error rates, it is interesting to assess the rate at which the posterior probability of the global alternative ${\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]$ converges to 0 and 1 under $H_0$ and $H_1$, respectively, as $n$ increases. We evaluate this behavior by simulating $100$ datasets as in the previous simulation for increasing sample sizes $n=20$, $n=40$ and $n=100$ and for each scenario. Figure \[F7\] provides histograms showing the estimated posterior probabilities of $H_1$ for the 100 simulated datasets under the two scenarios and for increasing sample sizes. The separation between scenarios is evident for all sample sizes, with $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]$ consistently concentrating close to $0$ and $1$ under the independence and dependence scenario, respectively, as $n$ increases. When $n=20$ the test has lower power, with $32/100$ samples having $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]<0.9$ when $H_1$ is true. However, type I errors were rare, with $1/100$ samples having $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]>0.9$ when data are generated under $H_0$. These values are very close to 0 when the sample size is increased to $n=40$ and $n=100$, with the latter showing strongly concentrated estimates close to $0$ and $1$, when $H_0$ is true and $H_1$ is true, respectively. Identifying group differences in more complex functionals --------------------------------------------------------- We conclude our simulation studies by considering a scenario in which there is a strong dependence between $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ and $\mathcal{Y}$, but this dependence arises from changes in more complex structures, instead of just the edge probabilities. Specifically, we simulate $n=50$ pairs $(y_i,\boldsymbol{A}_i)$ from our model and , with ${p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}}(1)=p^0_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)=0.5$ and $\boldsymbol{A}_i$ a $V \times V$ network with $V=20$ nodes. In defining we consider $H=3$ components and again split the nodes in two blocks $V_1=\{1, \ldots, 10 \}$ and $V_2=\{11, \ldots, 20 \}$, characterizing — for example — the two different hemispheres. When $h=1$, the vector $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(1)}$ characterizes this block structure, with the probability of an edge between pairs of nodes in the same block set at $0.75$, while nodes in different blocks have $0.5$ probability to be connected. Vectors $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(2)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(3)}$ maintain the same within block probability of $0.75$ as in $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(1)}$, but have different across block probability. In component $h=2$ the latter increases by $0.3$ — from $0.5$ to $0.8$ — while in component $h=3$ this quantity decreases by the same value — from $0.5$ to $0.2$. As a result, when letting $\boldsymbol{\nu}_1^0=(1,0,0)$ and $\boldsymbol{\nu}_2^0=(0,0.5,0.5)$ it is easy to show that the group-specific edge probabilities — characterizing the distribution of each edge in the two groups — remain equal $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}^0_{1}=\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}^0_{2}$, even if the probability mass function jointly assigned to these edges changes across groups ${p}^0_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}\neq {p}^0_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}$. This provide a subtle scenario for the several procedures assessing evidence of changes in the brain network across groups, by focusing solely on marginal or expected quantities. These strategies should — correctly — find no difference in edge probabilities and hence may be — wrongly — prone to conclude that the brain network does not change across groups. Underestimating associations may be a dangerous fallacy in understating — for example — the effect of a neurological disorder that induces changes in more complex functionals of the brain network. We apply our procedures to these simulated data under the same settings of our initial simulations, obtaining very similar effective sample sizes and PSRFs. As shown in the upper panels of Figure \[F8\] the posterior probabilities for all the local alternatives are lower than $0.9$ and hence our multiple testing procedure does not reject $H_{0l}$ for every $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$. Beside correctly assessing the evidence of no changes in edge probabilities across the two groups, our global test is able to detect variations in more complex functionals of the brain network. In fact we obtain $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]>0.99$, meaning that although there is no evidence of changes in edge probabilities across the two groups, the model finds a strong association between $\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})$ and $\mathcal{Y}$. The type of variations in more complex structures can be observed in the lower panels of Figure \[F8\] showing the posterior predictive distribution of the selected network summary statistics obtained under our statistical model. Although the latter is not analytically available, it is straightforward to simulate from the posterior predictive distribution exploiting our constructive representation in Figure \[F\_dep\] and posterior samples for the quantities in and –. Specifically, for each MCMC sample of the parameters in and – — after convergence — we generate a network from our model exploiting the mechanism in Figure \[F\_dep\], to obtain the desired samples from the posterior predictive distribution. According to the lower panels of Figure \[F8\] there are substantial changes in the pmf of the network data across groups. In group one our model infers network summary measures having unimodal distributions, while in the second group we learn substantially different bimodal distributions. This behavior was expected based on our simulation, and hence these results further confirm the accuracy of our global test along with the good performance of our model in flexibly characterizing the distribution of a network-valued random variable and its variations across groups. Application to human brain networks and creativity {#sec:app} ================================================== We apply our method to the dataset described in the introduction using the same settings as in the simulation examples, but with upper bound $H$ increased to $H=15$. This choice proves to be sufficient with components $h=12, \ldots, 15$ having no observations and redundant dimensions of the latent spaces efficiently removed. The efficiency of the Gibbs sampler was very good, with effective sample sizes around $1{,}500$ out of $4{,}000$. Similarly the PSRFs provide evidence that convergence has been reached, as the highest of these quantities is $1.15$. These checks on mixing and convergence are performed for the chains associated with quantities of interest for inference and testing. These include the Cramer’s V coefficients $\rho_l$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$, the group-specific edge probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{1}$, $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{2}$ and the expectation of selected network summary statistics. Our results provide interesting insights into the global relation between the brain network and creativity, with $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]=0.995$ strongly favoring the alternative hypothesis of association between the brain connectivity architecture and the level of creative reasoning. To assess the robustness of our global test, we also performed posterior computation based on datasets that randomly matched the observed group membership variables with a corresponding brain network, effectively removing the possibility of an association. In $10$ of these trials we always obtained — as expected — low $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}] \leq 0.2$. We also attempted to apply the MANOVA test as implemented in the simulation experiments, with the same network statistics — i.e. network density, transitivity, average path length and assortativity by hemisphere. These are popular measures in neuroscience in informing on fundamental properties in brain network organization, such as small-world, homophily patterns and scale-free behaviors [@Bull_2009; @Rub_2010; @bull_2012]. In our dataset, the average path length was undefined for three subjects, as there were no paths between several pairs of their brain regions. Replacing these undefined shortest path lengths with the maximum path length, we observe no significant changes across creativity groups with a $p$-value of $0.111$. When excluding this topological measure, we obtain a borderline $p$-value of $0.054$. This sensitivity to the choice of summary statistics further motivates tests that avoid choosing topological measures, which is a somewhat arbitrary exercise. As a secondary focus, we also examined predictive performance of our model. In particular, we considered in-sample edge prediction based on the posterior mean of the edge probabilities in the two groups. This produced excellent results, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) equal to $0.97$. The ROC curve is constructed using the observed edges $\mathcal{L}({A}_{i})_l$, $i=1, \ldots, n$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$ and those predicted with the posterior mean of the group-specific edge probabilities at varying thresholds — using ${\hat{\bar{\pi}}}_{1l}$ for subjects with $y_i=1$ and ${\hat{\bar{\pi}}}_{2l}$ for subjects with $y_i=2$. Beside providing a flexible approach for joint modeling of networks and categorical traits, our model also represents a powerful tool to predict $y_i$ given the subject’s full brain network structure. In fact, under our formulation, the probability that a subject $i$ has high creativity, conditionally on his brain structural connectivity network $\boldsymbol{A}_i$, is $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{Y}_i = 2 \mid \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_{i})\} = 1-\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{Y}_i =1 \mid \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_{i})\} =\frac{p_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}(\boldsymbol{a}_{i})}{p_{\mathcal{Y}}(2)p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 2}(\boldsymbol{a}_{i})+p_{\mathcal{Y}}(1)p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid 1}(\boldsymbol{a}_{i})}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol{a}_{i}= \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_{i})$ is the network configuration of the $i$th subject and $p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a}_{i})$, $y \in\{1,2\}$ can be easily computed from . We obtain an in-sample $\mbox{AUC}=0.87$ in predicting the creativity group $y_i$ using the posterior mean of $\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{Y}_i = 2 \mid \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_{i})\}=1-\mbox{pr}\{\mathcal{Y}_i =1 \mid \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A}_{i})\}$ for each $i=1, \ldots, n$. Hence, allowing the conditional pmf of the network-valued random variable to shift across groups via group-specific mixing probabilities provides a good characterization of the relation between brains and creativity, leading to accurate prediction of the creativity group. Although these results are in-sample, they provide reassurance that the substantial dimensionality reduction underlying our representation does not lead to inadequate fit. Figure \[F9\] provides summaries of the posterior distribution for the quantities in $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{2}-\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{1}$, with $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{2}=\sum_{h=1}^{H}\nu_{h2}\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ and $\boldsymbol{\bar{\pi}}_{1}=\sum_{h=1}^{H}\nu_{h1}\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}$ encoding the edge probabilities in high and low creativity groups, respectively. Most of these connections have a similar probability in the two groups, with more evident local differences for connections among brain regions in different hemispheres. Highly creative individuals display a higher propensity to form inter-hemispheric connections. Differences in intra-hemispheric circuits are less evident. These findings are confirmed by Figure \[F10\] including also results from our local testing procedure. As in the simulation, we set $\epsilon=0.1$ and the decision rule rejects the local null $H_{0l}$ when $\hat{\mbox{pr}}[H_{1l} \mid \{\boldsymbol{y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{A})\}]>0.9$. These choices provide reasonable settings based on simulations, and results are robust to moderate changes in the thresholds. Previous studies show that intra-hemispheric connections are more likely than inter-hemispheric connections for healthy individuals [@ronc_2013]. This is also evident in our dataset, with subjects having a proportion of intra-hemispheric edges of 0.55 over the total number of possible intra-hemispheric connections, against a proportion of about 0.21 for the inter-hemispheric ones. Our estimates in Figure \[F9\] and local tests in Figure \[F10\] highlight differences only in terms of inter-hemispheric connectivity, with highly creative subjects having a stronger propensity to connect regions in different hemispheres. This is consistent with the idea that creative innovations arise from communication of brain regions that ordinarily are not connected [@hei_2003]. These findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the sources of creativity in the human brain, with original theories considering the right-hemisphere as the seat of creative thinking, and more recent empirical analyses highlighting the importance of the level of communication between the two hemispheres of the brain; see @saw_2012, @sho_2009 and the references cited therein. Beside the differences in techniques to monitor brain networks and measure creativity, as stated in @ard_2010, previous lack of agreement is likely due to the absence of a unifying approach to statistical inference in this field. Our method addresses this issue, while essentially supporting modern theories considering creativity as a result of cooperating hemispheres. According to Figure \[F10\] the differences in terms of inter-hemispheric connectivity are found mainly in the frontal lobe, where the co-activation circuits in the high creativity group are denser. This is in line with recent findings highlighting the major role of the frontal lobe in creative cognition [@carl_2000; @jung_2010; @take_2010]. Previous analyses focus on variations in the activity of each region in isolation, with @carl_2000 and @take_2010 noticing an increase in cerebral blood flow and fractional anisotropy, respectively, for highly creative subjects, and @jung_2010 showing a negative association between creativity and cortical thickness in frontal regions. We instead provide inference on the interconnections among these regions, with increased bilateral frontal connectivity for highly creative subjects, consistent with both the attempt to enhance frontal activity as suggested by @carl_2000 and @take_2010 or reduce it according to @jung_2010. Figure \[F12\] shows the effect of the increased inter-hemispheric frontal connectivity — in high creativity subjects — on the posterior distribution of the key expected network summary statistics in the two groups. Although the expectation for most of these quantities cannot be analytically derived as a function of the parameters in –, it is straightforward to obtain posterior samples for the previous measures via Monte Carlo methods exploiting the constructive representation in Figure \[F\_dep\]. According to Figure \[F12\] the brains in high creativity subjects are characterized by an improved architecture — compared to low creativity subjects — with increased connections, higher transitivity and shortest paths connecting pairs of nodes. As expected also hemispheric assortativity decreases. This is consistent with our local testing procedure providing evidence of increased inter-hemispheric activity and unchanged intra-hemispheric connectivity structures across the two groups. Previous results are also indicative of small-world structures in highlighting high transitivity and low average path length, with brains for high creativity subjects having a stronger small-world topology than subjects with low creativity. This is a key property in the organization of brain networks [@Bull_2009]. Discussion {#sec:disc} ========== This article proposes the first general approach in the literature — to our knowledge — for inference and testing of group differences in network-valued data without focusing on pre-specified functionals or reducing the network data to summary statistics prior to inference. The creativity application illustrates substantial benefits of our approach in providing a unifying and powerful methodology to perform inferences on group differences in brain networks, in contrast to current practice, which applies simple statistical tests based on network summary measures or selected functionals. These tests tend to lack power and be sensitive to the summary statistics and functionals chosen, contributing to the inconsistent results observed in the recent literature. Although we specifically focus on creativity, our method can be applied in many other settings. For example, for inferring differences in brain networks with neuropsychiatric diseases. In addition, our approach is applicable to other fields involving network-valued data. It is interesting to generalize our procedure to the multiple group case with $y_i \in \{1, \ldots, K\}$. This can be accomplished with minor modifications to the two groups case. Specifically, it is sufficient to consider as many mixing probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\nu}_y$ as the total number of groups $K$, replace the beta prior for ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}$ with a Dirichlet and appropriately modify the Gibbs sampler. Theoretical properties and testing procedures are trivial to extend. Although generalization to the multiple groups case is straightforward, there may be subtleties in capturing ordering in the changes across many groups. There are other interesting ongoing directions. For example, it is important to allow nonparametric shifts in the pmf associated with the network-valued random variable across non-categorical predictor variables, while developing procedures scaling to a number of nodes much larger than $V=68$. Focusing on neuroscience applications, another important goal is to develop statistical methods that explicitly take into account errors in constructing the brain connection network, including in alignment and in recovering fiber tracts, taking as input the raw imaging data. Our model partially accounts for these errors via the pmfs for the network-valued random variables and the prior distributions for its quantities. However procedures that explicitly account for this noise, may yield improvements in performance, including better uncertainty quantification. Finally, it is important to consider generalizations accommodating fiber counts instead of just binary indicators. Incorporating information on weighted edges, data take the form of multivariate counts, again with network-structured dependence. There are subtleties involved in modeling of multivariate counts. It is common to incorporate latent variables in Poisson factor models [e.g @duns_2005]. Including this generalization requires minor modifications of our current procedures, however, as noted in @can_2011, there is a pitfall in such models due to the dual role of the latent variable component in controlling the degree of dependence and the magnitude of over-dispersion in the marginal distributions. @can_2011 address these issues via a rounded kernel method which improves flexibility in modeling count variables. Our current efforts are aimed at adapting these procedures to develop nonparametric approaches for inference on the distribution of weighted networks. Supplementary materials: Proofs of propositions {#supplementary-materials-proofs-of-propositions .unnumbered} =============================================== The supplementary materials contain proofs of Propositions 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 providing theoretical support for the methodology developed in the article “Bayesian Inference and Testing of Group Differences in Brain Networks”. \[sec:intro\] [**[Proposition 2.1 ]{}**]{} Recalling Lemma 2.1 in @dur_2014 we can always represent the conditional probability $p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})$ separately for each group $y \in \{1,2\}$ as $$p_{\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}) \mid y}(\boldsymbol{a})=\sum_{h=1}^{H_y} \nu^*_{hy} \prod_{l=1}^{V(V-1)/2} (\pi_{l}^{(hy)})^{a_l} (1- \pi^{(hy)}_{l})^{1-a_l}, \quad \boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V,$$ with each $\pi^{(hy)}_l$ factorized as $\mbox{logit}(\pi^{(hy)}_l)=Z^{(y)}_l+\sum_{r=1}^{R_y}\lambda^{(hy)}_r X^{(hy)}_{vr} X^{(hy)}_{ur}$, $l=1, \ldots, V(V-1)/2$ and $h=1, \ldots, H_y$. Hence Proposition 2.1 follows after choosing $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}, h=1, \ldots, H$ as the sequence of unique component-specific edge probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(hy)}$ appearing in the above separate factorizations for at least one group $y$, and letting the group-specific mixing probabilities in (2.8) be $\nu_{hy}= \nu^*_{hy}$ if $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}=\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(hy)}$ and $\nu_{hy}=0$ otherwise. [**[Proposition 2.2]{}**]{} Recalling factorization (2.8) and letting $\mathbb{A}^{-l}_{V}$ denote the set containing all the possible network configurations for the node pairs except the $l$th one, we have that $p_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l \mid y}(1)$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned} \sum_{\mathbb{A}^{-l}_{V}}\sum_{h=1}^{H} \nu_{hy} \pi_{l}^{(h)}\prod_{l^*\neq l} (\pi_{l^*}^{(h)})^{a_{l^*}} (1- \pi^{(h)}_{l^*})^{1-a_{l^*}} =\sum_{h=1}^{H} \nu_{hy} \pi_{l}^{(h)}\sum_{\mathbb{A}^{-l}_{V}}\prod_{l^*\neq l} (\pi_{l^*}^{(h)})^{a_{l^*}} (1- \pi^{(h)}_{l^*})^{1-a_{l^*}} \end{aligned}$$ Then Proposition 2.2 follows after noticing that $\prod_{l^*\neq l} (\pi_{l^*}^{(h)})^{a_{l^*}} (1- \pi^{(h)}_{l^*})^{1-a_{l^*}}$ is the joint pmf of independent Bernoulli random variables and hence the summation over the joint sample space $\mathbb{A}^{-l}_{V}=\{0,1 \}^{V(V-1)/2-1}$, provides $\sum_{\mathbb{A}^{-l}_{V}}\prod_{l^*\neq l} (\pi_{l^*}^{(h)})^{a_{l^*}} (1- \pi^{(h)}_{l^*})^{1-a_{l^*}}=1$. The proof of $p_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l}(1)=\sum_{y=1}^{2}p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)\sum_{h=1}^{H}\nu_{hy}\pi^{(h)}_l$ follows directly from the above results after noticing that $p_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l}(1)=\sum_{y=1}^{2}p_{\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l}(y,1)=\sum_{y=1}^{2}p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)p_{\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{A})_l \mid y}(1)$. [**[Proposition 3.1]{}**]{} Recalling the proof of Proposition 2.1 and factorization (2.5) we can always represent $\sum_{y=1}^{2} \sum_{\boldsymbol{a} \in \mathbb{A}_V} |p_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})- p^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})}(y,\boldsymbol{a})|$ as with $\nu^0_{hy}=\nu^{*0}_{hy}$ if $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(h)}=\boldsymbol{\pi}^{0(hy)}$ and $\nu^0_{hy}=0$ otherwise. Hence $\Pi\{\mathbb{B}_{\epsilon}({p}^0_{\mathcal{Y}, \mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}})})\}$ is Recalling results in @dun_2009 a sufficient condition for the above integral to be strictly positive is that $\Pi_y\{{p}_y: \sum_{y=1}^2 | p_{\mathcal{Y}}(y)-p_{\mathcal{Y}}^0(y)|<\epsilon_y\}>0$, $\Pi_{\pi}\{\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(1)}, \ldots, \boldsymbol{\pi}^{(H)}: \sum_{h=1}^H \sum_{l=1}^{V(V-1)/2} | \pi^{(h)}_l-\pi^{0(h)}_l |<\epsilon_{\pi}\}>0$ and $\Pi_{\nu}\{\boldsymbol{\nu}_1, \boldsymbol{\nu}_2: \sum_{y=1}^2 \sum_{h=1}^H | \nu_{hy}-\nu^0_{hy}|<\epsilon_{\nu}\}>0$ for every $\epsilon_{\pi}>0$, $\epsilon_y>0$ and $\epsilon_{\nu}>0$. The large support for ${p}_{\mathcal{Y}}$ is directly guaranteed from the Beta prior. Similarly, according to Theorem 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 in @dur_2014, the same hold for the joint prior over the sequence of component-specific edge probability vectors $\boldsymbol{\pi}^{(h)}, h=1, \ldots, H$ induced by priors $\Pi_Z$, $\Pi_X$ and $\Pi_{\lambda}$ in factorization (2.9). Finally, marginalizing out the testing indicator $T$ and recalling our prior specification for the mixing probabilities in (3.1) a lower bound for $\Pi_{\nu}\{\boldsymbol{\nu}_1, \boldsymbol{\nu}_2: \sum_{y=1}^2 \sum_{h=1}^H | \nu_{hy}-\nu^0_{hy}|<\epsilon_{\nu}\}$ is $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{pr}(H_0)\Pi_{\upsilon} \{ \boldsymbol{\upsilon}: \sum_{y=1}^2 \sum_{h=1}^H | \upsilon_{h}-\nu^0_{hy}|<\epsilon_{\nu}\}+\mbox{pr}(H_1) \prod_{y=1}^{2} \Pi_{\upsilon_y} \{ \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_y :\sum_{h=1}^H | \upsilon_{hy}-\nu^0_{hy}|<\epsilon_{\nu}/2\}. \label{app_1}\end{aligned}$$ If the true model is generated under independence, the above equation reduces to $$\begin{aligned} \mbox{pr}(H_0)\Pi_{\upsilon} \{ \boldsymbol{\upsilon}: \sum_{h=1}^H | \upsilon_{h}-\nu^0_{h}|<\epsilon_{\nu}/2\}+\mbox{pr}(H_1) \prod_{y=1}^{2} \Pi_{\upsilon_y} \{ \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_y :\sum_{h=1}^H | \upsilon_{hy}-\nu^0_{h}|<\epsilon_{\nu}/2\},\end{aligned}$$ with the Dirichlet priors for $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}$, $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_2$ ensuring the positivity of both terms. When instead $\nu^0_{h1} \neq \nu^0_{h2}$ for some $h=1, \ldots, H$, the inequality $\mbox{pr}(H_0)\Pi_{\upsilon} \{ \boldsymbol{\upsilon}: \sum_{y=1}^2 \sum_{h=1}^H | \upsilon_{h}-\nu^0_{hy}|<\epsilon_{\nu}\}>0$ is not guaranteed, but $\mbox{pr}(H_1) \prod_{y=1}^{2} \Pi_{\upsilon_y} \{ \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_y :\sum_{h=1}^H | \upsilon_{hy}-\nu^0_{hy}|<\epsilon_{\nu}/2\}$ remains strictly positive for every $\epsilon_{\nu}$ under the independent Dirichlet priors for the quantities $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_1$ and $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_2$, proving the Proposition. This work was partially funded by the grant CPDA154381/15 of the University of Padova, Italy, and by the Office of Naval Research grant N00014-14-1-0245, United States. The authors would like to thank Rex E. Jung and Sephira G. Ryman for the brain connectivity data and creativity scores funded by the John Templeton Foundation (Grant 22156) entitled “The Neuroscience of Scientific Creativity.” The authors are also grateful to William Gray Roncal and Joshua T. Vogelstein for help in accessing the connectome data. We finally thank the Editor, the Associate Editor and the referees for the valuable comments on a first version of the article.

ArXiv

--- author: - Kazuya Okamura title: Measuring processes and the Heisenberg picture --- Introduction {#sec:1} ============ In this paper, we mathematically investigate measuring processes in the Heisenberg picture. We aim to extend the framework of quantum measurement theory and to apply the method in this paper not only to quantum systems of finite degrees of freedom but also to those with infinite degrees of freedom. It is well-known that correlation functions are essential for the description of systems in quantum theory and in quantum probability theory. Typical examples are Wightman functions in (axiomatic) quantum field theory [@SW00] and several (algebraic, noncommutative) independence in quantum probability theory (see [@HoraObata07; @Muraki13] and references therein), which are characterized by behaviors of correlation functions. In the famous paper by Accardi, Frigerio and Lewis [@AFL82], general classes of quantum stochastic processes including quantum Markov processes were characterized in terms of correlation functions. The main result of [@AFL82] is a noncommutative version of Kolmogorov’s theorem stating that a quantum stochastic process can be reconstructed from a family of correlation functions up to equivalence. The proof of this result is made by the efficient use of positive-definiteness of a family of correlation functions. Later Belavkin [@Belavkin85] formulated the theory of operator-valued correlation functions, which is more flexible than the original formulation in [@AFL82] and gives an opportunity for reconsidering the standard formulation of qunatum theory. And he extended the main result of [@AFL82]. We apply Belavkin’s theory, with some modifications, to a systematic characterization of measurement correlations in this paper. Measurements are described by the notion of instrument introduced Davies and Lewis [@DL70]. An instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is defined as a $P(\mathcal{M}_\ast)$-valued measure $\mathcal{F}\ni\Delta\mapsto\mathcal{I}(\Delta)\in P(\mathcal{M}_\ast)$, where $\mathcal{M}$ is a von Neumann algebra with predual $\mathcal{M}_\ast$, $P(\mathcal{M}_\ast)$ is the set of positive linear map of $\mathcal{M}$ and $(S,\mathcal{M})$ is a measurable space. The statistical description of measurements in terms of instruments can be regarded as a kind of quantum dynamical process based on the so-called Schrödinger picture. As widely accepted, the Schrödinger picture stands on describing states as time-dependent variables and observables as constants with respect to time, i.e., time-independent variables while we treat states as constants with respect to time and observables as time-dependent variables the Heisenberg picture. To the author’s knowledge, the Schrödinger picture is matched with an operational approach to quantum theory concerning probability distributions of observables and of output variables of apparatuses [@DL70; @Davies76; @BGL95; @Ozawa97]. On the other hand, no systematic treatment of measurements in the Heisenberg picture, which can compare with the theory of instruments, has been investigated. In contrast to the Schrödinger picture, the Heisenberg picture focuses on dynamical changes of observables and can naturally treat correlation functions of observables at different times, so that enables us to examine the dynamical nature of the system under consideration itself in detail. The Heisenberg picture is better than the Schrödinger picture at this point. Therefore, inspired by the previous investigations on quantum stochastic processes and correlation functions [@AFL82; @Belavkin85], we define a system of measurement correlations. This is the exact counterpart of instrument in a “generalized" Heisenberg picture and defined as a family of multilinear maps satisfying “positive-definiteness", “$\sigma$-additivity" and other conditions. An instrument induced by a system of measurement correlations is always completely positive. In addition, we redefine measuring process (Definition \[MP2\]) in order that it becomes consistent with the definition of system of measurement correlations. In the quantum mechanical case, we show that every system of measurement correlations is defined by a measuring process. It is, however, difficult to extend this result to general von Neumann algebras. Therefore, we develop another aspect of measurements, which is deeply analyzed for the first time in this paper. From the statistical viewpoint as the starting point of quantum measurement theory, we discuss the extendability of CP instruments to systems of measurement correlations and the realizability of CP instruments by measuring processes. In physically relevant cases, we show that both are possible within arbitrary accuracy. Mathematically speaking, the purpose of this paper is to develop the unitary dilation theory of systems of measurement correlations and of CP instruments. Dilation theory is one of main topics in functional analysis and enables us to apply representation theory and harmonic analysis to operators or to operator algebras. Especially, the unitary dilation theory of contractions on Hilbert space [@NFBK10; @Halmos82] and the dilation theory of completely positive maps [@Arveson69; @Stine55] have been studied in many investigations (see [@NFBK10; @Halmos82; @Paulsen02; @Arveson69; @Stine55; @Lance95; @Kraus; @Kraus2; @Skeide00; @Skeide01] and references therein). A representation theorem of CP instruments on the set ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ of bounded operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ [@Oz84 Theorem 5.1] (Theorem \[CPIMP\]) follows from these results, which shows the existence of unitary dilations of CP instruments. The proof of this theorem is based on the theory of CP-measure space [@O14; @OO16]. In the case of CP instruments, a unitary dilation of a CP instrument is nothing but a measuring process which realizes it. We generalize this representation theorem to systems of measurement correlations defined on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ in terms of Kolmogorov’s theorem. It should be remarked that CP instruments defined on general von Neumann algebras do not always admit unitary dilations (see Examples \[NoNEP1\] and \[NoNEP2\]). Next, we consider the extendability of CP instruments to systems of measurement correlations. It will be shown that all CP instruments can be extended into systems of measurement correlations. Furthermore, we show that every CP instrument defined on general von Neumann algebras can be approximated by measuring processes within arbitrarily given error limits $\varepsilon>0$. If von Neumann algebras are injective or injective factors, measuring processes approximating a CP instrument can be chosen to be faithful or inner, respectively. Preliminaries are given in Section \[sec:2\]; Foundations of quantum measurement theory, kernels and their Kolmogorov decompositions are explained. We introduce a system of measurement correlations and prove a representation theorem of systems of measurement correlations in Section \[sec:3\]. In Section \[sec:4\], we define measuring processes and their complete equivalence, and in the case of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ we show a unitary dilation theorem of systems of measurement correlations establishing a one-to-one correspondence between systems of measurement correlations and complete equivalence classes of measuring processes. In Section \[sec:5\], we discuss a generalization of the main result in Section \[sec:4\] to arbitrary von Neumann algebras, and the extendability of CP instruments to systems of measurement correlations. We show that for any CP instruments there always exists a systems of measurement correlations which defines a given CP instrument. In Section \[sec:6\], we explore the existence of measuring processes which approximately realizes a given CP instrument. We show several approximate realization theorems of CP instruments by measuring processes. Preliminaries {#sec:2} ============= In this paper, we assume that von Neumann algebras $\mathcal{M}$ are $\sigma$-finite. However, only in the case of $\mathcal{M}={\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$, the von Neumann algebra of bounded operators on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, this assumption is ignored. Foundations of quantum measurement theory ----------------------------------------- We introduce foundations of quantum measurement theory here. To precisely understand the theory of quantum measurement and its mathematics, the most important thing is to know how measurements physically realizable in experimental settings are described as physical processes consistent with statistical characterization of measurements. We refer the reader to [@Ozawa04; @14MFQ-; @OO16] for detailed introductory expositions of quantum measurement theory. The history of quantum measurement theory is long as much as those of quantum theory, but the modern theory of quantum measurement began with the mathematical study of the notion of instruments introduced by Davies and Lewis [@DL70]. They proposed that we should abandon *the repeatability hypothesis* [@vonNeumann; @DL70; @Ozawa15] as a general principle and employ an operational approach to quantum measurement, which is based on the mathematical description of measurements in terms of instruments defined as follows. Let $\mathbf{S}$ be a system whose observables and states are described by self-adjoint operators affiliated to a von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and by normal states on $\mathcal{M}$, respectively. We denote by $\mathcal{M}_\ast$ the predual of $\mathcal{M}$, i.e., the set of ultraweakly continuous linear functionals on $\mathcal{M}$, by $\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$ the set of normal states on $\mathcal{M}$ and by $P(\mathcal{M}_\ast)$ the set of positive linear maps on $\mathcal{M}_\ast$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. A map $\mathcal{I}:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow P(\mathcal{M}_\ast)$ is called an instrument for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ if it satisfies the following conditions:\ $(1)$ $\Vert\mathcal{I}(S)\rho\Vert=\Vert\rho\Vert$ for all $\rho\in\mathcal{M}_\ast$;\ $(2)$ For every $M\in\mathcal{M}$, $\rho\in\mathcal{M}_\ast$ and mutually disjoint sequence $\{\Delta_j\}$ of $\mathcal{F}$, $$\langle \mathcal{I}(\cup_j\Delta_j)\rho, M \rangle=\sum_j \langle \mathcal{I}(\Delta_j)\rho, M \rangle,$$ where $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ denotes the duality pairing of $\mathcal{M}_\ast$ and $\mathcal{M}$. We define the dual map $\mathcal{I}^\ast$ of an instrument $\mathcal{I}$ by $\langle \rho,\mathcal{I}^\ast(\Delta)M \rangle=\langle \mathcal{I}(\Delta)\rho,M \rangle$ and use the notation $\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}^\ast(\Delta)M$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$ and $M\in\mathcal{M}$. It is obvious, by the definition, that an instrument describes the weighted state changes caused by the measurement. The dual map $\mathcal{I}:\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{F}\rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ of an instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is characterized by the following conditions:\ $(i)$ For every $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, the map $\mathcal{M}\ni M\mapsto \mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)\in\mathcal{M}$ is normal positive linear map of $\mathcal{M}$;\ $(ii)$ $\mathcal{I}(1,S)=1$;\ $(iii)$ For every $M\in\mathcal{M}$, $\rho\in\mathcal{M}_\ast$ and mutually disjoint sequence $\{\Delta_j\}$ of $\mathcal{F}$, $$\langle \rho, \mathcal{I}(M,\cup_j\Delta_j) \rangle=\sum_j \langle \rho, \mathcal{I}(M,\Delta_j) \rangle.$$ Since a map $\mathcal{I}:\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{F}\rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ satisfying the above conditions is always the dual map of an instrument for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, we also call the map $\mathcal{I}$ an instrument for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. Davies and Lewis claimed that experimentally and statistically accessible ingredients via measurements by a given measuring apparatus should be specified by instruments as follows: For every apparatus ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ measuring ${\bf S}$, where ${\bf x}$ is the output variable of ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ taking values in a measurable space $(S,\mathcal{F})$, there always exists an instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ corresponding to ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ in the following sense. For every input state $\rho$, the probability distribution $\mathrm{Pr}\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\Vert\rho\}$ of ${\bf x}$ in $\rho$ is given by $$\mathrm{Pr}\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\Vert\rho\} = \Vert\mathcal{I}(\Delta)\rho\Vert =\langle \mathcal{I}(\Delta)\rho, 1\rangle$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, and the state $\rho_{\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\}}$ after the measurement under the condition that $\rho$ is the prepared state and the outcome ${\bf x}\in\Delta$ is given by $$\rho_{\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\}}= \dfrac{\mathcal{I}(\Delta)\rho}{\Vert\mathcal{I}(\Delta)\rho\Vert}$$ if $\mathrm{Pr}\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\Vert\rho\}>0$, and $\rho_{\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\}}$ is indefinite if $\mathrm{Pr}\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\Vert\rho\}=0$. Although this proposal is very general, it was not evident at that time that how this is related to the standard formulation of quantum theory. In the 1980s, Ozawa [@Ozawa83; @Oz84] introduced both completely positive (CP) instruments and measuring processes. Following this investigation, the standpoint of the above proposal in quantum mechanics was settled and the circumstances changed at all. An instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is said to be *completely positive* if $\mathcal{I}(\Delta)$ (or $\mathcal{I}(\cdot,\Delta)$, equivalently) is completely positive for every $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We denote by $\mathrm{CPInst}(\mathcal{M},S)$ the set of CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. The notion of measuring process is defined as a quantum mechanical modeling of an apparatus as a physical system, of the meter of the apparatus, and of the measuring interaction between the system and the apparatus. Let $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ be Hilbert spaces. We denote by ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ the set of bounded linear operators on $\mathcal{H}$ and by ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{K})$ the set of bounded linear operators of $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{K}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ be von Neumann algebras on $\mathcal{H}$ and $\mathcal{K}$, respectively. We denote by $\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ the W$^\ast$-tensor product of $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{N}$. For every $\sigma\in\mathcal{N}_\ast$, a linear map $\mathrm{id}\otimes\sigma:\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ is defined by $\langle \rho,(\mathrm{id}\otimes\sigma)X \rangle=\langle \rho\otimes\sigma, X\rangle$ for all $X\in\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ and $\rho\in\mathcal{M}_\ast$. The following is the mathematical definition of measuring processes: \[MP1\] A measuring process for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is a 4-tuple $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$, a normal state $\sigma$ on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$, a PVM $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ and a unitary operator $U$ on $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{K}$ satisfying $$(\mathrm{id}\otimes \sigma)[U^\ast(M\otimes E(\Delta))U]\in \mathcal{M}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ be a measuring process for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. Then a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is defined by $$\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M,\Delta)=(\mathrm{id}\otimes \sigma)[U^\ast(M\otimes E(\Delta))U]$$ for $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. The most important example of meauring processes is a von Neumann model $(L^2(\mathbb{R}),\omega_\alpha,E^Q,e^{-iA\otimes P/\hbar})$ of measurement of an observable $A$, a self-adjoint operator affiliated with $\mathcal{M}$, where $\alpha$ is a unit vector of $L^2(\mathbb{R})$, $\omega_\alpha$ is defined by $\omega_\alpha(M)=\langle\alpha|M\alpha\rangle$ for all $M\in {\bf B}(L^2(\mathbb{R}))$, and $Q=\int_\mathbb{R} q\;dE^Q(q)$ and $P$ are self-adjoint operators defined on dense linear subspaces of $L^2(\mathbb{R})$ such that $\overline{[Q,P]}=i\hbar 1$. Here, we denote by $E^X$ the spectral measure of a self-adjoint operator $X$ densely defined on a Hilbert space. Quantum mechanical modeling of appratuses began with this model [@vonNeumann; @Oz93]. Two measuring processes are *statistically equivalent* if they define an identical instrument. As seen above, a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ defines a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. In the case of $\mathcal{M}={\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$, the following theorem, a unitary dilation theorem of CP instruments for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$, is known to hold. \[CPIMP\] For every CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$, there uniquely exists a statistical equivalence class of measuring processes $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ such that $\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Conversely, every statistical equivalence class of measuring processes for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ defines a unique CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$. A generalization of this theorem to arbitrary von Neumann algebras is shown to hold not for all CP instruments but for those with the normal extension property (NEP) in [@OO16] (see Theorem \[THMNEP\]). Let $(S,\mathcal{F},\mu)$ be a measure space. We denote by $\mathcal{L}(S,\mu)$ the $^\ast$-algebra of complex-valued $\mu$-measurable functions on $S$. A $\mu$-measurable function $f$ is said to be $\mu$-negligible if $f(s)=0$ for $\mu$-a.e. $s\in S$. We denote by $\mathcal{N}(S,\mu)$ the set of $\mu$-negligible functions on $S$ and by $M^\infty(S,\mu)$ the $^\ast$-algebra of bounded $\mu$-measurable functions on $S$. It is obvious that $M^\infty(S,\mu)\subset\mathcal{L}(S,\mu)$ as $^\ast$-algebra. For any $1\leq p<\infty$, we denote by $L^p(S,\mu)$ the Banach space of $p$-integrable functions on $S$ with respect to $\mu$ modulo the $\mu$-negligible functions. We denote by $[f]$ the $\mu$-negligible equivalence class of $f\in\mathcal{L}(S,\mu)$ and by $L^\infty(S,\mu)$ the commutative von Neumann algebra on $L^2(S,\mu)$. We denote by $L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I})$ the W$^\ast$-algebra of essentially bounded $\mathcal{I}$-measurable functions on $S$ modulo the $\mathcal{I}$-negligible functions. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a CP instrument for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ and $\Psi_\mathcal{I}:\mathcal{M}\otimes_{\mathrm{min}}L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I})\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ the corresponding unital binormal CP map, i.e., $\Psi_\mathcal{I}$ is normal on $\mathcal{M}$ and $L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I})$ and satisfies $\Psi_\mathcal{I}(M\otimes [\chi_\Delta])=\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$ [@OO16 Proposition 3.3]. $\mathcal{I}$ is said to have the normal extension property (NEP) if there exists a unital normal CP map $\widetilde{\Psi_\mathcal{I}}:\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes}L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I})\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ such that $\widetilde{\Psi_\mathcal{I}}|_{\mathcal{M}\otimes_{\mathrm{min}}L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I})} =\Psi_\mathcal{I}$. We denote by $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{NE}}(\mathcal{M},S)$ the set of CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ with the NEP. We then have the following theorem, a generalization of Theorem \[CPIMP\]. \[THMNEP\] For a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, the following conditions are equivalent:\ $(i)$ $\mathcal{I}$ has the NEP.\ $(ii)$ There exists CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ such that $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$.\ $(iii)$ There exists a measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. It is also shown that all CP instruments defined on a von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ have the NEP, i.e., $\mathrm{CPInst}(\mathcal{M},S)=\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{NE}}(\mathcal{M},S)$ if $\mathcal{M}$ is atomic [@OO16 Theorem 4.1]. We should remember the famous fact that a von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ is atomic if and only if there exists a normal conditional expectation $\mathcal{E}:{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ [@T79 Chapter V, Section 2, Excercise 8]. Then the following question naturally arises. \[Q3\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a non-atomic von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Are there CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ without the NEP? For any CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, does there exist a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ which realizes $\mathcal{I}$ within arbitrarily given error limits $\varepsilon>0$? A CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is said to have *the approximately normal extension property* (ANEP) if there is a net $\{\mathcal{I}_\alpha\}$ of CP instruments with the NEP such that $\mathcal{I}_\alpha(M,\Delta)$ is ultraweakly converges to $\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We denote by $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AN}}(\mathcal{M},S)$ the set of CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ with the ANEP. Contrary to physicists’ expectations, Question \[Q3\] was positively resolved in [@OO16 Section V] for non-atomic but injective von Neumann algebras. $(1)$ An instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is called repeatable if $\mathcal{I}(\Delta_2)\mathcal{I}(\Delta_1)=\mathcal{I}(\Delta_2\cap\Delta_1)$ for all $\Delta_1,\Delta_2\in\mathcal{F}$.\ $(2)$ An instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is called weakly repeatable if $\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{I}(1,\Delta_2),\Delta_1)=\mathcal{I}(1,\Delta_2\cap\Delta_1)$ for all $\Delta_1,\Delta_2\in\mathcal{F}$.\ $(3)$ An instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is called discrete if there exist a countable subset $S_0$ of $S$ and a map $T:S_0\rightarrow P(\mathcal{M}_\ast)$ such that $$\mathcal{I}(\Delta)=\sum_{s\in\Delta} T(s)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. \[DCPinst1\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Every discrete CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ has the NEP. \[DNEP1\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a standard Borel space. A weakly repeatable CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is discrete if and only if it has the NEP. In the case where $\mathcal{M}$ is non-atomic, there exist CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ without the NEP. The following two CP instruments are such examples. \[NoNEP1\] Let $m$ be Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]$. A CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_m$ for $(L^{\infty}([0,1],m), [0,1])$ is defined by $\mathcal{I}_m(f,\Delta)=[\chi_\Delta] f$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{B}([0,1])$ and $f\in L^{\infty}([0,1],m)$. A von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ is said to be approximately finite-dimensional (AFD) if there is an increasing net $\{\mathcal{M}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ of finite-dimensional von Neumann subalgebras of $\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\mathcal{M}=\overline{\bigcup_{\alpha\in A} \mathcal{M}_\alpha}^{uw}.$$ \[NoNEP2\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an AFD von Neumann algebra of type $\mathrm{II}_1$ on a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Let $A=\int_\mathbb{R}a\;dE^A(a)$ be a self-adjoint operator with continuous spectrum affiliated with $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ a (normal) conditional expectation of $\mathcal{M}$ onto $\{A\}^\prime\cap\mathcal{M}$ (the existence of $\mathcal{E}$ was first found by [@U54 Theorem 1]), where $\{A\}^\prime=\{E^{A}(\Delta)\;|\; \Delta\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})\}^\prime$. A CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_A$ for $(\mathcal{M},\mathbb{R})$ is defined by $$\label{repeatable} \mathcal{I}_A(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{E}(M)E^A(\Delta)$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$. By Theorem \[DNEP1\], the weak repeatability and the non-discreteness of $\mathcal{I}_m$ and $\mathcal{I}_A$ imply the non-existence of measuring processes which define them. These examples are very important for the dilation theory of CP maps since they revealed the existence of families of CP maps which do not admit unitary dilations. The following theorem holds for general $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebras without assuming any other conditions. \[GVN1\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For every CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}$, there exists a measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $$\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle =\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}\backslash \{0\}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}\backslash \{\emptyset\}$. Let $\mathcal{F}^\prime$ be a $\sigma$-subfield of $\mathcal{F}$ generated by $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n,S$. Let $\{\Gamma_i\}_{i=1}^m \subset \mathcal{F}^\prime\backslash\{\emptyset\}$ be a maximal partition of $S$, i.e., $\{\Gamma_i\}_{i=1}^m$ satisfies the following conditions:\ $(1)$ For every $i=1,\cdots,m$, if $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}^\prime$ satisfies $\Delta\subset\Gamma_i$, then $\Delta$ is $\Gamma_i$ or $\emptyset$;\ $(2)$ $\cup_{i=1}^m \Gamma_i=S$;\ $(3)$ $\Gamma_i \cap\Gamma_j=\emptyset$ if $i\neq j$.\ We fix $s_1,\cdots.s_m\in S$ such that $s_i\in\Gamma_i$ for all $i=1,\cdots,m$. We define a discrete CP instrument $\mathcal{I}^\prime$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ by $$\mathcal{I}^\prime(M,\Delta)=\sum_{j=1}^m\delta_{s_j}(\Delta)\mathcal{I}(M,\Gamma_j)$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. It is then obvious that $\mathcal{I}^\prime$ satisfies $$\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle =\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}^\prime(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. By Proposition \[DCPinst1\], there exists a measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $\mathcal{I}^\prime(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. The proof is complete. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Then we have $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AN}}(\mathcal{M},S)= \mathrm{CPInst}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ In the case where $\mathcal{M}$ is injective, the result stronger than Theorem \[GVN1\] is shown in [@OO16 Theorem 4.2]: for every CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, $\varepsilon>0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\{\rho_i\}_{i=1}^n\subset\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $\{\Delta_i\}_{i=1}^n\subset\mathcal{F}$ and $\{M_i\}_{i=1}^n\subset\mathcal{M}$, there exists a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $$|\langle \mathcal{I}(\Delta_i)\rho_i, M_i\rangle- \langle \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(\Delta_i)\rho_i, M_i\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $i=1,2, \cdots,n$, and that $\mathcal{I}(1,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(1,\Delta)$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. In physically relevant cases, it is known that every von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ describing the observable algebra of a quantum system acts on a separable Hilbert space and is AFD. For example, it is shown in [@BDF87] that von Neumann algebras of local observables in quantum field theory are AFD and acts on a separable Hilbert space under natural postulates, e.g., the Wightman axioms, the nuclearity condition and the asymptotic scale invariance. For every von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ on a separable Hilbert space (or with separable dual, equivalently), $\mathcal{M}$ is AFD if and only if it is injective, furthermore, if and only if it is amenable [@Connes; @T02]. Hence the assumption of the injectivity for von Neumann algebras is very natural. In quantum mechanics, complete positivity of instruments is physically justified in [@Ozawa04; @14MFQ-] by considering a natural extendability, called *the trivial extendability*, of an instrument $\mathcal{I}$ on the system ${\bf S}$ to that $\mathcal{I}^\prime$ on the composite system ${\bf S}+{\bf S^\prime}$ containing the original one ${\bf S}$, where ${\bf S^\prime}$ is an arbitrary system not interacting with ${\bf S}$ nor ${\bf A}({\bf x})$. This justification of complete positivity is obtained as a part of an axiomatic characterization of physically realizable measurements [@Ozawa04; @14MFQ-]. Then Theorem \[CPIMP\] enables us to regard the Davies-Lewis proposal restricted to CP instruments as a statement that is consistent with the standard formulation of quantum mechanics and hence acceptable for physicists. The above discussion is summarized as follows. For every apparatus ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ measuring ${\bf S}$, where ${\bf x}$ is the output variable of ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ taking values in a measurable space $(S,\mathcal{F})$, there always exists a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ corresponding to ${\bf A}({\bf x})$ in the sense of the Davies-Lewis proposal, i.e., for every input state $\rho$ and outcome $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$ both the probability distribution $\mathrm{Pr}\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\Vert\rho\}$ of ${\bf x}$ and the state $\rho_{\{{\bf x}\in\Delta\}}$ after the measurement are obtained from $\mathcal{I}$. Kernels ------- Here, we briefly summerize the theory of kernels. We refer the reader to [@EvansLewis; @Lance95; @Skeide01] for standard references. Let $C$ be a set and $\mathcal{H}$ a Hilbert space. A map $K:C\times C\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ is called a kernel of $C$ on $\mathcal{H}$. We denote by $\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})$ the set of kernels of $C$ on $\mathcal{H}$. It should be noted that $\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})$ has a natural ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$-bimodule structure. Let $K\in\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})$. $K$ is said to be positive definite if $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle \xi_i| K(c_i,c_j)\xi_j\rangle\geq 0$$ for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $c_1,c_2,\cdots,c_n\in C$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_n\in\mathcal{H}$. We denote by $\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})_+$ the set of positive definite kernels of $C$ on $\mathcal{H}$. Let $K\in\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})$. A pair $(\mathcal{K},\Lambda)$ of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$ and a map $\Lambda:C\rightarrow {\bf B}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{K})$ is called a Kolmogorov decomposition of $K$ if it satisfies $$K(c,c^\prime)=\Lambda(c)^\ast \Lambda(c^\prime)$$ for all $c,c^\prime\in C$. A Kolmogorov decomposition $(\mathcal{K},\Lambda)$ of $K$ is said to be minimal if $\mathcal{K}=\overline{\mathrm{span}}(\Lambda(C)\mathcal{H})$. The following representation theorem holds for kernels. \[minKD\] Let $C$ be a set and $\mathcal{H}$ a Hilbert space. For every $K\in\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})$, $K$ admits a Kolmogorov decomposition if and only if it is an element of $\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})_+$. For every $K\in\mathbb{K}(C;\mathcal{H})_+$, there exists a minimal Kolmogorov decomposition $(\mathcal{K},\Lambda)$ of $K$, which is unique up to unitary equivalence. This theorem is a key to the proof of the main theorem of this paper. The famous Stinespring representation theorem is regarded as a corollary of this theorem. \[CommLift\] Let $\mathcal{H}$, $\mathcal{K}$ be Hilbert spaces, $\mathcal{B}$ a unital C$^\ast$-subalgebra of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ and $V$ an element of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{K})$ such that $\mathcal{K}=\overline{\mathrm{span}}(\mathcal{B}V\mathcal{H})$. For every $A\in(V^\ast \mathcal{B}V)^\prime$, there exists a unique $A_1\in\mathcal{B}^\prime$ such that $VA=A_1V$. Furthermore, the map $\pi^\prime:A\in(V^\ast \mathcal{B}V)^\prime\ni A\mapsto A_1\in\mathcal{B}^\prime\cap\{VV^\ast\}^\prime$ is an ultraweakly continuous surjective $^\ast$-homomorphism. The following theorem holds as a corollary of [@Dixmier Part I, Chapter 4, Theorem 3], [@T79 Chapter IV, Theorem 5.5]: \[vNhom2\] Let $\mathcal{H}_1$ and $\mathcal{H}_2$ be Hilbert spaces. If $\pi$ is a normal representation of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H}_1)$ on $\mathcal{H}_2$, there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$ and a unitary operator $U$ of $\mathcal{H}_1\otimes\mathcal{K}$ onto $\mathcal{H}_2$ such that $$\pi(X)=U(X\otimes 1_\mathcal{K})U^\ast$$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H}_1)$. This theorem is also a key to the proof of the main theorem of this paper. A System of Measurement Correlations {#sec:3} ==================================== In this section, we introduce the concept of system of measurement correlations, which is a natural, multivariate version of instrument and is defined as a family of multilinear maps satisfying “positive-definiteness", “$\sigma$-additivity" and other conditions. This is an appropriate abstraction of measurement correlations in the context of quantum stochastic processes [@AFL82]. It is known that the representation theory of CP instruments contributed to quantum measurement theory [@Ozawa83; @Oz84; @OO16]. Hence we adopt a representation-theoretical approach to system of measurement correlations. The “positive-definiteness" of systems of measurement correlations enables us to apply the (minimal) Kolmogorov decomposition to them, so that provides them with representation-theoretical structures. As a result, a representation theorem (Theorem \[Stinespring\]) similar to that for CP instruments [@Oz84 Proposition 4.2] will be shown to hold for systems of measurement correlations defined on an arbitrary von Neumann algebra. To precisely understand physics described by a system of measurement correlations we need a generalization of the Heisenberg picture which is introduced after the proof of Theorem \[Stinespring\] and is called the generalized Heisenberg picture. The introduction of this new picture is motivated also by the present circumstances that the understanding of the (usual) Heisenberg picture has not been deepened in contrast to the Schrödinger picture. It should be stressed that the circumstances are never restricted to quantum measurement theory. We adopt the following notations. Let $\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$ be a set. We define a set $\mathcal{T}$ by $\mathcal{T}=\cup_{j=1}^\infty (\mathcal{T}^{(1)})^j$.\ $(i)$ For each $T\in\mathcal{T}$, we denote by $|T|$ the natural number $n$ such that $T\in(\mathcal{T}^{(1)})^n$.\ $(ii)$ For each $T=(t_1,t_2,\cdots,t_{n-1},t_n)\in\mathcal{T}$, we define $T^\#\in\mathcal{T}$ by $T^\#=(t_n,t_{n-1},\cdots,t_2,t_1)$.\ $(iii)$ For any $T=(t_{1,1},\cdots,t_{1,m}),T_2=(t_{2,1},\cdots,t_{2,n})$ $\in\mathcal{T}$, the product $T_1\times T_2$ is defined by $$T_1\times T_2=(t_{1,1},\cdots,t_{1,m},t_{2,1},\cdots,t_{2,n}).$$ Since it holds that $T_1\times(T_2\times T_3)=(T_1\times T_2)\times T_3$, $T_1\times(T_2\times T_3)$ is written as $T_1\times T_2\times T_3$.\ $(iv)$ For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,M_2,\cdots,M_{n-1},M_n)\in\mathcal{M}^n$, we define $\overrightarrow{M}^\#\in \mathcal{M}^n$ by $$\overrightarrow{M}^\#=(M_n^\ast,M_{n-1}^\ast,\cdots,M_2^\ast,M_1^\ast).$$ $(v)$ For any $m,n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\overrightarrow{M}_1=(M_{1,1},\cdots,M_{1,m})\in\mathcal{M}^m$ and $\overrightarrow{M}_2=(M_{2,1},\cdots,M_{2,n})\in\mathcal{M}^n$, the product $\overrightarrow{M}\times\overrightarrow{M}_2\in\mathcal{M}^{m+n}$ is defined by $$\overrightarrow{M}\times\overrightarrow{M}_2=(M_{1,1},\cdots,M_{1,m},M_{2,1},\cdots,M_{2,n}).$$ Since it holds that $\overrightarrow{M}_1\times(\overrightarrow{M}_2\times \overrightarrow{M}_3)=(\overrightarrow{M}_1\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\times \overrightarrow{M}_3$, $\overrightarrow{M}_1\times(\overrightarrow{M}_2\times \overrightarrow{M}_3)$ is written as $\overrightarrow{M}_1\times \overrightarrow{M}_2\times \overrightarrow{M}_3$.\ In addition, for every family $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}}$ of representations of $\mathcal{M}$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}$, we adopt the notation $$\Pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})=\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})$$ for all $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Let $(S,\mathcal{F})$ be a measurable space. We define a set $\mathcal{T}_S$ by $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{T}_S &= \cup_{j=1}^\infty \;(\mathcal{T}_S^{(1)})^j,\\ \mathcal{T}_S^{(1)} &= \{in\}\cup \mathcal{F},\end{aligned}$$ where $in$ is a symbol. We shall define the notion of system of measurement correlations, which is a modified version of projective system of multikernels analyzed in the previous investigations [@AFL82; @Belavkin85]. In this paper, we define and analyze only the case that systems of measurement correlations do not have explicit time-dependence for simplicity. A family $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of maps $W_T:\mathcal{M}^{|T|}=\overbrace{\mathcal{M}\times\cdots\times\mathcal{M}}^{|T|} \rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ is called a system of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ if it satisfies $\mathcal{T}^{(1)}=\mathcal{T}^{(1)}_S$ and the following six conditions:\ $(\mathrm{MC}1)$ For any $T\in\mathcal{T}$, $W_T(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})$ is separately linear and ultraweakly continuous in each variable $M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|}$.\ $(\mathrm{MC}2)$ For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1),\cdots,(T_n,\overrightarrow{M}_n)$ $\in\cup_{T\in\mathcal{T}}(\{T\}\times\mathcal{M}^{|T|})$, and $\xi_1,\cdots,\xi_n\in\mathcal{H}$, $$\sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle\xi_i|W_{T_i^\#\times T_j}(\overrightarrow{M}_i^\#\times \overrightarrow{M}_j)\xi_j\rangle \geq 0.$$ $(\mathrm{MC}3)$ For any $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$, $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$ and $M\in\mathcal{M}$, $$\begin{aligned} MW_T(\overrightarrow{M}) &=W_{(in)\times T}((M)\times \overrightarrow{M}),\\ W_T(\overrightarrow{M})M &=W_{T\times (in)}(\overrightarrow{M}\times (M)).\end{aligned}$$ $(\mathrm{MC}4)$ Let $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$. If $t_k=t_{k+1}=in$ or $t_k,t_{k+1}\in\mathcal{F}$ for some $1\leq k\leq |T|-1$, $$W_T(M_1,\cdots,M_k,M_{k+1},\cdots,M_{|T|})= W_{T^\prime}(M_1,\cdots,M_kM_{k+1},\cdots,M_{|T|})$$ for all $(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$, where $T^\prime=(t_1,\cdots,t_{k-1},t_k\cap t_{k+1},t_{k+2}\cdots,t_{|T|})$ and $$t_k\cap t_{k+1}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} in, &\quad (\mathrm{if}\; t_k=t_{k+1}=in)\\ t_k\cap t_{k+1}, &\quad (\mathrm{if}\;t_k, t_{k+1}\in\mathcal{F}). \end{array} \right.$$ $(\mathrm{MC}5)$ For any $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$ with $t_k=in$ or $S$, and $(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$ with $M_k=1$, $$W_T(M_1,\cdots,M_{k-1},1,M_{k+1},\cdots,M_{|T|})=W_{\hat{k}T}(M_1,\cdots,M_{k-1},M_{k+1},\cdots,M_{|T|}),$$ where $\hat{k}T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{k-1},t_{k+1},t_{k+2}\cdots,t_{|T|})$. In addition, $$W_{in}(1)=W_S(1)=1.$$ $(\mathrm{MC}6)$ For any $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $1\leq k\leq n$, $t_1,\cdots,t_{k-1},t_{k+1},\cdots,t_n\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, mutually disjoint sequence $\{t_{k,j}\}_j\subset\mathcal{F}$, $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^n$ and $\rho\in\mathcal{M}_{\ast}$, $$\langle\rho,W_{(t_1,\cdots,t_{k-1},\cup_jt_{k,j},t_{k+1},\cdots,t_n)}(\overrightarrow{M})\rangle =\sum_j \langle\rho,W_{(t_1,\cdots,t_{k-1},t_{k,j},t_{k+1},\cdots,t_n)}(\overrightarrow{M})\rangle.$$ It is easy to generalize systems of measurement correlations to the case that they have explicit time-dependence by modifying the definition. For this purpose, $\mathcal{T}_S^{(1)}$ is replaced by $\mathcal{T}_{G,S}^{(1)}=\{in\}\cup (G\times\mathcal{F})$, where $G$ is the set representing time and is usually assumed to be a subset of $\mathbb{R}$, and, for instance, the condition $(\mathrm{MC}4)$ is replaced by\ $(\mathrm{MC}4^\prime)$ Let $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$. If $t_k=t_{k+1}=in$ or $t_k=(g,\Delta_k),t_{k+1}=(g,\Delta_{k+1})\in G\times\mathcal{F}$ for some $1\leq k\leq |T|-1$, then $$W_T(M_1,\cdots,M_k,M_{k+1},\cdots,M_{|T|})= W_{T^\prime}(M_1,\cdots,M_kM_{k+1},\cdots,M_{|T|})$$ for all $(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$, where $T^\prime=(t_1,\cdots,t_{k-1},t_k\cap t_{k+1},t_{k+2}\cdots,t_{|T|})$ and $$t_k\cap t_{k+1}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} in, &\quad (\mathrm{if}\; t_k=t_{k+1}=in)\\ (g,\Delta_k\cap \Delta_{k+1}), &\quad (\mathrm{if}\;t_k=(g,\Delta_k),t_{k+1}=(g,\Delta_{k+1})\in G\times\mathcal{F}). \end{array} \right.$$ Other conditions are also modified in the same manner. When a system $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is given, an instrument $\mathcal{I}_W$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is defined by $$\mathcal{I}_W(M,\Delta)=W_\Delta(M)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$ and $M\in\mathcal{M}$, which is seen to be completely positive by the condition (MC2). Every system of measurement correlations admits the following representation theorem. \[Stinespring\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For any systems $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}$, a family $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}}$ of normal $(^\ast$-$)$representations of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{L}$ and an isometry $V$ from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{L}$ such that $$\Pi_{in}(M)V=VM$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$, and that $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=V^\ast \Pi_{T}(\overrightarrow{M})V$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Let $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ be a system of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. We set $\mathcal{C}=\cup_{T\in\mathcal{T}}(\{T\}\times\mathcal{M}^{|T|})$. We define a kernel $K:\mathcal{C}\times \mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ by $$K({\bf a},{\bf b})= W_{T_1^\#\times T_2}(\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)$$ for all ${\bf a}=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf b}=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)\in \mathcal{C}$. By the definition of a system of measurement correlations, $K$ is positive definite. By Theorem \[minKD\], there exists the minimal Kolmogorov decomposition $(\mathcal{L},\Lambda)$ of $K$ such that $$K({\bf a},{\bf b})=\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast \Lambda({\bf b})$$ for all ${\bf a}=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf b}=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)\in \mathcal{C}$. We remark that we use the fact that $\mathrm{span}(\Lambda(\mathcal{C})\mathcal{H})$ is dense in $\mathcal{L}$ many times in this proof. For each $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$ and $M\in\mathcal{M}$, we define a map $\Pi_t(M)$ on $\mathrm{span}\;\Lambda(\mathcal{C})\mathcal{H}$ by $$\Pi_t(M)\Lambda({\bf a})\xi=\Lambda({\bf a^\prime})\xi$$ for all ${\bf a}=(T,\overrightarrow{M})= ((t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|}),(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|}))\in \mathcal{C}$ and $\xi\in\mathcal{H}$, where $${\bf a^\prime}=((t)\times T,(M)\times\overrightarrow{M})=((t,t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|}),(M,M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})).$$ For all $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, we show that $\Pi_t:M\mapsto \Pi_t(M)$ is a normal $^\ast$-representation of $\mathcal{M}$. By the condition (MC1), it holds that $$\begin{aligned} &\hspace{5mm} \langle \Lambda({\bf a})\xi_1|\Pi_t(\alpha M+\beta N) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle\nonumber\\ &=\langle \xi_1|\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast \Pi_t(\alpha M+\beta N) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \nonumber\\ &=\langle \xi_1|W_{T_1^\#\times(t)\times T_2} (\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times(\alpha M+\beta N)\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\alpha\langle \xi_1|W_{T_1^\#\times(t)\times T_2} (\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times( M)\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &\hspace{7mm}+\beta\langle \xi_1|W_{T_1^\#\times(t)\times T_2} (\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times(N)\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\alpha\langle \xi_1|\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast \Pi_t(M) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle +\beta\langle \xi_1|\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast \Pi_t(N) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1|\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast (\alpha\Pi_t(M)+\beta\Pi_t(N)) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \Lambda({\bf a})\xi_1| (\alpha\Pi_t(M)+\beta\Pi_t(N)) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \end{aligned}$$ for any $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}$, $M,N\in\mathcal{M}$, ${\bf a}=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf b}=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)\in \mathcal{C}$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2\in\mathcal{H}$, so that $\Pi_t(\alpha M+\beta N)=\alpha\Pi_t(M)+\beta\Pi_t(N)$ for all $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $\alpha,\beta\in\mathbb{C}$ and $M,N\in\mathcal{M}$. Similarly, by the condition (MC4) it holds that $$\begin{aligned} &\hspace{5mm} \langle \Lambda({\bf a})\xi_1|\Pi_t(M)\Pi_t(N) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle =\langle \xi_1|\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast\Pi_t(M)\Pi_t(N) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1|W_{T_1^\#\times(t,t)\times T_2} (\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times(M, N)\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1|W_{T_1^\#\times(t)\times T_2} (\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times(MN)\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1|\Lambda({\bf a})^\ast\Pi_t(MN) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle = \langle \Lambda({\bf a})\xi_1|\Pi_t(MN) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \end{aligned}$$ for any $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $M,N\in\mathcal{M}$, ${\bf a}=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf b}=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)\in \mathcal{C}$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2\in\mathcal{H}$, so that $\Pi_t(MN)=\Pi_t(M)\Pi_t(N)$ for all $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$ and $M,N\in\mathcal{M}$. For any $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, ${\bf a}_1=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf a}_2=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)$, $\cdots$, ${\bf a}_n=(T_n,\overrightarrow{M}_n)\in \mathcal{C}$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_n\in\mathcal{H}$, the map $$\mathcal{M}\ni M\mapsto \sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle \Lambda({\bf a}_i)\xi_i| \Pi_t(M)\Lambda({\bf a}_j)\xi_j \rangle\in\mathbb{C}$$ is normal linear functional on $\mathcal{M}$, which is also positive since it holds by the conditions (MC2) and (MC4) that $$\begin{aligned} &\hspace{5mm}\sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle \Lambda({\bf a}_i)\xi_i|\Pi_t(M)\Lambda({\bf a}_j)\xi_j \rangle =\sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle \xi_i|W_{T_i^\#\times(t)\times T_j} (\overrightarrow{M}_i^\#\times(M)\times \overrightarrow{M}_j)\xi_j\rangle \nonumber\\ &=\sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle \xi_i|W_{T_i^\#\times(t,t)\times T_j} (\overrightarrow{M}_i^\#\times(\sqrt{M},\sqrt{M})\times \overrightarrow{M}_j)\xi_j\rangle\nonumber \\ &=\sum_{i,j=1}^n \langle \xi_i|W_{((t)\times T_i)^\#\times((t)\times T_j)} (((\sqrt{M})\times\overrightarrow{M}_i)^\# \times((\sqrt{M})\times \overrightarrow{M}_j))\xi_j\rangle \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}_+=\{M\in\mathcal{M}\;|\;M\geq 0\}$, $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, ${\bf a}_1=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf a}_2=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)$, $\cdots$, ${\bf a}_n=(T_n,\overrightarrow{M}_n)\in \mathcal{C}$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_n\in\mathcal{H}$. Thus, for any $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $M\in\mathcal{M}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, ${\bf a}_1=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf a}_2=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)$, $\cdots$, ${\bf a}_n=(T_n,\overrightarrow{M}_n)\in \mathcal{C}$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2,\cdots,\xi_n\in\mathcal{H}$ we have $$\left\Vert \sum_{i=1}^n \Pi_t(M)\Lambda({\bf a}_i)\xi_i\right\Vert \leq \Vert M\Vert \cdot \left\Vert \sum_{i=1}^n \Lambda({\bf a}_i)\xi_i\right\Vert.$$ For every $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$ and $M\in\mathcal{M}$, $\Pi_t(M)$ is a bounded operator on $\mathcal{L}$. In addition, for all $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$, $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and ${\bf a}=(T_1,\overrightarrow{M}_1)$, ${\bf b}=(T_2,\overrightarrow{M}_2)\in \mathcal{C}$, $$\begin{aligned} &\hspace{5mm}\langle \Lambda({\bf a})\xi_1|\Pi_t(M)^\ast \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle =\langle \xi_1| (\Pi_t(M)\Lambda({\bf a}))^\ast\Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1|W_{((t)\times T_1)^\#\times T_2} (((M)\times\overrightarrow{M}_1)^\#\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2 \rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1|W_{T_1^\#\times(t)\times T_2} (\overrightarrow{M}_1^\#\times(M^\ast)\times \overrightarrow{M}_2)\xi_2 \rangle \nonumber \\ &=\langle \xi_1| \Lambda({\bf a})^\ast\Pi_t(M^\ast)\Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle =\langle \Lambda({\bf a})\xi_1|\Pi_t(M^\ast) \Lambda({\bf b})\xi_2\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for every $t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$ $\Pi_t$ is a normal $^\ast$-representation of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{L}$. By the condition (MC5), $\Pi_{in}$ and $\Pi_S$ are nondegenerate, i.e., $\Pi_{in}(1)=\Pi_S(1)=1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L})}$. For every $t\in\mathcal{T}$ and and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$, it then holds that $$\begin{aligned} &\quad\;\;V^\ast \Pi_{T}(\overrightarrow{M})V =\Lambda((in,1))^\ast \Pi_{T}(\overrightarrow{M})\Lambda((in,1)) \nonumber \\ &=W_{(in)\times T\times (in)}((1)\times\overrightarrow{M}\times(1))=W_T(\overrightarrow{M}).\end{aligned}$$ By the above relation and the condition (MC3), we have $V^\ast \Pi_{in}(M)V=M$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$, and $$\begin{aligned} &\quad\vspace{5mm} (\Pi_{in}(M)V-VM)^\ast(\Pi_{in}(M)V-VM)\nonumber\\ &=V^\ast\Pi_{in}(M)^\ast\Pi_{in}(M)V- V^\ast\Pi_{in}(M)^\ast VM-M^\ast V^\ast\Pi_{in}(M)V +M^\ast V^\ast VM \nonumber\\ &=V^\ast\Pi_{in}(M^\ast M)V- V^\ast\Pi_{in}(M^\ast) VM-M^\ast V^\ast\Pi_{in}(M)V +M^\ast V^\ast VM \nonumber \\ &= M^\ast M- M^\ast M-M^\ast M+M^\ast M=0\end{aligned}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$, which implies $\Pi_{in}(M)V=VM$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$. By the above proof, we see the following. For every family $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of maps $W_T:\mathcal{M}^{|T|}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ satisfying the conditions $(\mathrm{MC1})$, $(\mathrm{MC2})$, $(\mathrm{MC4})$, $(\mathrm{MC5})$ and $(\mathrm{MC6})$, there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}$, a family $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}}$ of normal $(^\ast$-$)$representations of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{L}$ and an isometry $V$ from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{L}$ such that $$\label{SRep} W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=V^\ast \Pi_{T}(\overrightarrow{M})V$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Eq.(\[SRep\]) then implies $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})^\ast=W_{T^\#}(\overrightarrow{M}^\#)$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. As seen the proof of Theorem \[Stinespring\], the following fact holds, which will be used in the next section. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For any systems $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, let $(\mathcal{L}$, $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}}$, $V)$ be a triplet in Theorem \[Stinespring\]. Then the map $\mathcal{F}\ni\Delta\mapsto \Pi_\Delta(1)\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{L})$ is a projection-valued measure (PVM). The proof can be easily done in terms of the conditions (MC4), (MC5) and (MC6). In [@AFL82], a (noncommutative) stochastic process over a C$^\ast$-algebra $\mathcal{B}$, indexed by a set $\mathbb{T}$, is defined by a pair $(\mathcal{A},\{j_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}})$ of a C$^\ast$-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ and a family $\{j_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ of $^\ast$-homomorphisms from $\mathcal{B}$ into $\mathcal{A}$. Obviously, a pair $({\bf B}(\mathcal{L}),\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}})$ in Theorem \[Stinespring\] is nothing but a stochastic process over a von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ indexed by $\mathcal{T}^{(1)}$ in this sense. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space. Let $\mathbb{T}$ be a set. We set $\mathcal{T}_\mathbb{T}=\cup_{j=1}^\infty (\{in\}\cup\mathbb{T})^j$. Let $(\mathcal{L},\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\{in\}\cup\mathbb{T}},V)$ be a triplet consisting of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}$, a family $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\{in\}\cup\mathbb{T}}$ of normal representations of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{L}$ and $V$ an isometry from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{L}$ such that $\Pi_{in}(M)V=VM$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and that $V^\ast \Pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})V\in\mathcal{M}$ for all $T\in \mathcal{T}_\mathbb{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. The generalized Heisenberg picture is then formulated by this triple $(\mathcal{L},\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\{in\}\cup\mathbb{T}},V)$, which enables us to compare the situtation before the change, specified by a representation $\Pi_{in}$, with the situtation after the change, specified by $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$. This interpretation naturally follows from the intertwining relation $\Pi_{in}(M)V=VM$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and from the generation of correlation functions $\mathcal{W}_T(\overrightarrow{M})=V^\ast \Pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})V$ for all $T\in \mathcal{T}_\mathbb{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. For example, in a triplet $(\mathcal{L},\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}},V)$ in Theorem \[Stinespring\], $\Pi_{in}$ and $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{F}}$ correspond to a representation before the measurement and those after the measurement, respectively. The author believes that the generalized Heisenberg picture introduced here gives a right extension of the description of dynamical processes in the standard formulation of quantum mechanics since it succeeds to the advantage of the (usual) Heisenberg picture that we can calculate correlation functions of observables at different times. This topic will be discussed in detail in the succeeding paper of the author. Unitary Dilation Theorem {#sec:4} ======================== As previously mentioned, the introduction of the concept of measuring process was cruicial for the progress of the theory of quantum measurement and of instruments. Measuring processes redefined as follows also play the central role in quantum measurement theory based on the generalized Heisenberg picture. \[MP2\] A measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is a 4-tuple $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ which consists of a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$, a normal state $\sigma$ on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$, a spectral measure $E:\mathcal{F} \rightarrow {\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$, and a unitary operator $U$ on $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{K}$ and defines a system of measurement correlations $\{W_T^\mathbb{M}\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}_S}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ as follows: We define a representation $\pi_{in}$ of $\mathcal{M}$ and a family $\{\pi_\Delta\}_{\Delta\in\mathcal{F}}$ of those of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{K}$ by $$\pi_{in}(M) =M\otimes 1_\mathcal{K},\hspace{3mm} \pi_\Delta(M) =U^\ast (M\otimes E(\Delta))U$$ for all $M\in \mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, respectively. We use the notation $$\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})=\pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})$$ for all $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. For each $T\in\mathcal{T}_S$, $W_T^\mathbb{M}:\mathcal{M}^{|T|}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ is defined by $$W_T^\mathbb{M}(\overrightarrow{M})=(\mathrm{id}\otimes\sigma)(\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M}))$$ for all $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. It is easily seen that two definitions of measuring processes for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ are equivalent. We say that a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is *realized* by a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ in the sense of Definition \[MP2\], or $\mathbb{M}$ *realizes* $\mathcal{I}$ if $\mathcal{I}=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}$. We denote by $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{RE}}(\mathcal{M},S)$ the set of CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ realized by measuring processes for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ in the sense of Definition \[MP2\]. Then we have $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{RE}}(\mathcal{M},S) \subseteq\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{NE}}(\mathcal{M},S)$. It will be shown in Section \[sec:6\] that $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{RE}}(\mathcal{M},S)=\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{NE}}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Two measuring processes $\mathbb{M}_1$ and $\mathbb{M}_2$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ are said to be $n$-equivalent if $W_T^{\mathbb{M}_1}=W_T^{\mathbb{M}_2}$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ such that $|T|\leq n$. Two measuring processes $\mathbb{M}_1$ and $\mathbb{M}_2$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ are said to be completely equivalent if they are $n$-equivalent for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$. The $n$-equivalence class of a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is nothing but the set of measuring processes $\mathbb{M}^\prime$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ whose correlation functions of order less or equal to $n$ are identical to those defined by $\mathbb{M}$, i.e., $W_T^\mathbb{M}=W_T^{\mathbb{M}^\prime}$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ such that $|T|\leq n$. Since a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ in the sense of Definition \[MP2\] is also that in the sense of Definition \[MP1\], the statistical equivalence works for the former. Of course, the $2$-equivalence is the same as the statistical equivalence. In practical situations, dynamical aspects of physical systems are usually analyzed in terms of correlation functions of finite order. Thus it is natural to consider that the classification of measuring processes by the $n$-equivalence for not so large $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is valid in the same way. It should be stressed here that causal relations cannot be verified without using correlation functions (of observables at different times) and that situations concerned with measurements are not the exception. A successful example of causal relations in the context of measurement has been already given by the notion of perfect correlation introduced in [@Ozawa06], which uses correlation functions of order $2$. One may consider that the complete equivalence of measuring processes is unrealistic and useless, but we believe that it is much useful since the following theorem holds. \[OTOC\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Then there is a one-to-one correpondence between complete equivalence classes of measuring processes $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ and systems $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of measurement correlations for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$, which is given by the relation $$\label{SEMPandCP} W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=W_T^\mathbb{M}(\overrightarrow{M})$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Let $\mathcal{H}_1$ and $\mathcal{H}_2$ be Hilbert spaces. For each $\eta\in\mathcal{H}_2$, we define a linear map $V_\eta:\mathcal{H}_1\rightarrow \mathcal{H}_1\otimes\mathcal{H}_2$ by $V_\eta\xi=\xi\otimes\eta$ for all $\xi\in\mathcal{H}_1$. It is easily seen that, for each $\eta\in\mathcal{H}_2$, $V_\eta$ satisfies $(X\otimes 1)V_\eta=V_\eta X$ for all $X\in {\bf B}(\mathcal{H}_1)$. For any $x\in\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}$, $P_x$ denotes the projection from $\mathcal{H}_1$ onto the linear subspace $\mathbb{C}x$ of $\mathcal{H}_1$ linearly spanned by $x$. For any $x,y\in\mathcal{H}_1$, we define $|y\rangle\langle x| \in {\bf B}(\mathcal{H}_1)$ by $|y\rangle\langle x|z=\langle x|z \rangle y$ for all $z\in\mathcal{H}_1$. \[intertwine\] Let $\mathcal{H}_1$ and $\mathcal{H}_2$ be Hilbert spaces. Let $V$ be an isometry from $\mathcal{H}_1$ to $\mathcal{H}_1\otimes\mathcal{H}_2$. If $V$ satisfies $(X\otimes 1)V=VX$ for all $X\in {\bf B}(\mathcal{H}_1)$, then there exists $\eta\in\mathcal{H}_2$ such that $V=V_\eta$. Let $x\in\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}$. Since $(P_x\otimes 1)Vx= VP_x x=Vx$, it holds that $Vx\in \mathbb{C}x\otimes\mathcal{H}_2$. Hence, for any $x\in\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}$, there is $\eta_x\in\mathcal{H}_2$ such that $Vx=x\otimes\eta_x$ and that $\Vert\eta_x\Vert=1$. For any $x,y\in\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}$, $$\begin{aligned} &\quad \langle x|x \rangle y\otimes \eta_y= \langle x|x \rangle Vy= V(\langle x|x \rangle y) = V(|y\rangle\langle x| x) \nonumber\\ &= (|y\rangle\langle x|\otimes 1)Vx=(|y\rangle\langle x|\otimes 1)(x\otimes \eta_x) =\langle x|x \rangle y\otimes \eta_x\end{aligned}$$ Thus $\eta_x=\eta_y$ for all $x,y\in\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}$. This fact implies that the range of the map $\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}\ni x\mapsto\eta_x\in\mathcal{H}_2$ is one point. We put $\eta=\eta_x$ for some $x\in\mathcal{H}_1\backslash \{0\}$. By the linearity of $V$, $V0=0=0\otimes \eta$. Thus we have $V=V_\eta$. Let $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ be a system of measurement correlations for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$. By Theorem \[Stinespring\], there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}_0$, a family $\{\Pi_t\}_{t\in\mathcal{T}^{(1)}}$ of normal representations of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ on $\mathcal{L}_0$ and an isometry $V_0$ from $\mathcal{H}$ to $\mathcal{L}_0$ such that $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=V_0^\ast \Pi_{T}(\overrightarrow{M})V_0$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})^{|T|}$. By Theorem \[vNhom2\], there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}_1$ and a unitary operator $U_1:\mathcal{L}_0\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1$ such that $$\Pi_{in}(M)=U_1^\ast(M\otimes 1)U_1$$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$. Similarly, by Theorem \[vNhom2\], there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}_2$ and a unitary operator $U_2:\mathcal{L}_0\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ such that $$\Pi_S(M)=U_2^\ast(M\otimes 1)U_2$$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$, and by Theorem \[CommLift\] there exist a PVM $E_0:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_2)$ such that $$\Pi_\Delta(1)=U_2^\ast(1\otimes E_0(\Delta))U_2$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We define a linear map $V:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1$ by $V=U_1V_0$, which is obviously seen to be an isometry. Here, it holds that $V^\ast(M\otimes 1)V=M$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$. For all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$, $$\begin{aligned} &\;\hspace{5mm}((M\otimes 1)V-VM)^\ast ((M\otimes 1)V-VM) \nonumber\\ &=V^\ast(M^\ast M\otimes 1)V-V^\ast(M^\ast \otimes 1)VM-M^\ast V^\ast(M \otimes 1)V+M^\ast V^\ast VM \nonumber\\ &=M^\ast M-M^\ast\cdot M-M^\ast\cdot M+M^\ast M=0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $(M\otimes 1)V=VM$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$. By Lemma \[intertwine\], there is $\eta_1\in\mathcal{L}_1$ such that $V=V_{\eta_1}$. Let $\eta_2\in\mathcal{L}_2$ such that $\Vert\eta_2\Vert=1$. Let $\zeta$ be an isomorphism from $\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ to $\mathcal{L}_2\otimes\mathcal{L}_1$ defined by $\zeta(\xi_1\otimes\xi_2)=\xi_2\otimes\xi_1$ for all $\xi_1\in\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\xi_2\in\mathcal{L}_2$. We define a unitary operator $U_3$ from $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_2$ to $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ by $$U_3(\xi\otimes\eta_2)=(1\otimes \zeta)(U_2U_1^\ast\xi\otimes\eta_1)$$ for all $\xi\in\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1$. We define a unitary operator $U_5$ from $\mathbb{C}\eta_2$ to $\mathbb{C}\eta_1$ by $U_5x=\langle \eta_2|x \rangle \eta_1$ for all $x\in\mathbb{C}\eta_2$. Then $U_3$ has the following form: $$U_3=(1\otimes \zeta)(U_2U_1^\ast\otimes U_5).$$ Since both $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_2$ and $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ are subspaces of $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ and satisfies $\dim(\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_2)= \dim(\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2)$ by the above observation, it holds that $$\dim((\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_2)^\bot)= \dim((\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2)^\bot).$$ This fact implies that there is a unitary operator $U_4$ from $(\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_2)^\bot$ to $(\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2)^\bot$. Let $Q$ be a projection operator from $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ onto $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_2$, i.e., $Q=1\otimes 1 \otimes P_{\eta_2}$. Let $R$ be a projection operator from $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ onto $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathbb{C}\eta_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$, i.e., $R=1\otimes P_{\eta_1}\otimes 1$. We then define a unitary operator $U$ on $\mathcal{H}$ by $U=U_3Q+U_4(1-Q)$. It is obvious that $U$ satisfies $UQ=U_3Q=RU_3=RU$. We define a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$ by $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$, a normal state $\sigma$ on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ by $$\sigma(Y)=\langle \eta_1\otimes\eta_2|Y(\eta_1\otimes\eta_2) \rangle$$ for all $Y\in {\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$, and a spectral measure $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow {\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ by $$E(\Delta)=1\otimes E_0(\Delta)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We show that the 4-tuple $\mathbb{M}:=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ is a measuring process for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ such that $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=W_T^\mathbb{M}(\overrightarrow{M})$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})^{|T|}$. Since $Q=1\otimes 1 \otimes P_{\eta_2}$ and $$\pi_{in}(M)=U_1\Pi_{in}(M)U_1^\ast \otimes 1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_2)}$$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$, we have $$\label{In} \pi_{in}(M)Q=Q\pi_{in}(M)$$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$. Similarly, we have $$\begin{aligned} \pi_\Delta(M)Q &=U^\ast(M\otimes E(\Delta))UQ \nonumber\\ &=U^\ast(M\otimes E(\Delta))RU_3Q \nonumber \\ &=U^\ast R(M\otimes E(\Delta))U_3Q \nonumber \\ &= U_3^\ast R(M\otimes E(\Delta))U_3Q \nonumber \\ &= U_3^\ast (M\otimes E(\Delta))U_3Q \nonumber \\ &= ((1\otimes \zeta)(U_2U_1^\ast\otimes U_5))^\ast (M\otimes E(\Delta))((1\otimes \zeta)(U_2U_1^\ast\otimes U_5)) \nonumber \\ &= (U_1U_2^\ast\otimes U_5^\ast)(M\otimes \zeta^\ast E(\Delta)\zeta)(U_2U_1^\ast\otimes U_5)Q \nonumber \\ &= (U_1U_2^\ast\otimes U_5^\ast)(M\otimes E_0(\Delta)\otimes 1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_1)}) (U_2U_1^\ast\otimes U_5))Q \nonumber \\ &= (U_1\Pi_\Delta(M)U_1^\ast\otimes P_{\eta_2})Q\nonumber \\ &= (U_1\Pi_\Delta(M)U_1^\ast\otimes 1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_2)})Q,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{Out} \pi_\Delta(M)Q=Q\pi_\Delta(M)$$ for all $M\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. By Eqs. (\[In\]) and (\[Out\]), it holds that $$Q\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})Q= Q(U_1\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})U_1^\ast \otimes 1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_2)})Q$$ for all $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})^{|T|}$. For all $\xi\in\mathcal{H}$, $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})^{|T|}$. $$\begin{aligned} \langle \xi| W_T^\mathbb{M}(\overrightarrow{M})\xi\rangle &=\langle \xi| (\mathrm{id}\otimes\sigma)(\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M}))\xi\rangle \nonumber\\ &= \langle \xi\otimes\eta_1\otimes\eta_2|\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M}) (\xi\otimes\eta_1\otimes\eta_2)\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle Q(\xi\otimes\eta_1\otimes\eta_2)|\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M}) Q(\xi\otimes\eta_1\otimes\eta_2)\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle V\xi\otimes\eta_2|Q\pi_T(\overrightarrow{M}) Q(V\xi\otimes\eta_2)\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle V\xi\otimes\eta_2|Q(U_1\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})U_1^\ast \otimes 1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_2)})Q(V\xi\otimes\eta_2)\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle V\xi\otimes\eta_2|(U_1\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})U_1^\ast \otimes 1_{{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_2)})(V\xi\otimes\eta_2)\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle V\xi|U_1\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})U_1^\ast V\xi\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle \xi|V^\ast U_1\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})U_1^\ast V\xi\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle \xi|V_0^\ast \Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})V_0 \xi\rangle\nonumber \\ &= \langle \xi| W_T(\overrightarrow{M})\xi\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof. We adopt here the same notations as in the proof of the above theorem. Suppose that $\mathcal{H}$ is separable and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ is a standard Borel space. Let $\{\Delta_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a countable generator of $\mathcal{F}$, $\{M_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ a dense subset of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ in the strong topology, and $\{\xi_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ a dense subset of $\mathcal{H}$. Let $\{C_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a well-ordering of the countable set $\{\Pi_{in}(M_n)\;|\;n\in\mathbb{N}\}\cup\{\Pi_{\Delta_m}(M_n)\;|\;m,n\in\mathbb{N}\}$. $\mathcal{L}_0$ has the increasing sequence $\{\mathcal{L}_{0,n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of separable closed subspaces, defined by $$\mathcal{L}_{0,n}=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{C_{f(1)}\cdots C_{f(n)}V_0\xi_k \;|\;f\in\mathbb{N}^{\{1,\cdots,n\}},k\in\mathbb{N}\}$$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$, such that $\mathcal{L}_0=\overline{\mathrm{span}}(\cup_{n}\mathcal{L}_{0,n})$, where $\mathbb{N}^{\{1,\cdots,n\}}$ is the set of maps from $\{1,\cdots,n\}$ to $\mathbb{N}$. Hence, $\mathcal{L}_0$ is separable because we have $$\mathcal{L}_0= \overline{\mathrm{span}}\left\{ \bigoplus_{n=1}^\infty \;(\mathcal{L}_{0,n-1})^\bot\cap \mathcal{L}_{0,n}\right\},$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{0,0}=\{0\}$. It is immediately seen that $\mathcal{L}_1$, $\mathcal{L}_2$ and $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ are also separable. Extendability of CP instruments to systems of measurement correlations {#sec:5} ====================================================================== To begin with, the following theorem similar to [@OO16 Theorem 3.4] holds for arbitrary von Neumann algebras $\mathcal{M}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For a system $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, the following conditions are equivalent:\ $(1)$ There is a system $\{\widetilde{W}_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}}$ of measurement correlations for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ such that $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=\widetilde{W}_T(\overrightarrow{M})$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$.\ $(2)$ There is a measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $$\label{SEMPandCP2} W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=W_T^\mathbb{M}(\overrightarrow{M})$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. The proof of this corollary is obvious by Theorem \[OTOC\]. It is not known that how large the set of systems of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ satisfying the above equivalent conditions in the set of systems of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ at the present time. Going back to the starting point of quantum measurement theory, we do not have to rack our brain to resolve the above difficulty. This is because we should recall that each CP instrument statistically corresponds to an appratus measuring the system under consideration in the sense of the Davies-Lewis proposal. In addition, the introduction of systems of measurement correlations was motivated by the necessity of the counterpart of CP instruments in the (generalized) Heisenberg picture in order to systematically treat measurement correlations. Hence it is natural to consider that an instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ describing a physically realizable measurement should be defined by a system of measurement correlations $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}_S}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, i.e., $$\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_W(M,\Delta)$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. \[Q1\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For any CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, does there exist a system of measurement correlations $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}_S}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ which defines $\mathcal{I}$? In the case of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$, this question is already affirmatively answered by the existence of measuring processes for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ for every CP instrument for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ (Theorem \[CPIMP\]). Surprisingly, Question \[Q1\] is affirmatively resolved for all CP instruments defined on arbitrarily given von Neumann algebras. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For every CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, there exists a system of measurement correlations $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}_S}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $$\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_W(M,\Delta)$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. By [@Oz84 Proposition 4.2] (or [@OO16 Proposition 3.2]), there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$, a normal representation $\pi_0$ of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{K}$, a PVM $E_0:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ and an isometry $V:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow\mathcal{K}$ such that $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{I}(M,\Delta) &= V^\ast \pi_0(M)E_0(\Delta)V, \label{CPrep} \\ \pi_0(M)E_0(\Delta) &= E_0(\Delta)\pi_0(M)\end{aligned}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, and that $\mathcal{K}=\overline{\mathrm{span}}(\pi_0(\mathcal{M})E_0(\mathcal{F})V\mathcal{H})$. We follow the identification $${\bf B}(\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K})=\left( \begin{array}{cc} {\bf B}(\mathcal{H}) & {\bf B}(\mathcal{K},\mathcal{H}) \\ {\bf B}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{K}) & {\bf B}(\mathcal{K}) \end{array} \right)$$ with multiplication and involution compatible with the usual matrix operations. We define a normal represetation $\Pi_{in}$ of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K}$ by $$\Pi_{in}(M)=\left( \begin{array}{cc} M & 0 \\ 0 & \pi_0(M) \end{array} \right) \label{inrepthm5.1}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$, a PVM $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K})$ by $$E(\Delta)=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \delta_{s}(\Delta)1 & 0 \\ 0 & E_0(\Delta) \end{array} \right)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, where $s\in S$ and $\delta_s$ is a delta measure on $(S,\mathcal{F})$ concentrated on $s$, and a unitary operator $U$ of $\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K}$ by $$U=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & -V^\ast \\ V & Q \end{array} \right),$$ where $Q=1-VV^\ast$. For every $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, we define a representation $\Pi_\Delta$ of $\mathcal{M}$ on $\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K}$ by $$\begin{aligned} \Pi_{\Delta}(M)&=U^\ast \Pi_{in}(M)E(\Delta)U \nonumber\\ &=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \mathcal{I}(M,\Delta) & -V^\ast\pi_0(M)E_0(\Delta)Q \\ -Q\pi_0(M)E_0(\Delta)V & \delta_s(\Delta)VMV^\ast+Q\pi_0(M)E_0(\Delta)Q \end{array} \right) \label{outrepthm5.1}\end{aligned}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$. We define a unital normal CP linear map $P_{11}:{\bf B}(\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K})\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ by $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} {\bf B}(\mathcal{H}) & {\bf B}(\mathcal{K},\mathcal{H}) \\ {\bf B}(\mathcal{H},\mathcal{K}) & {\bf B}(\mathcal{K}) \end{array} \right)\ni \left( \begin{array}{cc} X_{11} &X_{12} \\ X_{21} & X_{22} \end{array} \right)\mapsto X_{11}\in {\bf B}(\mathcal{H}).$$ For every $T=(t_1,\cdots,t_{|T|})\in\mathcal{T}_S$, we define a map $W_T:\mathcal{M}^{|T|}\rightarrow {\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ by $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=P_{11}[\Pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})]=P_{11}[\Pi_{t_1}(M_1)\cdots \Pi_{t_{|T|}}(M_{|T|})]$$ for all $\overrightarrow{M}=(M_1,\cdots,M_{|T|})\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. We show that the family $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}_S}$ is a system of measurement correlations for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $$\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)=W_\Delta(M)$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. For this purpose, it suffices to show $W_T(\overrightarrow{M})\in\mathcal{M}$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}_S$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Then the set $$\mathcal{D}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \mathcal{M} & \mathrm{span}(\mathcal{M}V^\ast \mathcal{A}) \\ \mathrm{span}(\mathcal{A}V \mathcal{M}) & \mathcal{A} \end{array} \right)$$ is a $^\ast$-subalgebra of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H}\oplus\mathcal{K})$, where $\mathcal{A}$ is a $^\ast$-subalgebra of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ algebraically generated by $V\mathcal{M}V^\ast$, $\pi_0(\mathcal{M})E_0(\mathcal{F})$ and $Q=1-VV^\ast$. This fact follows from the usual matrix operations and $V^\ast\mathcal{A}V\subset\mathcal{M}$[^1]. Since it is obvious that $\Pi_{in}(M), \Pi_\Delta(M^\prime)\in\mathcal{D}$ for all $M,M^\prime\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, we have $\Pi_T(\overrightarrow{M})\in\mathcal{D}$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}_S$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Therefore, for every $T\in\mathcal{T}_S$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in \mathcal{M}^{|T|}$, the $(1,1)$-component of $\Pi_{T}(\overrightarrow{M})$ is also an element of $\mathcal{M}$, which completes the proof. In the case of an atomic von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{M}$ on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$, we have another construction of a system of measurement correlations which defines a given CP instrument. Let $\mathcal{E}:{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ be a normal conditional expectation. We define a CP instrument $\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ by $$\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}(X,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{E}(X),\Delta)$$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. By Theorem \[CPIMP\], there exists a measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ such that $$\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}(X,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(X,\Delta)$$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. A system of measurement correlations $\{W_T\}_{T\in\mathcal{T}_S}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is defined by $$W_T(\overrightarrow{M})=\mathcal{E}(W_T^\mathbb{M}(\overrightarrow{M}))$$ for all $T\in\mathcal{T}$ and $\overrightarrow{M}\in\mathcal{M}^{|T|}$. Then $\mathcal{I}_W$ satisfies $$\mathcal{I}_W(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{E}(W_\Delta^\mathbb{M}(M))=\mathcal{E}(\widetilde{\mathcal{I}}(M,\Delta)) =\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{I}(\mathcal{E}(M),\Delta))=\mathcal{I}(M,\Delta)$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We should remark that the above construction does not show the existence of measuring processes for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ for every CP instrument for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. Approximate realization of CP instruments by measuring processes {#sec:6} ================================================================ We discuss the realizability of CP instruments by measuring processes in this section. Here, we shall start from the following question similar to Question \[Q1\]. \[Q4\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For any CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, does there exist a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ which realizes $\mathcal{I}$ within arbitrarily given error limits $\varepsilon>0$? We say that a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is *approximately realized* by a net of measuring processes $\{\mathbb{M}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, or $\{\mathbb{M}_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ *approximately realizes* $\mathcal{I}$ if, for every $\varepsilon>0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}$ and $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}$, there is $\alpha\in A$ such that $|\langle \rho_i, \mathcal{I}(M_i,\Delta_i)\rangle-\langle \rho_i, \mathcal{I}_{\mathbb{M}_\alpha}(M_i,\Delta_i)\rangle|<\varepsilon$ for all $i=1,\cdots,n$. We denote by $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AR}}(\mathcal{M},S)$ the set of CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ approximately realized by nets of measuring processes for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. Before answering to Question \[Q4\], we shall extend the program, advocated and developed by many researchers [@HK64; @Sch59; @Lud67; @Kraus], which states that physical processes should be described by (inner) CP maps usually called operations [@HK64] or effects [@Lud67]. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$.\ $(1)$ A positive linear map $\Psi$ of $\mathcal{M}$ is said to be finitely inner if there is a finite sequence $\{V_j\}_{j=1,\cdots,m}$ of $\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\Psi(M)=\sum_{j=1}^m V_j^\ast MV_j$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$\ $(2)$ A positive linear map $\Psi$ of $\mathcal{M}$ is said to be inner if there is a sequence $\{V_j\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ of $\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\Psi(M)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty V_j^\ast MV_j$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$, where the convergence is ultraweak.\ $(3)$ A positive linear map $\Psi$ of $\mathcal{M}$ is said to be approximately inner if it is the pointwise ultraweak limit of a net $\{\Psi_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ of finitely inner positive linear maps such that $\Psi_\alpha(1)\leq \Psi(1)$ for all $\alpha\in A$. In [@ADH90], finite innerness and approximate innerness of CP maps are called factorization through the identity map $\mathrm{id}_\mathcal{M}:\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ and approximate factorization through $\mathrm{id}_\mathcal{M}$, respectively. We refer the reader to [@Mingo89; @Mingo90; @ADH90; @AD95] for more detailed discussions. It is obvious that every finitely inner positive linear map $\Psi$ of $\mathcal{M}$ is inner. Similarly, every inner positive linear map $\Psi(M)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty V_j^\ast M V_j$, $M\in\mathcal{M}$, is approximately inner since it is the ultraweak limit of a sequence $\{\Psi_j\}$ of finitely inner positive maps $\Psi_j(M)=\sum_{k=1}^j V_k^\ast M V_k$, $M\in\mathcal{M}$, such that $\Psi_j(1)=\sum_{k=1}^j V_k^\ast V_k\leq \Psi(1)$ for all $j\in\mathbb{N}$. Every approximately inner positive linear map $\Psi$ of $\mathcal{M}$ is always completely positive. An instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is said to be finitely inner \[inner, or approximately inner, respectively\] if $\mathcal{I}(\cdot,\Delta)$ is finitely inner \[inner, or approximately inner, respectively\] for every $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We denote by $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{FI}}(\mathcal{M},S)$ \[$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{IN}}(\mathcal{M},S)$, or $\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AI}}(\mathcal{M},S)$, respectively\] the set of finitely inner \[inner, or approximately inner, respectively\] CP instruments for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. The following relation holds. $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{FI}}(\mathcal{M},S)\subset\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{IN}}(\mathcal{M},S) \subset\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AI}}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ A measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is said to be inner if $U$ is contained in $\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes} {\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$. We then have the following theorem. \[INJINNApp\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For every approximately inner (hence CP) instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, $\varepsilon>0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}$, there exists an inner measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ in the sense of Definition \[MP2\] such that $$|\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle -\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. We have $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AI}}(\mathcal{M},S)\subset\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AR}}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ Only for injective factors the following holds as a corollary of the above theorem. \[INJFac\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an injective factor on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For every CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, $\varepsilon>0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}$, there exists an inner measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ in the sense of Definition \[MP2\] such that $$|\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle -\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an injective factor on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Then we have $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AI}}(\mathcal{M},S)=\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AR}}(\mathcal{M},S) =\mathrm{CPInst}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ Theorem \[INJFac\] is a stronger result than [@OO16 Theorem 4.2] for factors, so that Question \[Q4\] is affirmatively resolved for injective factors. We use the following proposition for the proof of Theorem \[INJFac\]. \[injinn\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an injective factor on on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Every CP map $\Psi$ of $\mathcal{M}$ is approximately inner, i.e., it is the pointwise ultraweak limit of a net of CP maps $\{\Psi_\theta\}_{\theta\in\Theta}$ of the form $\Psi_\theta(M)=\sum_{j=1}^{n_\theta}V_{\theta,j}^\ast MV_{\theta,j}$, $M\in\mathcal{M}$, with $n_\theta\in\mathbb{N}$, $V_{\theta,1},\cdots, V_{\theta,n_\theta}\in\mathcal{M}$ such that $\Psi_\theta(1)=\sum_{j=1}^{n_\theta}V_{\theta,j}^\ast V_{\theta,j}\leq \Psi(1)$ for all $\theta\in\Theta$. The following proof is inspired by [@PT15]. Let $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}\backslash\{0\}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}\backslash\{\emptyset\}$. Let $\mathcal{F}^\prime$ be a $\sigma$-subfield of $\mathcal{F}$ generated by $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n,S$. Let $\{\Gamma_i\}_{i=1}^m \subset \mathcal{F}^\prime\backslash\{\emptyset\}$ be a maximal partition of $\cup_{i=1}^n\Delta_i$, i.e., $\{\Gamma_i\}_{i=1}^m$ satisfies the following conditions:\ $(1)$ For every $i=1,\cdots,m$, if $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}^\prime$ satisfies $\Delta\subset\Gamma_i$, then $\Delta$ is $\Gamma_i$ or $\emptyset$;\ $(2)$ $\cup_{i=1}^m \Gamma_i=\cup_{i=1}^n\Delta_i$;\ $(3)$ $\Gamma_i \cap\Gamma_j=\emptyset$ if $i\neq j$.\ For every $i=1,\cdots,m$, there is a net of finitely inner CP maps $\{\Psi_{\theta_i}\}_{\theta_i\in\Theta_i}$ of the form $\Psi_{i,\theta_i}(M)= \sum_{j=1}^{n_{\theta_i}}V_{i,\theta_i,j}^\ast MV_{i,\theta_i,j}$, $M\in\mathcal{M}$, with $n_{\theta_i}\in\mathbb{N}$, $V_{i,\theta_i,1},\cdots, V_{i,\theta_i,n_{\theta_i}}\in\mathcal{M}$ such that is pointwisely convergent to $\mathcal{I}(\cdot,\Gamma_i)$ in the ultraweak topology and $\Psi_{i,\theta_i}(1)\leq\mathcal{I}(1,\Gamma_i)$. We fix $s_0,s_1,\cdots.s_m\in S$ such that $s_i\in\Gamma_i$ for all $i=1,\cdots,m$. For every ${\bm \theta}=(\theta_1,\cdots,\theta_m)$ $\in\Theta_1\times\cdots\times\Theta_m$, we define a finitely inner CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_{\bm \theta}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ by $$\mathcal{I}_{\bm \theta}(M,\Delta)=\sum_{i=1}^m \delta_{s_i}(\Delta) \Psi_{\theta_i}(M) +\delta_{s_m}(\Delta) L_{\bm \theta}ML_{\bm \theta}$$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, where $\delta_s$ is a delta measure on $(S,\mathcal{F})$ concentrated on $s$ and $L_{\bm \theta}=\sqrt{1-\sum_{i=1}^m \Psi_{i,\theta_i}(1)}$. Let $\varepsilon$ be a positive real number. For every $i=1,\cdots,m$, there is $\bar{\theta}_i\in\Theta_i$ such that $$\label{mainterm} |\langle \rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Gamma_i)\rangle-\langle \rho_j,\Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(M_j)\rangle| <\frac{\varepsilon}{2m}$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$, and that $$\label{residual} \langle \rho_j, \mathcal{I}(1,\Gamma_i)-\Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(1) \rangle <\frac{\varepsilon}{2m\sum_{k=1}^n \Vert M_k\Vert}$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. By Eqs.(\[mainterm\]), (\[residual\]), we have $$\begin{aligned} &\quad\; |\langle \rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle- \sum_{i=1}^m\delta_{s_i}(\Delta_j)\langle \rho_j,\Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(M_j)\rangle| \nonumber\\ &=| \sum_{i=1}^m\delta_{s_i}(\Delta_j)\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Gamma_i)\rangle- \sum_{i=1}^m\delta_{s_i}(\Delta_j)\langle \rho_j,\Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(M_j)\rangle| \nonumber \\ &\leq \sum_{i=1}^m\delta_{s_i}(\Delta_j)| \langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Gamma_i)\rangle -\langle \rho_j,\Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(M_j)\rangle| < \sum_{i=1}^m\delta_{s_i}(\Delta_j)\cdot\frac{\varepsilon}{2m} \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}\end{aligned}$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$, and $$\begin{aligned} |\rho_j(L_{\bm \bar{\theta}}M_jL_{\bm \bar{\theta}})| \leq \Vert M_j\Vert \rho_j(L_{\bm \bar{\theta}}^2) &=\Vert M_j\Vert\cdot \langle\rho_j,\sum_{i=1}^m \left(\mathcal{I}(1,\Gamma_i)- \Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(1)\right)\rangle \nonumber \\ &= \Vert M_j\Vert\cdot \sum_{i=1}^m \langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(1,\Gamma_i)- \Psi_{i,\bar{\theta}_i}(1)\rangle \nonumber \\ &< \Vert M_j\Vert\cdot m\cdot \frac{\varepsilon}{2m\sum_{k=1}^n \Vert M_k\Vert}\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. Then the CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_{\bm \bar{\theta}}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ with ${\bm \bar{\theta}}=(\bar{\theta}_1,\cdots,\bar{\theta}_m)$ satisfies $$|\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle -\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_{\bm \bar{\theta}}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. Next, we shall define an inner measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ that realizes $\mathcal{I}_{\bm \bar{\theta}}$. Let $\eta=\{\eta_j\}_{j=0,1,\cdots,\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+1}$ be a complete orthonormal system of $\mathbb{C}^{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}$. A partial isometry $V:\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathbb{C}^{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}\rightarrow \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathbb{C}^{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}$ is defined by $$V=\sum_{i=1}^m \sum_{j=\sum_{k=1}^{i-1}\bar{\theta}_k+1}^{\sum_{k=1}^{i}\bar{\theta}_k} V_{i,\bar{\theta}_i,j}\otimes |\eta_j\rangle\langle \eta_0| +L_{\bm \bar{\theta}}\otimes |\eta_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+1}\rangle\langle \eta_0|$$ It is obvious that $V$ satisfies $V^\ast V =1\otimes |\eta_0\rangle\langle \eta_0|$. We define a PVM $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C})$ by $$E_\eta(\Delta)= \delta_{s_0}(\Delta)|\eta_0\rangle\langle \eta_0|+ \sum_{i=1}^m \delta_{s_i}(\Delta) \sum_{j=\sum_{k=1}^{i-1}\bar{\theta}_k+1}^{\sum_{k=1}^{i}\bar{\theta}_k} |\eta_j\rangle\langle \eta_j| +\delta_{s_m}(\Delta)|\eta_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+1}\rangle\langle \eta_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+1}|$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. We define a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}=\mathbb{C}^{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}\otimes\mathbb{C}^2$, a normal state $\sigma$ on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})=M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C}) \otimes M_2(\mathbb{C})$, a PVM $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ and a unitary operator $U$ on $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{K}$ by $$\begin{aligned} \sigma(X)&=\mathrm{Tr}\left[X(|\eta_0\rangle\langle \eta_0|\otimes G_{11})\right], \hspace{5mm}X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{K}),\\ E(\Delta) &=E_\eta(\Delta)\otimes 1,\hspace{5mm}\Delta\in\mathcal{F},\\ U =V\otimes G_{11}&+(1-VV^\ast)\otimes G_{12}+(1-V^\ast V)\otimes G_{12}^\ast-V^\ast\otimes G_{22},\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $\mathrm{Tr}$ is the trace on $M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C}) \otimes M_2(\mathbb{C})$ and $$G_{11}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right),\hspace{3mm} G_{12}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right),\hspace{3mm} G_{22}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right).$$ Since $U\in\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes} M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C}) \overline{\otimes}M_2(\mathbb{C})$, the 4-tuple $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ is an inner measuring process for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ satisfying $$|\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle -\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$. Let $\mathcal{I}$ be a CP instrument for $(\mathcal{M},S)$. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is an injective factor, $\mathcal{I}(\cdot,\Delta)$ is approximately inner for every $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$ by Proposition \[injinn\]. Thus the proof of Theorem \[INJINNApp\] works. We use the same notations as in the proof of Theorem \[INJINNApp\]. In the case where $\mathcal{M}$ is factor, we have another construction of a measuring process $\mathbb{M}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ such that $\mathcal{I}_{\bm \bar{\theta}}(M,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M,\Delta)$ for all $M\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be an AFD type III factor on a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}$. Let $Y$ be a partial isometry of $\mathcal{N}$ such that $Y^\ast Y\neq1$ and $YY^\ast\neq 1$. There then exists a partial isometry $W$ of $\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes} M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C})\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ such that $W^\ast W=1-V^\ast V\otimes Y^\ast Y$ $=1-1\otimes |\eta_0\rangle\langle \eta_0|\otimes Y^\ast Y$ and $WW^\ast=1-VV^\ast\otimes YY^\ast$. We define a unitary operator $U$ of $\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes} M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C})\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ by $$U=V\otimes Y+W,$$ and a PVM $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C})\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ by $$E(\Delta) = E_\eta(\Delta)\otimes 1_\mathcal{L}$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Let $\psi$ be a unit vector of $\mathcal{L}$ such that $Y^\ast Y\psi=\psi$. Then we have $W(\xi\otimes\eta_0\otimes \psi)=0$ for all $\xi\in\mathcal{H}$. We define a normal state $\sigma$ on $M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C})\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ by $$\sigma(X)=\langle \eta_0\otimes \psi| X(\eta_0\otimes \psi)\rangle$$ for all $X\in M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C})\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$. A Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}$ is then defined by $\mathcal{K}=\mathbb{C}^{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2} \otimes\mathcal{L}$. Since $U\in\mathcal{M}\overline{\otimes} M_{\Vert{\bm \bar{\theta}}\Vert+2}(\mathbb{C}) \overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$, the 4-tuple $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ is an inner measuring process for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ satisfying the desired property. Not only for factors $\mathcal{M}$, we have the following theorem affirmatively resolving Question \[Q4\] for physically relevant cases. A measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is said to be faithful if there exists a normal faithul representation $\widetilde{E}:L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M})\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ such that $\widetilde{E}([\chi_\Delta])=E(\Delta)$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. This definition is the same as [@OO16 Definition 3.4] except that the definition of measuring process for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ is different. \[INJVN\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an injective von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. For every CP instrument $\mathcal{I}$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$, $\varepsilon>0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}$, there exists a faithful measuring process $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ in the sense of Definition \[MP2\] such that $$|\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle -\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$, and that $$\mathcal{I}(1,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(1,\Delta)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Suppose that $\mathcal{M}$ is in a standard form without loss of generality. Then there is a norm one projection $\mathcal{E}:{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$ and a net $\{\Phi_\alpha\}_{\alpha\in A}$ of unital CP maps such that $\Phi_\alpha(X)\rightarrow^{uw} \mathcal{E}(X)$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ by [@AD95 Corollary 3.9](, or [@OO16 Proposition 4.2]). For every $\alpha\in A$, a CP instrument $\mathcal{I}_\alpha$ for $({\bf B}(\mathcal{H}),S)$ is defined by $$\mathcal{I}_\alpha(X,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}(\Phi_\alpha(X),\Delta)$$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. For every $\alpha\in A$, $\mathcal{I}_\alpha$ satisfies $$\mathcal{I}_\alpha(1,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}(\Phi_\alpha(1),\Delta)=\mathcal{I}(1,\Delta)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Let $\varepsilon>0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\rho_1,\cdots,\rho_n\in\mathcal{S}_n(\mathcal{M})$, $M_1,\cdots,M_n\in\mathcal{M}$ and $\Delta_1,\cdots,\Delta_n\in\mathcal{F}$. There exists $\alpha_0\in A$ such that $$|\langle \rho_i, \mathcal{I}(M_i,\Delta_i)\rangle -\langle \rho_i, \mathcal{I}_{\alpha_0}(M_i,\Delta_i) \rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for every $i=1,\cdots,n$. By [@OO16 Proposition 3.2] and Theorem \[vNhom2\], there exist a Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}_1$, a normal faithful representation $E_1:L^\infty(S,\mathcal{I}_{\alpha_0}) \rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_1)$ and an isometry $V:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1$ such that $$\mathcal{I}_{\alpha_0}(X,\Delta)=V^\ast( X\otimes E_1([\chi_\Delta]))V$$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{H})$ and $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. Because the discussion below is not needed in the case of $\dim(\mathcal{L}_1)=1$, we assume that $\dim(\mathcal{L}_1)\geq 2$. Let $\eta_1$ be a unit vector of $\mathcal{L}_1$. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be an AFD type III factor on a separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{L}_2$. We define a partial isometry $U_1:\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2 \rightarrow\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2$ by $$U_1(x\otimes\xi\otimes \psi)=\langle \eta_1| \xi\rangle Vx\otimes \psi$$ for all $x\in\mathcal{H}$, $\xi\in\mathcal{L}_1$ and $\psi\in\mathcal{L}_2$. Let $U_2$ be an isometry of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_1)\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ such that $U_2U_2^\ast = |\eta_1\rangle\langle\eta_1|\otimes 1$. We define an isometry $U_3$ of ${\bf B}(\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1)\overline{\otimes}\mathcal{N}$ by $U_3=1\otimes U_2$. We then define a unitary operator $U$ of $\mathcal{H}\otimes\mathcal{L}_1\otimes \mathcal{L}_2\otimes\mathbb{C}^2$ by $$\begin{aligned} U &= U_1U_3\otimes G_{11} + [1-(U_1U_3) (U_1U_3)^\ast]\otimes G_{12}\nonumber\\ &\quad\; +[1-(U_1U_3)^\ast(U_1U_3)]\otimes G_{12}^\ast-(U_1U_3)^\ast\otimes G_{22} \nonumber \\ &= U_1U_3\otimes G_{11} + (1-U_1U_1^\ast)\otimes G_{12}-(U_1U_3)^\ast\otimes G_{22},\end{aligned}$$ where $$G_{11}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right),\hspace{3mm} G_{12}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{array} \right),\hspace{3mm} G_{22}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right).$$ Let $\eta_2$ be a unit vector of $\mathcal{L}_2$. We define a Hilbert space $\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2\otimes\mathbb{C}^2$, a normal state $\sigma$ on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ by $$\sigma(X)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[X(|\eta_1\otimes\eta_2\rangle\langle\eta_1\otimes\eta_2|\otimes G_{11})\right]$$ for all $X\in{\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$, and a PVM $E:\mathcal{F}\rightarrow{\bf B}(\mathcal{K})$ by $$E(\Delta) =E_1([\chi_\Delta])\otimes 1_{\mathcal{N}\overline{\otimes}M_2(\mathbb{C})}$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$, respectively, where $\mathrm{Tr}$ is the trace on ${\bf B}(\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\mathcal{L}_2)\overline{\otimes} M_2(\mathbb{C})$. The 4-tuple $\mathbb{M}=(\mathcal{K},\sigma,E,U)$ is then a faithful measuring process for $(\mathcal{M},S)$ that realizes $\mathcal{I}_{\alpha_0}$ and that satisfies $$|\langle\rho_j,\mathcal{I}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle -\langle\rho_j, \mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(M_j,\Delta_j)\rangle|<\varepsilon$$ for all $j=1,\cdots,n$, and $$\mathcal{I}(1,\Delta)=\mathcal{I}_\mathbb{M}(1,\Delta)$$ for all $\Delta\in\mathcal{F}$. By the proof of Theorem \[INJVN\] and facts in Section \[sec:2\], we have the following corollaries. \[RENE\] Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Then we have $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{RE}}(\mathcal{M},S)=\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{NE}}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ Use [@OO16 Theorem 3.4 (iii)]. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an atomic von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Then we have $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{RE}}(\mathcal{M},S)=\mathrm{CPInst}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ and $(S,\mathcal{F})$ a measurable space. Then we have $$\mathrm{CPInst}_{\mathrm{AR}}(\mathcal{M},S)=\mathrm{CPInst}(\mathcal{M},S).$$ Following these results, Question \[Q4\] is affirmatively resolved for general $\sigma$-finite von Neumann algebras. Throughout the present paper, we have developed the dilation theory of systems of measurement correlations and CP instruments, and established many unitary dilation theorems of them. In the succeeding paper, we systematically develop successive and continuous measurements in the generalized Heisenberg picture. The author believes that the approach to quantum measurement theory given in the present and succeeding papers contributes to the categorical (re-)formulation of quantum theory. On the other hand, though we do not know how it is related to the topic of this paper at the present time, the future task is to find the connection with the results of Haagerup and Musat [@HaagerupMusat11; @HaagerupMusat15], which develop the asymptotic factorizability of CP maps on finite von Neumann algebras. The author would like to thank Professor Masanao Ozawa for his useful comments and warm encouragement. This work was supported by the John Templeton Foundations, No. 35771 and by the JSPS KAKENHI, No. 26247016, and No. 16K17641. [^1]: To show this, we use $Q=1-VV^\ast$ and Eq.(\[CPrep\]).

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'A model for Opinion Particles, based on Bayesian-inspired models of Opinion Dynamics such as the CODA model is presented. By extending the discrete time characteristic of those models to continuous time, a theory for the movement of opinion particles is obtained, based only on inference ideas. This will allow inertia to be obtained as a consequence of an extended CODA model. For the general case, we will see that the likelihoods are associated with variables such as velocity and acceleration of the particles. Newtonian forces are easily defined and the relationship between a force and the equivalent likelihood provided. The case of the harmonic oscillator is solved as an example, to illustrate clearly the relationship between Opinion Particles and Mechanics. Finally, possible paths to apply these results to General Relativity are debated.' author: - | André C. R. Martins\ NISC - EACH\ Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil title: 'Opinion Particles: Classical Physics and Opinion Dynamics' --- Introduction ============ The problem with integrating Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity is so widely known that no introduction to the theme is actually required. Both theories are very successful in the cases where we know they must be applied. Yet, no agreement has been reached by the scientific community on a good model for Quantum Gravity, despite the fact that efforts do exist, as, per example, String Theory [@beckeretal07a] or Loop Quantum Gravity [@thiemann07a]. A framework that would allow both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity to be obtained from the same basic principles could, in principle, provide a important new development in the efforts to understand how both theories could be formulated in an unifying way. If that framework were to be based on logical and informational principles, that would be a very nice bonus. Efforts to understand Physics from an inference point of view are not new and have provided some very interesting results [@jaynes03; @caticha04a; @catichapreuss04a; @catichagiffin07a; @goyal12a]. They use entropic principles based on the information one receives from experiments and are compatible with Bayesian Statistics, in the cases where the information comes as data. It is interesting to notice that Bayesian Statistics can actually be seen as an extension of Classical Logic where statements are not just true or false, but can have different amounts of plausibility assigned to them, according to what is currently known [@cox61a; @jaynes03]. That means that entropic and informational approaches use very basic first principles of reasoning. While these are interesting advances, they tend to apply inference principles only to understand how an observer would interpret the results of an experiment. In this paper, Bayesian Logic will be shown to possibly allow for a deeper understanding of theoretical Physics than that allowed by just applying it to the inferential process. The idea of the paper is to provide initial ideas in that direction and to present far more questions than answers, while also illustrating how the general principles presented herein can be applied. This will be accomplished by expanding on existing models from Opinion Dynamics. In Opinion Dynamics problems [@galametal82; @galammoscovici91; @sznajd00; @deffuantetal00; @hegselmannkrause02; @martins08a; @galam12a], a framework based on Bayesian methods has been proposed [@martins12b] as an extension of the ideas presented in the Continuous Opinions and Discrete Actions (CODA) model[@martins08a; @martins08b]. It is interesting to notice that this framework is able to generate many of the other Opinion Dynamics models, both discrete [@martins12a] and continuous [@martins08c], as particular or limit cases. Those are the ideas that will be expanded here into a full model for opinion particles. The paper is structured like this: First, a brief review of CODA model will be presented. CODA is much simpler if we transform the probabilities $p$ to log-odds $\nu$ and, therefore, most of the analysis will be conducted using the variables $\nu$. In order to obtain a more realistic dynamics, I will proceed by extending CODA to continuous time, thus defining opinion particles. These particles move as a consequence of an inferential process based on the information they receive, like, per example, the position (and, possibly, other variables) of the other particles. We will see that inertia can be obtained as a consequence of this continuous time CODA, with no need to introduce any kind of space structure. This means that Mach’s principle [@mach88a; @sciama53a; @dicke63a; @barbour10a; @essen13a] can be applied to Newtonian Mechanics, as inertia becomes a consequence of interaction, with no need for introducing privileged inertial frames. The relationship between likelihoods and the forces that act on the opinion particles will be obtained and we will see how the harmonic oscillator can be described in this framework. Through an inference where the full information about the location of the other particles is used, I will show that the results of the harmonic oscillator can be obtained from Beta function likelihoods. Finally, the problem of the geometric structure of the space of $\nu$ coordinates will be briefly discussed. We will see it makes sense to identify $\nu$ with space-time coordinates and obtain the equation that gives us the likelihood equivalent to a parallel transport in a relativistic gravitational problem. One warning is necessary before proceeding. While the name Opinion Particles in a natural name, given they are inspired in Opinion Dynamics models, it does not mean that the particles have any kind of opinion. The name just reflects the fact that, as information about other particle arrives, the first particle uses that information in some unknown process to determine its trajectory. That this use can be compatible with principles of rationality is an interesting fact, with no explanation or speculation attached to it. CODA and Inertia {#sec:coda} ================ CODA ---- CODA model [@martins08a; @martins08b] was developed to explore how human agents could influence each other, changing their opinions when observing the choices of other agents. It assumes that, in a situation where there are two possible choices (or actions), each agent assigns a fixed probability $\alpha > 0.5$ that each one of its neighbors will have chosen the best alternative (repulsive forces are also easy to introduce by allowing $\alpha<0.5$, when we have agents known as contrarians [@galam04; @galam05; @martinskuba09a]). Let the two choices be $A$ and $B$, and $p_i (t)$ be the probability agent $i$ assigns at time $t$ to the probability that $A$ is the best choice. CODA assumes a fixed likelihood $\alpha \equiv P(OA_j|A)$, representing the chance that, if $A$ is indeed the best choice, when observing agent $j$, $i$ will observe $j$ prefers $A$, indicated by $OA_j$. If we don’t assume that the problem is symmetrical in relation to both choices, that is, $\alpha \equiv P(OA_j|A) \neq \beta \equiv P(OB_j|B),$ a simple use of Bayes theorem will show how $p_i(t)$ is altered. Per example, if agent $j$ prefers $A$, we have $$\label{eq:bayes} p_i(t+1|OA_j)=\frac{p(t)}{1-p(t)}\frac{\alpha}{1-\beta}.$$ The model becomes much simpler if we use the log-odd function $$\nu \equiv \ln(\frac{p}{1-p})$$ (where the agent index and time dependence were omitted). As $p$ exists in the interval $0\leq p \leq 1$, we have $-\infty \leq \nu \leq +\infty$. In the $\nu$ variable, a simple additive model is obtained. That is, for the symmetric case where $\alpha=\beta$, $$\label{eq:coda} \nu(t+1) = \nu(t) \pm C,$$ with the plus sign corresponding to agent $j$ preferring $A$ and the minus sign to the opposite choice and where $C=\ln\left( \frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha} \right)$ (if $\alpha \ne \beta$, the plus and minus terms just have different sizes). This symmetric case can be trivially normalized to $\nu^*$ so that when $A$ is observed, the agent adds $+1$ to $\nu^*$, and when $B$ is observed, $-1$ is added, but we won’t normalize $\nu$ in this paper. The choice of the agent is defined as the sign of $\nu^*$, with positive signs indicating $A$ is chosen. It is important to notice that Equation \[eq:coda\] is actually general, even if we assume different likelihoods. The expression for $C$ can and will change, however, since $C$ is a simple constant due to the use of the simple likelihood of CODA model. Continuous time --------------- CODA model is defined in discrete time. Each observation of new data is a discrete event and, from an inference point of view, it seems to make no sense to talk about changes between the discrete observations. Of course, this does not prevent us from extending the model to continuous time, from a mathematical point of view. One might, if desired, think of it as the whole information arriving in smaller bits. Such an extension can be trivially obtained. If after $\Delta t =1$ we have $\Delta \nu = C$, we can assume a linear change in time so that $\Delta \nu = C \Delta t$. Actually, any power of $\Delta t$ would give the correct discrete limit, and we will see bellow that this simpler expression is not necessarily the best choice. As we take $\Delta t \rightarrow 0$, we can write tentatively $$\label{eq:velocity} \frac{d\nu}{dt} = C.$$ That is, $C$, while associated to the change of $\nu$, would play the role of velocity for the opinion particle. This role is basically correct if one looks for a function $C$ that describe the full movement. However, as we will see later, if we divide the dynamics into an inertial component and another arising from a force, Equation \[eq:velocity\] will have to be replaced, as the force component will assume a particle starting from rest. In that case, $C$ will be associated with the acceleration, with a change depending on $\Delta t^2$, as we will see bellow. In unidimensional CODA, supposing the choice was $A$, $C=\ln\left( \frac{\alpha}{1-\beta} \right)$ is obtained from the ratio between the probability that $A$ is chosen when $A$ is true ($\alpha$) and the probability that $A$ is chosen if $B$ is true $1-\beta$. For an opinion particle $i$ that observes the position $\nu_j$ of another particle, we could define an extension according to whether $\nu_j$ is negative or positive. However, if we want to apply this theory to physical problems, the choice of the zero for the $\nu$-axis should be free. While a translation in $\nu$ does correspond to a change of the probability $p$, this is a problem only if we hold to an objective meaning of $p$. That objective view is not available to each particle, though. From the point of view of an opinion particle, the central position ($p=0.5$ and $\nu=0$) is its location. That is, we can have a reference frame $\nu(i)$ for each particle where the positions of the other particles, $\nu_j(i)$, where $j=1,\cdots, N$ represents each one of particles in the universe, are measured. What we gain from these choices is that each particle is influenced just by the sum of of the influences to its right to the sum of the influences at its left. In agreement with Sciama [@sciama53a], these inertial forces obtained from this CODA-like structure decay slower than the square of distance. Here, they actually don’t decay at all. Of course, other functional forms can indeed provide an inertial effect, but it is interesting that a simple extension of CODA already does it. Opinion Particles in $d$ dimensions =================================== The discussion at the previous Section was valid for the continuous extension of the CODA model. But the class of possible dynamics based on probabilistic reasoning is much larger. Basically, as long as we have information arriving from some source and a likelihood about that information, this can be used to update the probabilities associated with any parameter. In the case of opinion particles, that simply means that the information will be processed, causing the particle to move. If we retain the probabilistic interpretation, that means a different evaluation about some parameter. If we are only interested in obtaining equations of movement, we have nothing more than information being used by a particle to alter its position. In any case, the general case for Opinion Dynamics models on discrete time based on Bayesian rules were presented before [@martins12b]. What we are interested here are in models in continuous time that can be used in a $d$-dimensional space. Therefore, at this point, we will not use some concepts like what how agent $j$ expresses its opinion. In this article, just the position, velocity and needed parameters of $j$ will be observed by particle $i$. For that, we must return to the probabilistic representation and the Bayes Theorem. Notice that while CODA models is simpler on the $\nu$, it can just as well be defined on the probability space of the $p$ variable. This is a simple choice of variables, distributions on $\nu$ have equivalents on $p$ as well as any other parameterization we choose. In order to compare with Mechanics, $\nu$ just has the obvious advantage of existing in the range $-\infty < \mu < \infty$, making it easier to interpret and compare to Cartesian coordinates. Just like regular space, opinions have several components, since they can be about several issues [@vicenteetal08b]. If those issues are independent, they can be represented by the existence of a dimensional space, where the opinion particles can move on. If we still assume the particles just decide to move whether towards $-\infty$ or towards $\infty$, we have something similar to the extended CODA model in $d$ dimensions. Assuming particle $j$ is situates at $\vec{x}(j)$ Therefore, we have a continuum of infinite possible values for $\vec{x}(j)$ as well as, possible, other parameters. Representing the set of parameters by $\varTheta $, we have, for the first coordinate $p_1(t+1)$ as a function of $p_1(t)$, represented simply as $p_1$ for simplicity sake, $$\label{eq:continuousbayes} p_1(t+1)=\frac{p_1 f(\varTheta|A_1 )}{p_1 f(\varTheta|A_1 )+(1-p_1) f(\varTheta|B_1 )},$$ where $A_1$ corresponds to the possibility that $p_1=1$ is the correct answer, and $B_1$ to $p_1 =0$. In a way, this might be considered equivalent to the Holographic Principle [@susskind95a], in the sense that each position is simply a representation of the desired choices $p=0$ or $p=1$, that correspond to $\nu=-\infty$ and $\nu=+\infty$, respectively. Converting to $\nu_1$, we have Equation \[eq:coda\] again, except now we have one such equation for each coordinate, that is the vectorial equation $$\label{eq:codadimension} \frac{d\vec{\nu}}{dt} = \vec{C}$$ where $$\vec{C}=\ln \left( \frac{f(\vec{x}|A_1 )}{f(\vec{x}|B_1 )} \right) .$$ This is not complete, yet, however, as there the assumption that only $p=0$ or $p=1$ are correct values is not necessarily correct. Even for real opinions, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the best value for some parameter is not in one of its extremes. In the case we have a continuum of possible values for a best position ($p$ or $\nu$ or any other), we will need a probability distribution over the positions and it is this distribution that will be updated, with the sum in the denominator of Equation \[eq:continuousbayes\] substituted by an integration over all possible values. This case will not be addressed here, since it is not necessary for the examples in this paper, but it is perfectly reasonable that it might be needed for some specific forces and interactions. Forces and opinions {#sec:forces} =================== Let’s assume for now that $\nu$-space has the normal geometric structure of a flat, Newtonian space-time and that there are three components of $\nu$, equivalent to the three Cartesian spatial directions. A similar supposition will be made in the context of space-time coordinates. We have obtained so far an equation for the velocities of the opinion particles (Equation \[eq:velocity\]) and we have discussed how we can explain inertia in a straight-forward way. To compare the movements of the opinion particles with those of Newtonian particles we need to calculate the likelihoods that match known forces. Notice that $C$ is not actually a likelihood, but the logarithm of the ratio of two likelihoods (or, if the likelihoods are defined directly on $\nu$, the ratio of two likelihods). The equivalence to a force can be achieved by derivating Equation \[eq:velocity\], to obtain the acceleration of the particle. Since $C$, in general, depends on the relative position of the other particles, it will change as the particle moves, the opinion particle will have a non-null acceleration. And, given we define the particle mass in a consistent way, we can derive Equation \[eq:velocity\] in order to obtain a relation between a force $F$ known from Newtonian Mechanics and its associated likelihood. If $C$ is associated with the velocity of the particle, this is trivially given by, assuming a constant mass $m$, $$\label{eq:force} F=m\frac{dC}{dt}.$$ Integrating the expression provides us with the likelihood that is equivalent to any force up to a constant term. We will see bellow that, in several cases, $C$ might be better identified with a force instead of the velocity. In those cases, the Equation \[eq:force\] is obviously not valid. Should $C$ be associated with $\Delta t^2$, it will play the role of an acceleration and its relation to the force is far more obvious. Velocities, inertia, and trust effects {#sec:trust} ====================================== One thing to notice is that, if $C$ depended only on the relative position of other particles, a given particle would have its trajectory from a fixed point completely defined, with no possibility to have it, while at that point, different velocities. This holds also for inertial forces and it would make opinion particles behave in a way that is not compatible with the movement of physical particles. While this is not a problem for Opinion Dynamics problems, it would limit the applicability of the concept. Therefore, $C$ must have other types of dependencies, so that different velocities are allowed at a point. One possible way yo address the initial velocity problem we can introduce trust between the particles [@martins08c; @martins13a]. Basically, this might be seen as equivalent to the problem of model choice in a Bayesian context [@ohagan94a], where the likelihood is obtained from a sum of at least two different probability distributions. The term sum, of course, can mean, in the last sentence, an integration over the values of a parameter. If one of the distributions is assumed to be not related to a best position for the particle, as non-informative as possible, that part of the distribution will not contribute to the movement. In a one-dimensional model with two distributions [@martins08c], if the informative distribution has a probability $q$ of being the best model, the non-informative one will have a probability $1-q$ associated to it. This means that the movement of the particle will be diminished by a factor $q<1$ when compared with the model with no non-informative part. Of course, as the particle moves, $q$ may also be updated and, as such, it does not have to be constant over the movement. This means $q$ can be seen as a measure of how much the information arriving from the other particle is considered trustworthy or useless. This can cause different velocities in any number of $d$ dimensions, since $q$ can be a function of the angles in the $d-1$ sphere. In terms of implementation, however, the problem is much simpler, not requiring a full model where distributions are specified and the hyper-parameter for the probability of each distribution constantly updated. What happens is that we already know the answer. The inertia component $C_I$ of any complete particle description should be $$\label{cinertia} \vec{C}_I(t+dt)=\vec{v}(t),$$ where $\vec{C}_I$ stands for the inertial likelihood and $\vec{v}(t)$ is the velocity of opinion particle at time $t$. Harmonic Oscillator {#sec:harmonic} =================== As an example of the application of the concept of using likelihoods and opinion particles to describe Newtonian particles, let’s see how we can obtain an harmonic oscillator. Equation \[eq:force\] seems to provide a direct way to compute a function $C$ given a known force $F$, in this case, $F=-kx$. Basically, we can use Newton laws to obtain how the force evolves in time and integrate Equation \[eq:force\] in order to obtain a total function of the likelihoods given by $C \propto \sqrt{1-x^2}$. While essentially correct, this solution misses some interesting aspects of using opinion particles. By integrating the force using the actual movement of the particle, both the effects of inertia and the force get mixed in the function $C$. However, in order to extend the ideas presented herein to General Relativity, it would be useful to separate the inertial likelihood $C_I$ from the likelihood associated to the force, $C_F$. In order to obtain the movement of a particle under an harmonic oscillator force, let’s return to what happens in small time increments, from $t_1$ to $t_2=t_1 + \Delta t$. In this case, we can rewrite Equation \[cinertia\] as $$C_I(t_2) = v(t_1)= \frac{x(t_1)-x(t_0)}{\Delta t},$$ where $t_0 = t_1 - \Delta t$ is the instant before $t_1$. Therefore, the change in position from the inertial term is simply given by $$\label{eq:inertiamovement} x(t_2)=x(t_1)+v(t_1) \Delta t = x(t_1) + [x(t_1)-x(t_0)].$$ If $C_I$ were the only thing affecting the particle, its influence would be constant and, therefore, the opinion particle would trivially follow a straight line. It remains to introduce the effect of the force, by using Equation \[eq:force\]. We have that $$-kx(t_1) \Delta t = m \Delta C = m \left( C(t_2) - C(t_1) \right)$$ Since $C$ is basically the velocity of the particle, we would have, in principle, $$\label{eq:cdiscrete} -kx(t_1) \Delta t = m \left( \frac{x(t_2)-x(t_1)}{\Delta t} - \frac{x(t_1)-x(t_0)}{\Delta t} \right).$$ If we were to solve this, however, we would be back to using the full movement of the particle and not just the effect of the force. If we mean to have just the effect of $C_F$ from Equation \[eq:cdiscrete\], we must assume that the particle was initially at rest, that is $ \frac{x(t_1)-x(t_0)}{\Delta t} =0$. That way, we have $$\label{eq:fmovement} x(t_2) = x(t_1) -\frac{k}{m}x(t_1) (\Delta t)^2.$$ Combining the movements from inertia and the force, we have $$\label{eq:totalmovement} x(t_2) = x(t_1) -\frac{k}{m}x(t_1) (\Delta t)^2+ [x(t_1)-x(t_0)].$$ \[fig:harmonic\] Figure 1 shows the time evolution obtained from Equation \[eq:totalmovement\] as circles, compared to the exact solution of the unidimensional harmonic oscillator, represented as the line. We can see clearly that, despite its unconventional form, Equation \[eq:totalmovement\] does provide the correct dynamics for the problem. Discrete Choices with Continuous Verbalization ==============================================  \[sec:concoda\] Finally, in order to better explore the formalism and also in order to make some of its properties clearer, a variant of the CODA model will be discussed where the communication between the agents is not a discrete spin value, meaning the observed particle is at what side of the observing one. Instead, the full probability $p_j$ particle $j$ assigns to the possibility (measured in the reference frame of $i$) that the right choice is $x=+1$ will be used in the inference made by the particle $i$. Notice that the fact that the communication is continuous does not imply that $p$ should be. We still have a problem with only two possible real choices $p=-1$ or $p=+1$. However, the continuous probabilistic value is the communicated information. This distinction is a very important albeit neglected one. In continuous opinion models, it is usually assumed that both the communication and the decision are continuous, but that doesn’t have to be the case. As the communication phase in the framework was changed, we need now a new likelihood, that neighbor agent $j$ will issue the value $p_j$ in the case where $p=-1$ and in the case where $p=+1$, that is, functions $f(p_j|A)$ and $f(p_j|B)$. Since all values for $p_i$ are limited to $0\leq p_i \leq 1$, the simplest choice is to take Beta distributions $Be(p_j|\alpha,\beta)$ as priors. $$Be(p_j|\alpha,\beta)=\frac{1}{N(\alpha,\beta)}p_{j}^{\alpha-1}(1-p_{j})^{\beta-1}$$ where $N(\alpha,\beta)$ is obtained from Gamma functions by $$N(\alpha,\beta)=\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)\Gamma(\beta)}{\Gamma(\alpha+\beta))}.$$ As the Beta function is symmetric in $\alpha$ e $\beta$, if we want to keep the symmetry between $p=0$ and $p=1$, we must have for the likelihoods that, if $f(p_j|x=1)=B(\alpha,\beta)$, then $f(p_j|x=-1)=B(\beta,\alpha)$. By applying the Bayes Theorem to this problem, agent $i$, when observing $p_j$, will update $p_i$ to $p_i(t+1)$, $$\label{eq:continuouscoda} p_i(t+1)=\frac{p_i p_j^{\alpha-1}(1-p_j)^{\beta-1}}{p_i p_j^{\alpha-1}(1-p_j)^{\beta-1} + (1-p_i)p_j^{\beta-1}(1-p_j)^{\alpha-1}}.$$ If we adopt the same transformation of variables as in CODA model and calculate $\nu_i$ we will see that the denominators cancel out and we have that $$\label{eq:logoddcontinuouscoda} \ln \left( \frac{p_i(t+1)}{1-p_i(t+1)} \right) =\ln \left( \frac{p_i(t)}{1-p_i(t)} \right) +\ln \left[ \left(\frac{p_j(t)}{1-p_j(t)} \right)^{\alpha-\beta} \right]$$ Equation \[eq:logoddcontinuouscoda\] can be rewritten in a more elegant fashion as $$\label{eq:logoddcontinuouscodanu} \nu_i(t+1)=\nu_i(t)+(\alpha-\beta) \nu_j$$ This is similar to the CODA dynamics, except that now, at each step, instead of adding a term that is constant in size and only varies in sign, we add a term proportional to the log-odds of the opinion of the neighbor. However, we must also remember that, unlike the CODA case, that led us to inertia, the objective here is to obtain an equivalent to a force component. In Equation \[eq:fmovement\], we see that a force component enters as a term with $\Delta t^2$, while, if we repeat the argument that associated $C$ with velocity, we will just have a $\Delta t$. More importantly, very simple simulations of the limit $\Delta t \rightarrow 0$ show that a term $\Delta t^2$ is required in order for the dynamics to have a proper limit. Per example, if, in Equation \[eq:totalmovement\], the force term had just a linear dependence on $\Delta t$, the system would still oscillate in an apparently correct way for a fixed $\Delta t$, but with a frequency that would grow as $\Delta t \rightarrow 0$. Of course, that might not seem reason enough. We certainly need to understand why we can use a quadratic instead of a linear term, since $C$ seemed more easily associated with velocities. But we must remember that we have divided the dynamics in two parts, a inertial part and one associated with forces. The task of keeping the velocities the same as before is performed by $C_I$. And, as we have seen for the harmonic oscillator, the way $C_F$ works is by providing the same change in position the particle would have if it were at rest. That is, expanding the movement in a power series, the linear term, giving the velocity due to $C_F$ must indeed be null. The first contribution, therefore, is the acceleration, associated with $\Delta t^2$. That means we will have, from Equation \[eq:logoddcontinuouscodanu\] plus the inertial term, when we start heading towards continuous time, the following equation for the movement under the influence of Beta likelihoods: $$\nu_i(t+1) = \nu_i(t) +(\alpha-\beta) \nu_j \Delta t^2 + [\nu_i(t)-\nu_i(t-1)],$$ which is the same as the Equation \[eq:totalmovement\] for the harmonic oscillator with $\nu$ in the place of $x$, for a proper choice of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The main difference is that instead of $\nu_i$ the term in $\Delta t^2$ has $\nu_j$. If one assumes, as mentioned before, that a particle, at each instant, adjusts its coordinate system so that the frame will return to the center, that is, we have an evolving referential frame $F$ where $\nu_{i_F} (t)=0$, then $\nu_j$ is exactly the distance between $i$ and $j$. That is, in order to recover the results from Newtonian Mechanics, it seems we must have translation invariance. It is worth remembering that the models here assume the particles are making an inference whether to move to $-\infty$ or to $+\infty$. This is not a necessary characteristic of forces acting on opinion particles, they could very well be trying to establish a value $\nu$ to move to. It is interesting, however, that, for both inertial movement and the harmonic oscillator that was not necessary. Coordinate Changes and Metrics {#sec:coordinates} ============================== We have seen the first details about how opinion particles relate to Newtonian Mechanics. However, if we want the dynamics of the opinion particles to be more general, it should also provide ways to describe central theories of modern Physics, as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Here, however, I will just investigate if it makes sense for a likelihood to be used in order in a way that corresponds to the geodesics in a space where points are identified by the $\nu$ variable. The objective is simply to provide some evidence that this framework could indeed be useful to describe gravity. The already observed need for a local reference frame as well as the separation of the movement in an inertial part and the part associated to other forces seem to suggest that General Relativity should be a natural way to deal with $\nu$ coordinates or any other coordinates we might decide to use to parameterize the space-time. As we have discussed, $\nu$ has no predefined geometric structure and, by identifying a likelihood with movement on geodesics, we might be able to get a new way to describe Gravity that could be compatible with General Relativity. It should be noter that connections between distributions and geometrical properties and curved spaces are not new in inferential problems [@amarinagaoka00a]. Since $\nu$ coordinates have no special geometric interpretation to them, vectors in one point (per example, the velocity of the particle) have no natural way to be defined as parallels at other point. The aim, if we want to find how opinion particles can represent the movement of a particle in a gravitational relativistic field, is to be able to define the likelihoods in terms of the metric of the space-time. Parallel Transport ------------------ So far, we have worked only with the spatial coordinates. We need to define the model in the space-time and, for such, extending the likelihood to act on a four-vector becomes necessary. In the Newtonian models, we had time simply pass in equal infinitesimal steps. That means the quantity $C^\alpha$ will need a time component. From Equation \[eq:codadimension\], we can see that, in the discrete case, the purpose of $C^\alpha$ is to update the components of the position vector $\nu^\alpha$. That is, the time component for $C^\alpha$ should be the time passed between the two observations in the frame of reference of a particle moving on a geodesic between the points. This is valid for any likelihoods in a space-time. In order to differentiate the one that should be equivalent to gravity, I will denote it by $G^\alpha$ from now on. Since $G^\alpha$ is associated with how the coordinates of a particle change in a gravitational field, it must correspond to the geodesics. That is, it must have the same effect that parallel transport has on vectors, which means that, despite its notation, it is not really a 4-vector field. This is easy to understand, since $G^\alpha$, as it was the case in Newtonian Mechanics, needs to be not just a function of the position $\nu^\alpha$ but also of the velocity the particle arrives at $\nu^\alpha$ and, therefore, might have different values at the same point for different particles. Following the same reasoning behind Equation \[eq:codadimension\], we must move from the discretized probabilistic model to a continuum one. Here, however, we must replace time for an invariant quantity, therefore, we need to differentiate the position vector in relation to the distance element $ds$. In this case, Equation \[eq:codadimension\] becomes $$\label{eq:codagr} \frac{d\nu^{\alpha}}{ds} = G^{\alpha}.$$ A relation between the log-odds space and the coordinate space-time of General Relativity is needed to proceed. Given the linear effect $G^\alpha$ already has on $\nu$ coordinates, I will assume that both coordinate systems are the same, that is that $x^\alpha=\nu^{\alpha}$. This makes calculating the field $G^\alpha$ possible for a given known gravitational problem, simply by observing that the term $\frac{d\nu^{\alpha}}{ds}$ in Equation \[eq:codagr\] can be obtained easily from the geodesic equation of the movement of a particle (from any General Relativity textbook, as, per example,[@dirac96a]) $$\label{eq:geodesic} \frac{du^\alpha}{ds}=-\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\beta\gamma}u^\beta u^\gamma,$$ where $u^\alpha=\frac{d\nu^\alpha}{ds}= G^{\alpha}$. Finally, it still needs to be investigated if the continuum limit would work properly this way or would require a dependence in $ds^2$. This, however, would mean a very simple change in Equation \[eq:geodesic\], since it is already the second derivative of $G$ that enters the equation. Discussion ========== The work presented here is expected to provide a first step towards building a complete theory for the movement of opinion particles. As an example of its applicability in physical problems, we have shown how we can describe the movement of a harmonic oscillator using this framework. In order for more applications to Physics to become real, of course, other solutions that match likelihoods and forces or metrics must be found. The exact functions that do that translation will be studied in the future. I hope the functions prove to be simple enough to allow analytical calculations, but there is no reason for that to be the case. In any case, the possibility of defining any forces (and, therefore, potentials) and Gravitation in the same theoretical framework opens a new possible path of exploration towards building an unified description of the fundamental physical laws. This possibility alone makes the theory for the movement of opinion particles quite worth exploring. One extra advantage it already provides is in the area of Opinion Dynamics, with a way to transform discrete opinion models that need simulation techniques into differential equations that might have an analytic solution. Of course, many problems are still open. Really describing gravity and quantizing the theory are the main ones to be tackled in the near future. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== The author would like to thank the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) for partial support to this research under grant 2009/08186-0. [34]{} Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, and John H. Schwarz. . Cambridge University Press, 2007. T. Thiemann. . Cambridge University Press, 2007. E.T. Jaynes. . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003. A. Caticha. Relative entropy and inductive inference. In G. Erickson and Y. Zhai, editors, [*Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering*]{}, number 75 in AIP Conf. Proc. 707, 2004. arXiv.org/abs/physics/0311093. A. Caticha and R. Preuss. Maximum entropy and bayesian data analysis: Entropic prior distributions. , 70:046127, 2004. Ariel Caticha and Adom Giffin. Updating probabilities. In A. Mohammad-Djafari, editor, [*Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering*]{}, volume 872 of [*AIP Conf. Proc.*]{}, page 31, 2007. Philip Goyal. Information physics—towards a new conception of physical reality. , 3:567–594, 2012. R. T. Cox. . John Hopkins University Press, 1961. C. Castellano, S. Fortunato, and V. Loreto. Statistical physics of social dynamics. , 81:591–646, 2009. S. Galam, Y. Gefen, and Y. Shapir. Sociophysics: A new approach of sociological collective behavior: Mean-behavior description of a strike. , 9:1–13, 1982. S. Galam and S. Moscovici. Towards a theory of collective phenomena: Consensus and attitude changes in groups. , 21:49–74, 1991. K. Sznajd-Weron and J. Sznajd. Opinion evolution in a closed community. , 11:1157, 2000. G. Deffuant, D. Neau, F. Amblard, and G. Weisbuch. Mixing beliefs among interacting agents. , 3:87–98, 2000. R. Hegselmann and U. Krause. Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis and simulation. , 5(3):3, 2002. André C. R. Martins. Continuous opinions and discrete actions in opinion dynamics problems. , 19(4):617–624, 2008. Serge Galam. . Springer, 2012. André C. R. Martins. Bayesian updating as basis for opinion dynamics models. , 1490:212–221, 2012. André C. R. Martins. Mobility and social network effects on extremist opinions. , 78:036104, 2008. André C. R. Martins. Discrete opinion models as a limit case of the coda model. In Liu Yijun and Zhou Tao, editors, [*Social Physics Catena (No.3)*]{}, pages 146–157. Science Press, Beijing, 2012. arXiv:1201.4565v1. André C. R. Martins. Trust in the coda model: Opinion dynamics and the reliability of other agents. Physics Letters A, in press arXiv:1304.3518, 2013. Ernst Mach, T. J. McCormack, and Karl Menger. . Open Court Publishing Company, 1988. D. W. Sciama. On the origin of inertia. , 113:34–42, 1953. R. H. Dicke. Cosmology, mach’s principle and relativity. , 31:500–509, 1963. Julian Barbour. The definition of mach’s principle. , 40:1263–1284, 2010. Hanno Essén. Mechanics, cosmology and mach’s principle. , 34:139–145, 2013. André C. R. Martins. Bayesian updating rules in continuous opinion dynamics models. , 2009(02):P02017, 2009. arXiv:0807.4972v1. S. Galam. Contrarian deterministic effect: the hung elections scenario. , 333:453–460, 2004. S. Galam. Heterogeneous beliefs, segregation, and extremism in the making of public opinions. , 71:046123, 2005. André C. R. Martins and Cleber D. Kuba. The importance of disagreeing: Contrarians and extremism in the coda model. , 13:621–634, 2010. R. Vicente, André C. R. Martins, and N. Caticha. Opinion dynamics of learning agents: Does seeking consensus lead to disagreement? , 2009:P03015, 2009. arXiv:0811.2099. Leonard Susskind. The world as a hologram. , 36:6377, 1995. Anthony O’Hagan. , volume 2B. Arnold, 1994. Shun ichi Amari and Hiroshi Nagaoka. , volume 191 of [ *Translations of Mathematical Monographs*]{}. Oxford University Press, 2000. P. A. M. Dirac. . Princeton University Press, 1996.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'If $G$ is a nontrivial finite group coacting on a graded noetherian down-up algebra $A$ inner faithfully and homogeneously, then the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not isomorphic to $A$. Therefore graded noetherian down-up algebras are rigid with respect to finite group coactions, in the sense of Alev-Polo. An example is given to show that this rigidity under group coactions does not have all the same consequences as the rigidity under group actions.' address: - 'Chen: School of Mathematical Science, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, Fujian, China' - 'Kirkman: Department of Mathematics, P. O. Box 7388, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109' - 'Zhang: Department of Mathematics, Box 354350, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA' author: - 'J. Chen, E. Kirkman and J.J. Zhang' title: | Rigidity of down-up algebras\ with respect to finite group coactions --- Introduction {#xxsec0} ============ Throughout this paper, let $\Bbbk$ be a base field that is algebraically closed of characteristic zero, and let all vector spaces, (co)algebras, and morphisms be over $\Bbbk$. A remarkable theorem of Alev-Polo [@AP Theorem 1] states: [*Let ${\mathfrak g}$ and ${\mathfrak g}'$ be two semisimple Lie algebras. Let $G$ be a finite group of algebra automorphisms of the universal enveloping algebra $U({\mathfrak g})$ such that the fixed subring $U({\mathfrak g})^G$ is isomorphic to $U({\mathfrak g}')$. Then $G$ is trivial and ${\mathfrak g}\cong {\mathfrak g}'$.*]{} Alev-Polo called this result a rigidity theorem for universal enveloping algebras. In addition, they proved a rigidity theorem for the Weyl algebras [@AP Theorem 2]. Kuzmanovich and the second- and third-named authors proved Alev-Polo’s rigidity theorems in the graded case in [@KKZ1 Theorem 0.2 and Corollary 0.4]. (Commutative) polynomial rings are not rigid; indeed, by the classical Shephard-Todd-Chevalley Theorem if $G$ is a reflection group acting on a commutative polynomial ring $A$ then $A^G$ is isomorphic to $A$. Artin-Schelter regular algebras [@AS] are considered to be a natural analogue of polynomial rings in many respects. This paper concerns a class of noncommutative Artin-Schelter regular algebras. The rigidity of a noncommutative algebra is closely related to the lack of reflections in the noncommutative setting [@KKZ1]. Therefore the rigidity of an algebra leads to a trivialization of the Shephard-Todd-Chevalley theorem [@ST; @KKZ2], which is one of the key results in noncommutative invariant theory [@Ki]. The rigidity property is also related to Watanabe’s criterion for the Gorenstein property, see [@KKZ3 Theorem 4.10]. Some recent work in noncommutative algebraic geometry connects the rigidity property and the lack of reflections to Auslander’s theorem [@BHZ], which is one of the fundamental ingredients in the McKay correspondence [@CKWZ1; @CKWZ2]. Further understanding of the rigidity property will have implications for several other research directions. In [@KKZ5], rigidity with respect to group coactions is studied. Let $A$ be a connected ($\mathbb{N}$-)graded $\Bbbk$-algebra. A $G$-coaction on $A$ (preserving the ${\mathbb N}$-grading) is equivalent to a $G$-grading of $A$ (compatible with the original ${\mathbb N}$-grading), and the fixed subring $A^{co G}$ is $A_e$, the component of the unit element $e \in A$ under the $G$-grading. We recall a definition [@KKZ5 Definition 0.8]: we say that a connected graded algebra $A$ is [*rigid with respect to group coactions*]{} if for every nontrivial finite group $G$ coacting on $A$ homogeneously and inner faithfully, the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not isomorphic to $A$ as algebras. The following Artin-Schelter regular algebras are rigid with respect to group coactions [@KKZ5 Theorem 0.9]: 1. The homogenization of the universal enveloping algebra of a finite dimensional semisimple Lie algebra. 2. The Rees ring of the Weyl algebra with respect to the standard filtration. 3. The non-PI Sklyanin algebras of global dimension at least 3. These results can be viewed as dual versions of the rigidity theorems proved in [@KKZ1 Theorem 0.2 and Corollary 0.4]. Down-up algebras were introduced by Benkart-Roby in [@BR] as a tool to study the structure of certain posets. Graded noetherian down-up algebras are Artin-Schelter regular algebras of global dimension three with two generators [@KMP]. We recall the definition of only a graded noetherian down-up algebra. For $\alpha$ and $\beta$ scalars in $\Bbbk$, let the [*down-up algebra*]{} ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ be the algebra generated by $u$ and $d$ and subject to the relations $$\begin{aligned} \label{E0.0.1}\tag{E0.0.1} u^2 d &=\alpha udu +\beta d u^2,\\ \label{E0.0.2}\tag{E0.0.2} u d^2 &=\alpha dud +\beta d^2 u.\end{aligned}$$ When $\alpha=0$ we denote the down-up algebra ${\mathbb{D}}(0, \beta)$ by ${\mathbb{D}}_{\beta}$. In this paper we always assume that $\beta\neq 0$, or equivalently, ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ is a graded noetherian Artin-Schelter regular algebra of global dimension three. The groups of algebra automorphisms of down-up algebras (which depend upon the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$) were computed in [@KK]. These groups are rich enough to provide many nontrivial examples. Some invariant theoretic aspects of down-up algebras have been studied in [@KK; @KKZ4]. There is a rigidity result concerning group actions on down-up algebras, see [@KKZ1 Proposition 6.4]. The only theorem in this paper is the following rigidity result for group coactions on graded noetherian down-up algebras. \[xxthm0.1\] Let $A$ be a graded noetherian down-up algebra ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ and let $G$ be a nontrivial finite group coacting on $A$ inner faithfully and homogeneously. Then the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not Artin-Schelter regular. As a consequence, $A$ is rigid with respect to finite group coactions. One can also consider general Hopf algebra actions on the down-up algebras. The following conjecture is reasonable. \[xxcon0.2\] The graded noetherian down-up algebras are rigid with respect to semisimple Hopf algebra actions in the sense of [@KKZ5 Remark 0.10]. In a slightly different language, Theorem \[xxthm0.1\] says that graded noetherian down-up algebras do not admit “dual reflection groups” for group coactions in the sense of [@KKZ5 Definition 0.1]. A result in [@KKZ3 Corollary 4.11] states: [*Let $B$ be a noetherian Artin-Schelter regular domain, and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $B$ homogeneously. Suppose that $G$ contains no quasi-reflection. Then the fixed subring $B^G$ is Artin-Schelter Gorenstein if and only if the homological determinant of the $G$-action is trivial.*]{} When $A$ is a graded noetherian down-up algebra, $A$ does not have a quasi-reflection of finite order by [@KKZ1 Proposition 6.4]. Therefore $A^G$ is AS Gorenstein if and only if the $G$-action has trivial homological determinant. In [@KKZ3 Theorem 3.6] it is shown that if $H$ is a semisimple Hopf algebra acting on an AS regular algebra with trivial homological determinant, then $A^H$ is AS Gorenstein; it is reasonable to ask whether the converse holds for algebras with no “dual reflection groups". Hence Theorem \[xxthm0.1\] suggests the following question in the group coaction setting: [*Let $A$ be a graded noetherian down-up algebra with a finite group $G$-coaction. If the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is AS Gorenstein, must the homological determinant of the $G$-coaction be trivial?*]{} We conclude the paper with an example (Example \[xxex2.1\]) that provides a negative answer to the above question, indicating a difference between the invariant theory under group actions and the invariant theory under group coactions (or more generally, under Hopf algebra actions). It would be interesting to develop further tools that would determine precisely when, under a $G$-coaction, the fixed subring $A^{co \; G}$ is AS Gorenstein, and, more generally, when the homological determinant of a Hopf action being trivial is a necesary condition for $A^H$ to be AS Gorenstein. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} --------------- J. Chen was partially supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11571286) and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China (Grant No. 2016J01031). E. Kirkman was partially supported by grant \#208314 from the Simons Foundation. J.J. Zhang was partially supported by the US National Science Foundation (Grant No. DMS 1402863). Proof of Theorem \[xxthm0.1\] {#xxsec1} ============================= Some basic definitions can be found in [@BB; @KKZ5]; for example, inner faithful is defined in [@BB Definition 2.7]. Artin-Schelter regular will be abbreviated by AS regular; for the definition see [@KKZ5 Definition 1.1]. We first recall some basic facts about down-up algebras from [@BR; @KK; @KMP; @KKZ4]. \[xxlem1.1\] Let $A$ be the down-up algebra ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ where $\beta\neq 0$. 1. $A$ is a connected graded noetherian AS regular domain of global dimension three. 2. The Hilbert series of $A$ is $((1-t)^2(1-t^2))^{-1}$. 3. $\{ u^i(du)^j d^ k\mid i,j,k\geq 0\}$ is a $\Bbbk$-linear basis of $A$. The following lemma is well-known. \[xxlem1.2\] Let $A$ be a noetherian connected graded AS regular algebra of global dimension three. Then $A$ is generated by either two or three elements. This is [@AS Proposition 1.5] when $A$ is generated in degree 1 and [@Ste Proposition 1.1(i)] when $A$ is not generated in degree 1. It is well-known that, for every finite group $G$, a left $(\Bbbk G)^\ast$-action on an algebra $A$ is equivalent to a right $G$-coaction on $A$. Since $\Bbbk$ is algebraically closed of characteristic zero, if $G$ is a finite abelian group, the Hopf algebra $\Bbbk G$ is isomorphic to its dual $(\Bbbk G)^\ast$. This fact implies that a right $G$-coaction on $A$ is equivalent to some left $G$-action on $A$. We will use these facts freely. The following lemma is a rigidity result for abelian $G$-coactions. \[xxlem1.3\] Let $A$ be a graded noetherian down-up algebra and $G$ be a nontrivial finite abelian group coacting on $A$. Then the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not AS regular. If $G$ is abelian, $\Bbbk G$ is isomorphic to $(\Bbbk G)^{\ast}$ as Hopf algebras. Since $G$ is abelian coacting on $A$, there is a $G$-action on $A$ such that $A^{co\; G}=A^G$. The assertion is a consequence of [@KKZ1 Proposition 6.4]. We consider, first, the case when $\alpha= 0$ and $G$ coacts homogeneously on the generators $u$ and $d$. Note that although we show that ${\mathbb{D}}_{\beta}$ is rigid with respect to these group coactions, the algebra can be graded by many different groups. \[xxpro1.4\] Let $A$ be the algebra ${\mathbb{D}}_{\beta}$ and $G$ be a nontrivial finite group coacting on $A$ such that $u$ and $d$ are $G$-homogeneous. Then the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not AS regular. By Lemma \[xxlem1.3\], we can assume that $G$ is not abelian. Let $\deg_G u=a$ and $\deg_G d=b$; then $G$ is generated by $\Re:=\{a,b\}$. Using the relations $u^2 d=\beta du^2$ and $ud^2=\beta d^2 u$, we obtain that $a^2$ and $b^2$ are in the center of $G$. This implies that the orders of $a$ and $b$ are even. Let $i$, $j$, $k$ and $l$ be the smallest positive integers such that $a^i=e$, $b^j=e$, $(ba)^k=e$ and $(ab)^l=e$. Since $G$ is non-abelian, $i,j,k,l$ are all larger than 1, and both of $i$ and $j$ must be even. Then $x:=u^i$, $y:=d^j$, $z:=(du)^k$ and $t:=(ud)^l$ are elements in $A^{co\; G}$. Assume to the contrary that the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is AS regular. By Lemma \[xxlem1.2\], it is generated by at most three elements. Choosing the generators of $A^{co\; G}$ carefully from lower degree to higher, and using the fact that every monomial in $u$ and $d$ is $G$-homogeneous, we can assume that $A^{co\; G}$ is generated by $$h_s: =u^{m_s} (du)^{n_s} d^{p_s},$$ where $s$ is $1,2,3$ or $1,2$. If $m_s+n_s>0$ for all $s$, then $y=d^j$ cannot be generated by $\{h_s\}_{s}$, a contradiction. Thus $m_s+n_s=0$ for some $s$. Similarly, we have $n_s+p_s=0$ for some $s$. These facts mean that we have $$h_1=u^i=x \quad {\text{and}}\quad h_2=d^j=y.$$ Since $x$ and $y$ do not generate $z$, $A^{co\; G}$ is generated by three elements, namely, by $h_1=u^i$, $h_2=d^j$ and $h_3= u^m (du)^n d^p$. If $m>0$, then $z=(du)^k$ cannot be generated by $h_1,h_2,h_3$. Thus $m=0$. By symmetry, $p=0$. This implies that $$h_3=(du)^n.$$ Since $i$ and $j$ are even, $t=(ud)^l$ cannot be generated by $h_1,h_2,h_3$. Hence $A^{co\; G}$ is not generated by three (or fewer) elements. This yields a contradiction by Lemma \[xxlem1.2\], and therefore the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not AS regular. Next we consider an algebra ${\mathbb{F}}$ that is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{D}}_{-1}$. Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be the algebra generated by $x$ and $y$, and subject to the two relations $$\label{E1.4.1}\tag{E1.4.1} x^3=yxy \quad \mbox{ and } \quad y^3=xyx.$$ \[xxlem1.5\] Retain the above notation. 1. ${\mathbb{F}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{D}}_{-1}$. 2. ${\mathbb{F}}$ is a graded noetherian AS regular domain of global dimension three with Hilbert series $((1-t)^2(1-t^2))^{-1}$. \(1) Setting $x=u+d$ and $y=u-d$, then the two relations $x^3=yxy$ and $y^3=xyx$ are equivalent to the two relations $u^2d=-du^2$ and $ud^2=-d^2u$. The assertion follows. \(2) This follows from the fact that all the assertions hold for ${\mathbb{D}}_{-1}$. Next we will apply Bergman’s Diamond Lemma [@Be] to the algebra ${\mathbb{F}}$. By [@Be], starting with a set of initial relations, we can obtain a complete set of relations that is a reduction system. Then every monomial (or word) becomes reduction-unique by using this complete system. \[xxlem1.6\] Retain the notation as above. 1. Define an order on monomials by extending $x<y$ lexicographically. Then we have a complete set of five relations that is the reduction system in the sense of [@Be p.180]. $$\begin{aligned} y^3& =xyx,\\ yxy&=x^3,\\ y^2x^3&=xyx^2y,\\ yx^2yx&=x^3 y^2,\\ yx^4&=x^4y. \end{aligned}$$ 2. We also have the other relations: $$\begin{aligned} y^4& =x^4,\\ yxyx&=x^4,\\ xyxy&=y^4. \end{aligned}$$ 3. There is a $\Bbbk$-linear basis consisting of the monomials of the form $$x^i (yx^3)^j (yx^2)^{\epsilon} (y^2x^2)^k y^a x^b$$ where $i,j,k\geq 0$, $\epsilon$ is either $0$ or $1$, and $$(a,b)=(0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2)$$ if $j+\epsilon+k=0$, $$(a,b)=(1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2)$$ if $j>0$ and $\epsilon+k=0$, and $$(a,b)=(1,0), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2)$$ if $\epsilon+k>0$. \(1) The assertion follows by direct computation. In fact, denote the relation $y^3 =xyx$ by (i), and the relation $yxy=x^3$ by (ii). Then, by using (i)+(ii), we have $y^3xy=y^2(yxy)=y^2x^3$ and $y^3xy=y^3(xy)=(xyx)(xy)=xyx^2y$. Thus we obtain the third relation (denote it by (iii)) in the list. By using (ii)+(i), we have $yxy^3=(yx)y^3=(yx)xyx=yx^2yx$, and $yxy^3=(yxy)y^2=x^3y^2$, and thus the fourth relation (denote it by (iv)) in the list holds. Similarly, by using (ii)+(i), we obtain the fifth relation (denote it by (v)) in the list. Then considering all the other possible cases: (i)+(iii), (i)+(iv), (i)+(v),(ii)+(iii), (ii)+(iv) and (ii)+(v), there are no new relations. \(2) These assertions follow easily. \(3) Every monomial is of the form $x^{i_1}y^{j_1}x^{i_2}y^{j_2}\cdots y^{j_{n-1}}x^{i_n}$, where $n\geq 1$, $i_n\geq 0$, $j_s\geq 1$ and $i_s\geq 1$ for $ 1\leq s<n$. By the first relation $j_s$ can be only 1 or 2, and by the fifth relation in part (1), for $s>1$, $i_s$ can be only 1, 2, or 3. Take the last term $n$ into consideration. If $n=1$, we only have $x^{i_1}$. If $n=2$, we have only $$x^i y, \quad x^i y^2, \quad x^i yx, \quad x^i yx^2, \quad x^i yx^3, \quad x^i y^2 x, \quad x^i y^2 x^2$$ or $$x^i y^{a} x^b$$ where $i\geq 0$ and $$\notag (a,b)=(1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2).$$ For $n\geq 3$, note that in the middle of the monomial, $y^{j_{s-1}} x^{i_s}$ must be $yx^2$, or $yx^3$, or $y^2 x^2$. Further, $yx^2 yx^3$, $y^2x^2 yx^3$, $y^2x^2 y x^2$, $y x^2 y x^2$ cannot appear in the middle of the monomial. Therefore we have $$x^i (yx^3)^j (yx^2)^{\epsilon} (y^2x^2)^k y^a x^b$$ where $i,j,k\geq 0$, $\epsilon$ is either $0$ or $1$, and $$(a,b)=(0,0), (1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2)$$ if $j+\epsilon+k=0$, $$(a,b)=(1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2)$$ if $j>0$ and $\epsilon+k=0$, and $$(a,b)=(1,0), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2)$$ if $\epsilon+k>0$. By Bergman’s Diamond Lemma [@Be], all monomials in part (3) form a $\Bbbk$-linear basis of the algebra. Let $f$ be a monomial $x_1 x_2 x_3\cdots x_n$ in ${\mathbb{F}}$ where $x_i$ is either $x$ or $y$. A [*left subword*]{} of $f$ is a monomial of the form $x_1 x_2\cdots x_j$ for $j\leq n$, a [*subword*]{} of $f$ is a monomial of the form $x_i\cdots x_j$ for some $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$. Due to non-trivial relations in ${\mathbb{F}}$, if $ab=f$ for three monomials $a,b,f$, it is not necessarily true that $a$ is a left subword of $f$. The following lemma says that in some special cases, $a$ must be a left subword of $f$. \[xxlem1.7\] Let $f$ be a subword of $(y^2 x^2)^s=yyxxyyxx\cdots yyxx$ for some $s\geq 1$. If $f=ab$ for some monomials $a,b$ in ${\mathbb{F}}$, then $a$ is a left subword of $f$. By changing $s$ to a larger number and adding more letters to $f$ and $b$ from the right, we may assume that the degree of $f$ is at least 4. We prove the assertion by induction on the degree of $a$. Nothing needs to be proved if $a$ has degree 0. Now suppose $\deg a>0$. There are four different cases for $f$: $$f=yyxx\cdots, \quad yxxy\cdots, \quad xxyy\cdots, \quad xyyx\cdots.$$ By Lemma \[xxlem1.6\](3), each $f$ is reduced. Suppose $f=yf'$ is in the first two cases. If $a=ya'$, then, after canceling out $y$, we have $f'=a'b$, and the assertion follows from the induction. If $a=xa'$, then the reduced form of $ab$ is less than $f$ in the order used in the Diamond Lemma, but this is impossible, and so we are done in this case. Suppose next that $f=xf'$ is in one of the last two cases. If $a=xa'$, then, after canceling out $x$, we have $f'=a'b$, and the assertion follows from the induction. The remaining case is $a=ya'$, and we need to consider the following two separate cases for $f$. If $f=xxyy\cdots$ and $a=ya'$, then $yyf$ is a subword of $(y^2x^2)^{s+1}$ and $y^2ab=y^3 a'b=xyx a'b$, which is less than $yyf$ in the order used in the Diamond Lemma, but this is impossible. If $f=xyyx\cdots$ and $a=ya'$, then $yxf=yxxyyx\cdots$ and $yxya'b= x^3 a'b$, which is less than $yxxyyx\cdots=yxf$ in the order used in the Diamond Lemma, but this is impossible. Combining the above assertions, the induction shows that $a$ is a left subword of the word $f$. \[xxpro1.8\] Let $A$ be the algebra ${\mathbb{F}}$ and $G$ be a nontrivial finite group coacting on $A$ such that $x$ and $y$ are $G$-homogeneous. Then the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not AS regular. By Lemma \[xxlem1.3\], we need to consider only the case when $G$ is not abelian. Assume to the contrary that ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$ is AS regular. By [@KKZ5 Lemma 3.3(2)], ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$ has global dimension three. Note that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is a semigroup algebra $\Bbbk T$ for the semigroup $$T=\langle x,y\mid x^3=yxy, y^3=xyx\rangle$$ and $G$ is a finite factor group $T/N$ for some normal subsemigroup $N$. We have 1. The fixed subring ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$ is the semigroup ring $\Bbbk N$. 2. ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$ is minimally generated by a finite subset $S\subset N$. 3. Every monomial in ${\mathbb{F}}^{co \; G}$ is a product of elements in $S$. Note that we have identified a monomial in ${\mathbb{F}}$ with an element in $T$. Let $g_1$ be the image of $x$ in $G$ and $g_2$ be the image of $y$ in $G$. Then there is an $s>1$ such that $(g_2g_2 g_1g_1)^s\in N$, or equivalently, $(g_2g_2 g_1g_1)^s=e$ in $G$. Then $f_1=(yyxx)^s\in {\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$. Similarly we have three other monomials in ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$: $$\begin{aligned} f_2&= yxx(yyxx)^{s-1} y,\\ f_3&= xx(yyxx)^{s-1} yy,\\ f_4&= x(yyxx)^{s-1} yyx. \end{aligned}$$ Then $f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4$ are four elements in ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$. Since $f_1$ is in ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$, $f_1=a_1 b_1$ where $a_1$ is in the set $S$. Similarly, we have $a_i \in S$ such that $f_i=a_i b_i$ for $i=2,3,4$. By Lemma \[xxlem1.7\], $a_i$ is a left subword of $f_i$. By Lemma \[xxlem1.6\](3), as left subwords of $f_1,f_2,f_3,f_4$ respectively, $a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4$, are reduced and linearly independent. Therefore the order of $S$ is at least 4, which contradicts Lemma \[xxlem1.2\]. Therefore ${\mathbb{F}}^{co\; G}$ is not AS regular. We consider another algebra ${\mathbb{H}}$ that is generated by $x$ and $y$ subject to the relations $$\begin{aligned} x^2 y+yx^2 -2y^3&=0,\\ -2x^3+xy^2+y^2 x&=0. \end{aligned}$$ The following lemma is similar to Lemma \[xxlem1.5\]. \[xxlem1.9\] Retain the above notation. 1. ${\mathbb{H}}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{D}}(-2,-1)$. 2. ${\mathbb{H}}$ is a graded noetherian AS regular domain of global dimension three with Hilbert series $((1-t)^2(1-t^2))^{-1}$. 3. For each $n>0$, elements $(xy)^n$ and $(yx)^n$ are linearly independent. 4. For each $n\geq 0$, elements $y(xy)^n$ and $x(yx)^n$ are linearly independent. \(1) Set $u=x-y$ and $d=x+y$, then the two relations $u^2d=-2udu-du^2$ and $ud^2=-2dud-d^2u$ are equivalent to the two relations $x^2 y+yx^2 -2y^3=0$ and $-2x^3+xy^2+y^2 x=0$. \(2) Known for ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha, \beta)$ for all $\beta\neq 0$. \(3) For any $d \geq 2$, let $D_{2d}$ be the dihedral group of order $2d$ generated by $a$ and $b$ subject to the relations $a^2=b^2=(ab)^d=e$ where $e$ is the unit of $D_{2d}$. Consider the $G:=D_{2d}$-coaction on $A$ obtained by setting $\deg_G x=a$ and $\deg_G y=b$. It is clear that $A$ is $G$-graded. Choosing $d\gg n$, then $$\deg_G((xy)^n)=(ab)^n\neq (ba)^n =\deg_G ((yx)^n),$$ which implies the assertion. \(4) The proof is similar to the proof of part (3), and so it is omitted. \[xxpro1.10\] Let $A$ be the algebra ${\mathbb{H}}$ and $G$ be a nontrivial finite group coacting on $A$ such that $x$ and $y$ are $G$-homogeneous. Then the fixed subring $A^{co\; G}$ is not AS regular. By Lemma \[xxlem1.3\], we may assume that $G$ is non-abelian. Suppose to the contrary that $A^{co\; G}$ is AS regular. Let $g_1:= \deg_G x$ and $g_2:=\deg_G y$. The $G$-grading forces $g_1^2=g_2^2$. Let $a:=g_1^2=g_2^2$. If $a\neq e$, then both $x^2$ and $y^2$ are in the same $G$-graded component $A_{a}$. By [@KKZ5 Theorem 0.3(1)], $A_{a}$ is free of rank 1 over $A^{co\; G}$. Thus $A_a=x^2 A^{co\; G}$ and $A_a=y^2 A^{co\; G}$. This contradicts the fact that $x^2$ and $y^2$ are linearly independent. Therefore $g_1^2=g_2^2=e$. As a consequence, $G$ is isomorphic to the dihedral group $D_{2n}$ of order $2n$, for some $n \geq 2$. When $n$ is odd the unique largest length element of $G$ with respect to the Coxeter generating set $\{g_1, g_2\}$ is $m=(g_1 g_2)^{(n-1)/2} g_1=(g_2g_1)^{(n-1)/2} g_2$, while when $n$ is even it is $m=(g_1 g_2)^{n/2} =(g_2g_1)^{n/2}$, which is central. By Lemma \[xxlem1.9\](3,4), when $n$ is odd, $(xy)^{(n-1)/2} x$ and $(yx)^{(n-1)/2}y$ are linearly independent elements of degree $n$ in the $G$-graded component $A_m$, and when $n$ is even, $(xy)^{n/2}$ and $(yx)^{n/2}$ are linearly independent elements of degree $n$ in $A_m$. But the smallest degree of elements in $A_m$ is $n$. This yields a contradiction by [@KKZ5 Theorem 0.3(4)]. For the rest of this section we assume that $G$ is a finite group coacting on the down-up algebra ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$. \[xxlem1.11\] Let $A$ be the connected graded algebra ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ with $G$-coaction. Let $x_1$ and $x_2$ be two linearly independent $G$-homogeneous elements in $A_1$. Suppose there are two nontrivial relations that hold in $A$: $$f_1:=\sum_{i,j,k=1}^2 c_{i,j,k} x_i x_j x_k=0,$$ and $$f_2:=\sum_{i,j,k=1}^2 e_{i,j,k} x_i x_j x_k=0$$ such that $c_{i,j,k}\neq 0$ and $e_{i,j,k}=0$ for some $(i,j,k)$. Then, for all $(i,j,k)$ with $e_{i,j,k}\neq 0$, the $x_ix_jx_k$ have the same $G$-degree. Since the monomial $x_ix_jx_k$ does not appear in the relation $f_2$ with nonzero coefficient, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are linearly independent. If $f_2$ contains two monomials with nonzero coefficients and different $G$-degrees, then $f_2$ must be a sum of $G$-homogeneous pieces $g_1, \dots, g_n$ for $n \geq 2$, with each $G$-homogeneous piece a relation in $A$ of degree 3. But then $f_1, g_1$, and $g_2$ are three linearly independent relations in $A$ of degree 3, which is a contradiction. \[xxpro1.12\] Suppose $G$ is a finite non-cyclic group coacting on $A:={\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ homogeneously and inner faithfully. Then one of the following occurs. 1. $\alpha=0$ and $u$ and $d$ are $G$-homogeneous after a change of variables. 2. $A$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{F}}$ and using the generators of ${\mathbb{F}}$, both $x$ and $y$ are $G$-homogeneous. 3. $A$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{H}}$ and using the generators of ${\mathbb{H}}$, both $x$ and $y$ are $G$-homogeneous. 4. $G$ is abelian and there are linearly independent elements $x$ and $y$ of ${\mathbb{D}}(\alpha, -1)$ of degree one such that $$\begin{aligned} \alpha x^2 y+(-2-\alpha) xyx+ \alpha yx^2 +(2-\alpha) y^3&=0,\\ (2-\alpha) x^3+ \alpha xy^2+(-2-\alpha) yxy+ \alpha y^2 x&=0 \end{aligned}$$ and $x$ and $y$ are $G$-homogeneous. 5. $G$ is abelian and $u$ and $d$ are $G$-homogeneous after a change of variables. Each of the five parts listed in (1-5) can occur. Part (5) could occur most often, so, for the rest of the proof, we implicitly assume that we are not in the situation of [**part (5)**]{}. Write $A_1=\Bbbk x+ \Bbbk y$ where $x,y$ are $G$-homogeneous. Then $g_1:=\deg_G x$ and $g_2:=\deg_G y$ generate $G$. Since $G$ is not cyclic, we have $$e \neq g_1\neq g_2\neq e.$$ [**Case 1 $\alpha = 0, \beta=1$:**]{} First, we assume that $A={\mathbb{D}}_1$. Then, for any two linearly independent elements $x,y$ of $A$ of degree 1, one can check that $x^2$ and $y^2$ are central. Therefore we can assume that $x$ and $y$ are $G$-homogeneous, by the second paragraph. After changing $\{u,d\}$ to $\{x,y\}$, we can assume that $u$ and $d$ are $G$-homogeneous. Thus [**part (1)**]{} holds for $A={\mathbb{D}}_1$. [**Case 2 $\alpha = 0, \beta \neq 1$:**]{} Secondly, we assume that $A={\mathbb{D}}_{\beta}$ where $\beta\neq 1$. As noted in the second paragraph, there are two elements $x$ and $y$ in degree 1 with different $G$-grades. We consider two cases. [**Case 2a:**]{} $x=cu$ and $y=au+b d$ for some $a,b,c\in \Bbbk$. Since $x$ and $y$ are linearly independent, $bc\neq 0$. If $a=0$, then we can choose $x=u$ and $y=d$ after a change of variables, and the assertion in [**part (1)**]{} follows. Now we assume $abc\neq 0$. Up to another change of variables, we have $x=u$ and $y=u+d$, or equivalently, $u=x$ and $d=y-x$. Then the two relations and become $$\begin{aligned} \label{E1.12.1}\tag{E1.12.1} x^2 y-\beta y x^2+(\beta-1) x^3&=0,\\ \label{E1.12.2}\tag{E1.12.2} xy^2 -\beta y^2 x+(1-\beta) x^3&=x^2 y+(1-\beta)xyx -\beta yx^2.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these two relations, one obtains that $$\label{E1.12.3}\tag{E1.12.3} xy^2 -\beta y^2 x+(\beta-1)xyx=0.$$ Then must be $G$-homogeneous by Lemma \[xxlem1.11\]. As a consequence, $x$ and $y$ have the same $G$-grade, which contradicts the fact that $G$ is not cyclic. [**Case 2b:**]{} Up to a change of variables, the remaining case is when $u=x-y$ and $d=x-ay$ where $a\neq 0,1$. The two relations and become $$(1-\beta)x^3+(-a+\beta)x^2y+(-1+\beta)xyx +(-1+a\beta)yx^2$$ $$+(a-\beta)xy^2 +(a-a\beta) yxy +(1-a\beta) y^2 x+(-a+a\beta)y^3=0$$ and $$(1-\beta)x^3+(-a+\beta)x^2y+(-a+a\beta)xyx +(-1+a\beta) yx^2$$ $$+(a^2-a\beta)xy^2+(a-a\beta)yxy+(a-a^2\beta)y^2x +(-a^2+a^2\beta)y^3=0.$$ Since $a \neq 1$, by linear combination, we have $$(1-\beta)x^3+(-a+\beta)x^2y+(-1+a\beta)yx^2+a(1-\beta) yxy=0$$ and $$(1-\beta)xyx+(-a+\beta)xy^2+(-1+a\beta)y^2x +a(1-\beta)y^3=0.$$ Note that $1-\beta\neq 0$. Since $G$ is not cyclic, $-a+\beta=0$ and $-1+a\beta=0$ by Lemma \[xxlem1.11\]. Thus $\beta=a=-1$, and we have the relations $$x^3-yxy=0 \mbox{ and } y^3-xyx=0$$ which is [**part (2)**]{}. [**Case 3 $\alpha \beta \neq 0$:**]{} Thirdly, we assume that $A={\mathbb{D}}(\alpha,\beta)$ where $\alpha \beta\neq 0$. As before we need to consider two cases by Lemma \[xxlem1.11\]. [**Case 3a**]{}: Let $x=u$ and $y=u+d$, or equivalently $u=x$ and $d=y-x$. The relations and become $$x^2y -\alpha xyx -\beta yx^2+(-1+\alpha+\beta) x^3=0$$ and $$(1-\alpha-\beta)x^3+(-1+\alpha)x^2y+(-1+\beta)xyx$$ $$+(\alpha+\beta) yx^2+ xy^2+(-\alpha) yxy+(-\beta)y^2 x=0.$$ By adding these two relations, we obtain that $$\alpha x^2y +(-1-\alpha+\beta) xyx+\alpha yx^2 + xy^2-\alpha yxy-\beta y^2 x=0.$$ If $-1+\alpha+\beta\neq 0$, this forces $\deg_G(x^2y)=\deg_G(xy^2)$. This implies that $\deg_G(x)=\deg_G(y)$ and $G$ is cyclic, a contradiction. If $-1+\alpha+\beta=0$, we still have $\deg_G(x^2y)=\deg_G(xyx)$, which implies that $G$ is abelian. Further, by Lemma \[xxlem1.11\], up to a common scalar, the relation $$x^2y -\alpha xyx -\beta yx^2=0$$ must coincide with the relation $$\alpha x^2y +(-1-\alpha+\beta) xyx+\alpha yx^2=0.$$ As a consequence, $(\alpha, \beta)=(2,-1)$, and we have (a special case of) [**part (4)**]{}. [**Case 3b:**]{} The remaining case is when $u=x-y$ and $d=x-ay$ where $a\neq 0,1$. Using these generators to expand the relations and we have $$\begin{aligned} (1-\alpha-\beta)x^3&+(-a+\alpha+\beta) x^2y +(-1+a\alpha+\beta) xyx+(-1+\alpha+a\beta) yx^2\\ +(a-a\alpha-\beta) &xy^2+(a-\alpha-a\beta) yxy +(1-a\alpha-a\beta)y^2 x+a(-1+\alpha+\beta) y^3=0\\ \end{aligned}$$ [and]{}\ $$\begin{aligned} (1-\alpha-\beta)x^3&+(-a+a\alpha+\beta)x^2y +(-a+\alpha+a\beta) xyx+(-1+a\alpha+a\beta)yx^2+\\ a(a-\alpha-\beta) &xy^2+a(1-a\alpha-\beta) yxy +a(1-\alpha-a\beta)y^2x+a^2(-1+\alpha+\beta)y^3 =0. \end{aligned}$$ If $1-\alpha-\beta=0$, then the two relations above become $$\begin{aligned} (1-a) x^2y& +\alpha(a-1) xyx+\beta(a-1) yx^2\\ &+\beta(a-1) xy^2+\alpha(a-1) yxy +(1-a)y^2 x=0\\ \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \beta(1-a)x^2y& +\alpha(1-a) xyx+(a-1)yx^2\\ &+a(a-1) xy^2+a\alpha(1-a) yxy +a\beta(1-a)y^2x =0. \end{aligned}$$ Since $a\neq 1$, after dividing by $1-a$, we have $$x^2y-\alpha xyx-\beta yx^2 -\beta xy^2-\alpha yxy +y^2 x=0$$ and $$\beta x^2y +\alpha xyx-yx^2 -a xy^2+a\alpha yxy +a\beta y^2x=0$$ which are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} (1+\beta)x^2y+(-1-\beta)yx^2 +(-\beta-a)xy^2+\alpha (a-1) yxy +(1+a\beta)y^2 x&=0\\ \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} (a+\beta) x^2y +\alpha(1-a)xyx+(-a\beta-1)yx^2 +(-a\beta -a) xy^2+(a+a\beta) y^2x&=0. \end{aligned}$$ If $\beta\neq -1$, by Lemma \[xxlem1.11\], we have $\deg_G(xyx)=\deg_G(y^2x)$, which implies that $G$ is cyclic, a contradiction. If $\beta=-1$ (and then $\alpha=2$), then the above two relations become $$\begin{aligned} xy^2-2 yxy +y^2 x&=0,\\ x^2y-2 xyx+ yx^2&=0, \end{aligned}$$ so by Lemma \[xxlem1.11\] $G$ is abelian. Therefore we have [**part (4)**]{}. If $1-\alpha-\beta\neq 0$, the two relations given at the beginning of Case 3b are equivalent to $$\begin{aligned} \alpha(1-a)x^2y+&(a-1)(1+\alpha-\beta)xyx+\alpha (1-a) yx^2+(1-a)(a-\beta) xy^2\\ +\alpha(a^2-1) & yxy+(1-a)(1-a\beta) y^2x +a(1-a)(-1+\alpha+\beta) y^3=0,\\ \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} (1-a)(1-\alpha-\beta)&x^3+(a-1)(a-\beta)x^2 y +\alpha(1-a^2) xyx+ (1-a)(-1+a\beta) yx^2\\ +a\alpha(a-1) &xy^2+ a(1-a) (1+\alpha-\beta) yxy+ a\alpha (a-1) y^2x=0 . \end{aligned}$$ Since $a\neq 1$, we can simplify them to obtain the following two relations $$\begin{aligned} \alpha x^2y-(1+\alpha-\beta)xyx+&\alpha yx^2+(a-\beta) xy^2-\alpha(a+1) yxy\\ &+(1-a\beta) y^2x+a(-1+\alpha+\beta)y^3=0, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} (1-\alpha-\beta)x^3-(a-\beta)x^2 y +&\alpha(1+a) xyx+(-1+a\beta) yx^2\\ &-a\alpha xy^2 + a (1+\alpha-\beta) yxy- a\alpha y^2x=0 . \end{aligned}$$ Suppose $a\neq -1$. Since $\alpha (a-1)\neq 0$, the coefficients of $yxy$ and $y^3$ are nonzero. By Lemma \[xxlem1.11\], we have $\deg_G(yxy)=\deg_G(y^3)$. This forces $G$ to be cyclic, a contradiction. If $a=-1$ and $\beta\neq -1$, a similar argument leads to a contradiction. If $a=-1=\beta$, we obtain two relations $$\begin{aligned} \alpha x^2 y+(-2-\alpha) xyx+ \alpha yx^2 +(2-\alpha) y^3&=0,\\ (2-\alpha) x^3+ \alpha xy^2+(-2-\alpha) yxy+ \alpha y^2 x&=0. \end{aligned}$$ In addition, if $\alpha\neq -2$, then the coefficients of $x^2y$ and $xyx$ are nonzero. By Lemma \[xxlem1.11\], $\deg(x^2y)=\deg(xyx)$ which implies that $G$ is abelian, and so we have [**part (4)**]{}; if $\alpha=-2$, the two relations become $$\begin{aligned} x^2 y+ yx^2 -2y^3&=0,\\ -2 x^3+ xy^2+ y^2 x&=0, \end{aligned}$$ which is [**part (3)**]{}. This completes the proof. If $G$ is abelian, then the assertion follows from Lemma \[xxlem1.3\]. We now assume that $G$ is non-abelian. By Proposition \[xxpro1.12\] there are three cases (parts (1), (2) and (3) occur). The first case follows from Proposition \[xxpro1.4\], the second case follows from Proposition \[xxpro1.8\], and the third case follows from Proposition \[xxpro1.10\]. An Example {#xxsec2} ========== In this short section we provide an example that negatively answers the question mentioned at the end of the introduction. \[xxex2.1\] Consider the algebra ${\mathbb{D}}:={\mathbb{D}}(0,1)$, and let $G$ be the dihedral group $$D_{8}=\{e, \rho, \rho^2, \rho^3, r, \rho r, \rho^2 r, \rho^3 r\},$$ where $\rho$ is a rotation of order $4$ and $r$ is a reflection. Let $g_1=r$ and $g_2=\rho$. Then $\{g_1,g_2\}$ generate the group $G$. Define the $G$-coaction on ${\mathbb{D}}$ by setting $\deg_G u=\rho$ and $\deg_G d=r$. By a computation similar to [@KKZ3 Example 7.1], one sees that the homological co-determinant of the $G$-coaction is $g_1^2 g_2^2=\rho^2$, which is not trivial. In other words, the $(\Bbbk G)^{\circ}$-action on ${\mathbb{D}}$ has nontrivial homological determinant. On the other hand, by Lemma \[xxlem2.2\] below, the fixed subring ${\mathbb{D}}^{co \; G}$ is $\Bbbk [(du)^2, (ud)^2,d^4, u^2]$ which is isomorphic to $\Bbbk [x,y,z,t]/(xy-zt^2)$. As a consequence, ${\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$ is a commutative complete intersection (and hence AS Gorenstein), but not AS regular. \[xxlem2.2\] Retain the notation as the above example. Let ${\mathbb{D}}_{g}$ be the $g$-component of ${\mathbb{D}}$ for all $g\in D_{8}$. 1. ${\mathbb{D}}_{e}={\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}=\Bbbk [(du)^2, (ud)^2,d^4, u^2]$. 2. ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho}=u {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G} \cong {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G} (-1)$. 3. ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho^2}=u^2 {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G} \cong {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G} (-2)$. 4. ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho^3}=u^3 {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}+dud {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$. 5. ${\mathbb{D}}_{r}=d {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}+udu {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$. 6. ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho r}=ud {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}+u^2 du {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}\cong u {\mathbb{D}}_{r}$. 7. ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho^2 r}=u^2 d {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}+u^3 du {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G} \cong u^2 {\mathbb{D}}_{r}$. 8. ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho^3 r}=u^3 d{\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}+du {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$. By Lemma \[xxlem1.1\](3), every $G$-homogeneous element in ${\mathbb{D}}$ is a linear combination of monomials of the form $u^i (du)^j d^k$ for some $i,j,k\geq 0$. Note that $$\deg_G d^k=\begin{cases} r & {\text{ $k$ is odd}}\\ 1& {\text{ $k$ is even}}\end{cases}, \quad {\text{and}}\quad \deg_G (du)^j=\begin{cases} r\rho & {\text{ $j$ is odd}}\\ 1& {\text{ $j$ is even}}\end{cases}.$$ This implies that $$\deg_G (du)^j d^k=\begin{cases} \rho^3 & {\text{ $j$ and $k$ are odd}}\\ r& {\text{ $j$ is even and $k$ is odd}}\\ r\rho &{\text{ $j$ is odd and $k$ is even}}\\ 1 & {\text{ $j$ and $k$ are even.}} \end{cases}$$ Hence $$\label{E2.2.1}\tag{E2.2.1} \deg_G u^i (du)^j d^k=\begin{cases} \rho^{i+3} & {\text{ $j$ and $k$ are odd}}\\ \rho^i r& {\text{ $j$ is even and $k$ is odd}}\\ \rho^i r\rho=\rho^{i-1} r &{\text{ $j$ is odd and $k$ is even}}\\ \rho^i & {\text{ $j$ and $k$ are even.}} \end{cases}$$ \(1) It is clear that elements $(du)^2, (ud)^2,d^4, u^2$ are in the fixed subring. If $u^i (du)^j d^k$ is in ${\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$, then formula shows that this could happen only when $j$ and $k$ are odd and $i\equiv 1 \mod 4$, or when $j$ and $k$ are even and $i\equiv 0 \mod 4$. The assertion follows. \(2) If $u^i (du)^j d^k$ is in ${\mathbb{D}}_{\rho}$, then formula shows that this could happen only when $j$ and $k$ are odd and $i+3\equiv 1 \mod 4$, or when $j$ and $k$ are even and $i\equiv 1 \mod 4$. In both cases, $i\geq 1$. Thus $u^i (du)^j d^k\in u{\mathbb{D}}$, and, as a consequence, $u^i (du)^j d^k\in u{\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$. \(3) The proof is similar to the proof of (1,2). \(4) Continue the computation in the proof of parts (1,2), if $\deg_G u^i (du)^j d^k=\rho^3$, then this could happen only when $j$ and $k$ are odd and $i+3\equiv 3 \mod 4$, or when $j$ and $k$ are even and $i\equiv 3 \mod 4$. In the first case, $i$ could be 0 and $u^i (du)^j d^k\in dud {\mathbb{D}}$; and in the second case, $i$ could be 3 and $u^i (du)^j d^k\in u^3 {\mathbb{D}}$. This implies that $u^i (du)^j d^k\in u^3 {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}+dud {\mathbb{D}}^{co\; G}$. (5-8) The proofs are similar to the proof of (4) and omitted. [10]{} J. Alev and P. Polo, A rigidity theorem for finite group actions on enveloping algebras of semisimple Lie algebras, Adv. Math. [**111**]{} (1995), no. 2, 208–226. M. Artin and W. F. Schelter, Graded algebras of global dimension $3$, Adv. in Math. [**66**]{} (1987), no. 2, 171–216. T. Banica and J. Bichon, Hopf images and inner faithful representations, Glasg. Math. J. [**52**]{} (2010), no. 3, 677-703. Y.-H. Bao, J.-W. He and J.J. Zhang, *Pertinency of Hopf actions and quotient categories of Cohen-Macaulay algebras*, (2016) preprint, arXiv:1603.02346 G. Benkart and T. Roby, Down-up algebras, J. Algebra [**209**]{} (1998), no. 1, 305-344. G.M. Bergman, The diamond lemma for ring theory, Adv. in Math. [**29**]{} (1978), no. 2, 178-218. K. Chan, E. Kirkman, C. Walton and J.J. Zhang, McKay correspondence for semisimple Hopf actions on regular graded algebras I, in preparation (2016). K. Chan, E. Kirkman, C. Walton and J.J. Zhang, McKay correspondence for semisimple Hopf actions on regular graded algebras II, in preparation (2016). E. Kirkman, Invariant theory of Artin-Schelter regular algebras: a survey, preprint, (2015), arXiv:1506.06121v1. E. Kirkman and J. Kuzmanovich, Fixed subrings of Noetherian graded regular rings, J. Algebra [**288**]{} (2005), no. 2, 463–484. E. Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich, and J.J. Zhang, Rigidity of graded regular algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**360**]{} (2008), no. 12, 6331–6369. E. Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich and J.J. Zhang, A Shephard-Todd-Chevalley theorem for noncommutative regular algebras, Algebr. Represent. Theory [**13**]{} (2010), no. 2, 127–158 E. Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich and J.J. Zhang, Gorenstein subrings of invariants under Hopf algebra actions, J. Algebra [**322**]{} (2009), no. 10, 3640–3669. E.Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich, and J.J. Zhang, Invariant theory of finite group actions on down-up algebras, Transform. Groups [**20**]{} (2015), no. 1, 113–165. E.Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich, and J.J. Zhang, Nakayama automorphism and rigidity of dual reflection group coactions, (2016) arXiv:1605.01958. E. Kirkman, I. Musson, D. Passman, Noetherian down-up algebras, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**127**]{} (1999), 3161-3167. G.C. Shephard and J.A. Todd, Finite unitary reflection groups, Canadian J. Math. [**6**]{}, (1954). 274–304. D.R. Stephenson, Artin-Schelter regular algebras of global dimension three, J. Algebra [**183**]{} (1996), no. 1, 55–73.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'In regimes far beyond the wavebreaking threshold of Raman amplification, we show that significant amplifcation can occur after the onset of wavebreaking, before phase mixing destroys the coherent coupling between pump, probe and plasma wave. Amplification in this regime is therefore a transient effect, with the higher-efficiency “coherent wavebreaking” (CWB) regime accessed by using a short, intense probe. Parameter scans illustrate the marked difference in behaviour between below wavebreaking, in which the energy-transfer efficiency is high but total energy transfer is low, wavebreaking, in which efficiency is low, and CWB, in which moderate efficiencies allow the highest total energy transfer.' author: - 'J. P. Farmer' - 'A. Pukhov' title: Raman amplification in the coherent wavebreaking regime --- Introduction ============ Raman amplification in plasma has been suggested as a mechanism to allow the creation of ultrashort, ultraintense laser pulses, [@raman-shvets-compton] which have applications across science and technology. Using plasma as a gain medium offers the advantage that, unlike solid-state media, it does not have a damage threshold, potentially reducing or removing the need for stretching and compression of the laser pulse, allowing either a reduction in size or an increase in power of next-generation laser systems. In the Raman interaction, a probe pulse interacts with a counterpropagating pump, driving a plasma wave through the ponderomotive force of their beat. If the pump and probe frequencies, $\omega_a$ and $\omega_b$, are chosen such that the probe is downshifted from the pump by the plasma frequency, $\omega_p$, the plasma wave is resonantly excited and may grow to large amplitude. The resulting density perturbation acts as a moving Bragg grating, which acts to scatter and Doppler-shift the pump pulse into the probe, amplifying the latter. Although the plasma itself does not have a damage threshold, there remain several effects which act to limit the interaction, such as filamentation and parasitic spontaneous backscatter of the pump [@raman-trines-simulation]. Further, the high wavenumber and low phase velocity of the laser beat, which allows a large-amplitude plasma wave to be excited, means that the plasma wave can break for even moderate laser intensities, $\ll$ 1[$\times10^{18}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{} [@raman-malkin-pumpdepletion], leading to strong damping [@plasma-dawson-nonlinear], which will limit the coupling between pump and probe [@raman-yampolsky-break]. While these effects have been the subject of numerous theoretical and computational works [@raman-trines-simulation; @raman-toroker-break], experimental campaigns continue to show significantly lower energy transfer efficiency than predicted [@raman-cheng-experiment; @raman-vieux-experiment; @raman-pai-experiment], the best to date being by Ren [*et al.*]{}, achieving 6.4% in a double-pass setup [@raman-ren-experiment]. There are many potential reasons for this discrepancy, from the idealised laser pulses interacting in idealised plasma used in simulations and theory, to the complexities of such an experiment. However, it is interesting to note that efficiencies reported in simulations can vary significantly, notably the results of Trines [*et al.*]{} [@raman-trines-simulation] and Toroker [*et al.*]{} [@raman-toroker-break]. This highlights the sensitivity of the interaction to seemingly minor details, which must be better understood if experimental works are to achieve sufficient amplification to be considered viable for applications. These effects likely contribute to the low efficiencies reported by experimental campaigns [@raman-balakin-break; @raman-cheng-experiment; @raman-pai-experiment; @raman-vieux-experiment], the best to date being by Ren [*et al.*]{}, achieving 6.4% in a double-pass setup [@raman-ren-experiment]. Previous theoretical and computational works have focussed on the optimal pump amplitude for efficient amplification [@raman-yampolsky-break; @raman-trines-simulation; @raman-toroker-break; @raman-edwards-efficiency]. Although it is known that the highest efficiencies are achieved below the wavebreaking threshold, the necessarily low intensities would require large interaction volumes to scale to high power. In this work we therefore focus on the energy-transfer efficiency far beyond the wavebreaking threshold. It is interesting to note, however, that simulations carried out in this regime have yielded significantly different efficiencies, even for similar parameters, ranging from 35% in the work of Trines [*et al.*]{}[@raman-trines-simulation], to less than 10% in that of Toroker [*et al.*]{}[@raman-toroker-break]. These apparently contradictory results have been the subject of significant discussion [@raman-toroker-break; @raman-edwards-efficiency], although the main cause has not previously been identified. Clearly, reconciling the differences between simulations is important if reliable comparison to experiment is to be made. In this work we identify a new process in the Raman interaction, coherent wavebreaking. In section \[probe\], we illustrate a strong dependence of the energy-transfer efficiency on the probe duration, which explains the difference between efficiencies observed in other works. A simple analytical model is developed in section \[anal\], allowing the relevant physical processes to the identified. Section \[apply\] discusses the applicability of the results to experiments, and conclusions are drawn in section \[conc\]. Influence of probe duration far beyond the wavebreaking limit {#probe} ============================================================= We make use of the Leap code [@raman-farmer-leap], which is based on a laser-envelope particle-in-cell model. Since the Raman interaction is predominantly planar due to the short wavelength of the excited plasma wave and the relatively large interaction cross section, we here limit ourselves to one-dimensional (1D) simulations. In addition to a low computational overhead, this geometry has the further advantage that the plasma response modelled by the Leap code is exact [@raman-farmer-envelope]. Although multidimensional simulations are certainly important for direct comparison to experiments, the fundamental processes are often obfuscated, as different regimes of amplification may be in effect at different radii, discussed in more detail in section \[apply\]. We therefore make use of 1D simulations in order to characterise the coherent-wavebreaking regime of interest here. Figure \[evolve\] shows the evolution of the probe pulse for different initial probe durations. Gaussian pulses are used, with FWHM-intensity durations of 17, 50 and 83 fs, corresponding to sigma of the amplitude of 10, 30 and 50 fs. A flat-top, 800 nm pump with duration 30 ps and intensity 1[$\times10^{15}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{} is used to amplify a probe with initial intensity 1[$\times10^{16}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{} in a plasma of density 4.4[$\times10^{18}$]{}[ cm$^{-3}$]{} with an initial temperature of 10 eV. This corresponds to $\omega_a/\omega_p=20$, $\omega_b/\omega_p=19$,with $\omega_{a,b,p}$ the pump, probe and plasma frequencies and a pump intensity 30 times above the threshold for wavebreaking to occur [@raman-malkin-pumpdepletion]. These are the same parameters as used by Toroker [*et al.*]{} [@raman-toroker-break] in their investigation of the strong-wavebreaking regime, with the longest pulse used here equivalent to the probe used in that work. Although the longer pump length used here (30 ps compared to $\sim$1 ps) would result in higher plasma temperatures, we retain the 10 eV temperature to allow direct comparison to those results. This longer pump allows comparison with the results of Trines [*et al.*]{} Figures \[evolve\]a-d show snaptshots of the probe profiles at different times during the interaction, given as the reduced vector potential $eE/mc\omega_b$, with $E$ the electric field amplitude, $c$ the vacuum speed of light, and $-e$ and $m$ the electron charge and mass. It can be seen that in all cases the probe is amplified and compressed. However, as highlighted in Fig. \[evolve\]e, the greatest amplification is achieved for the shortest pulse, which reaches an intensity of 6[$\times10^{17}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{}. The reduction in peak intensity at the end of the simulation is due to dispersion as the probe continues to propagate through plasma after the end of the pump at 15.5 ps. Energies were calculated by scaling to three dimensions, taking a pulse radius (e-squared-folding distance) of 595[ $\mu$m]{}, equal to that used by Trines [*et al.*]{} [@raman-trines-simulation], and are shown in Fig. \[evolve\]f. While the 17 fs probe is initially the least energetic and is compressed to 9.7 fs during amplification, it goes on to exceed the energy of the longer pulses. The total pump energy for these parameters is 166 J, giving pump-to-probe energy-transfer efficiencies over the full interaction for the three probe durations of, from shortest to longest, 28, 21 and 14%. We note from Fig. \[evolve\]f that the growth of the probe energy is better than linear, with the efficiency increasing over the interaction as the probe becomes more intense. The gain of 23 J over a 30 ps pump observed for the 83 fs probe is therefore consistent with the results of Toroker [*et al.*]{}, which for this pulse width correspond to an energy-transfer of $\sim$0.5 J over $\sim$1 ps pump. Trines [*et al.*]{} used similar parameters to the 50 fs probe used here, but with cold plasma and an on-axis intensity for pump and probe double that used here. However, even with those factors taken into account, the amplification here remains somewhat lower than observed in that work. This disparity could be a result of the initial pulse shape - using a pulse profile with a finite support, for example truncating a Gaussian at $2\sigma$, increases the amplification, giving comparable results. The improved amplification observed for shorter probe pulses and the sensitivity to the pulse shape are linked to self-steepening, which causes the peak of the amplified pulse to move forward, away from the initial maximum. The effective seed amplitude is therefore reduced, as a point on the leading edge of the initial pulse becomes the seed for amplification, rather than than the peak. Self-steepening in the Raman process can arise due to many different effects, such as ponderomotive nonlinearity [@raman-shvets-compton], pump depletion [@raman-malkin-pumpdepletion] and the use of a chirped pump [@raman-ersfeld-chirp], while the presence of a pre-pulse can lead to superluminous precursors [@raman-tsidulko-precursor]. The self-steepening observed here is a result of wave breaking, as can be seen in Fig. \[phase\]. Snapshots of the interaction 1.2 ps into the simulation, before significant amplification occurs, show the pump, probe, and plasma-wave amplitude, the electron phase space and the electron density. The plasma wave amplitude is here given as the absolute value of the coupling susceptibility [@raman-farmer-leap] normalised to the square of the plasma frequency, $|\tilde{\psi}|/\omega_p^2=|\left<(n/\gamma n_0) {\operatorname{e}}^{{i}(\phi_a-\phi_b)}\right>|$, where $\phi_{a,b}$ are the vacuum phases of the pump and probe, $n$ and $n_0$ are the local and equilibrium plasma electron densities, and $\gamma$ the plasma-electron Lorentz factor. This value represents the coupling between pump and probe. From linear theory [@plasma-dawson-nonlinear], wavebreaking occurs when the electron velocity exceeds the phase velocity of the wave, $v_\textrm{br}/c\approx\omega_p/2\omega_a=0.025$, corresponding to $|\tilde{\psi}|/\omega_p^2=0.5$. For the longer pulses, wavebreaking occurs on the leading edge of the probe. As a result, phase mixing of the plasma wave has already set in by the time the probe peak is reached, as seen in Fig. \[phase\]d. The resulting density perturbation, shown in Fig. \[phase\]e, loses its periodic structure and no longer efficiently scatters the pump into the probe, lowering amplification.Although the magnitude of the coupling susceptibility oscillates after wavebreaking, similar to a plasma echo as electrons make synchrotron-like oscillations in the broken wave, subsequent peaks have the wrong phase to resonantly scatter the pump into the probe. Efficient amplification therefore relies on the energy transfer in the first peak, before phase-mixing occurs. This is the case for the shortest pulse in Fig. \[phase\], in which peak coupling almost coincides with the peak of the probe, leading to maximum amplification at this point. Although the electrons periodically rephase as they make synchrotron-like oscillations in the broken wave, the shift in resonance means that these plasma echoes have the wrong phase to coherently scatter the pump into the probe. Amplification therefore depends on the coupling susceptibility prior to phase mixing. For the shortest pulse in Fig. \[phase\], the first peak in the coupling susceptibility almost coincides with the peak of the probe, maximising the energy transfer. If the probe is too short, however, peak amplification may occur behind the probe peak, again lowering energy transfer. This is in fact the case for the 17 fs probe for time $<1.2$ ps, giving a lower energy-transfer rate than observed for the 83 fs probe. However, as the probe is amplified, the point at which wavebreaking occurs moves forwards. This causes the point of peak coupling to advance, leading to improved overlap with the probe, increasing energy transfer. From 1.2 ps onwards, the energy-transfer rate is highest for the 17 fs probe, which goes on to become the most energetic after $\sim 5.5$ ps. In addition to the short-wavelength excitation, ${\sim{(\pi c/\omega_a)}}$, driven by the beat of the pump and probe, it is interesting to note that there is a long-wavelength excitation, ${\sim{(2\pi c/\omega_p)}}$, as seen in Fig. \[phase\]b. This is not a wake driven by the probe, and is not observed below the wavebreaking threshold, and is instead driven by the breaking of the short-wavelength wave. From 1D cold-plasma theory, below the wave-breaking threshold, individual electron charge sheets do not cross. The force acting on a sheet therefore depends only on the smeared-out ionic background, leading to simple harmonic motion[@plasma-dawson-nonlinear]. When the wave breaks, charge sheets cross, and so experience an additional force due to the electron-charge imbalance. Since the point at which the wave breaks travels with the probe, the associated plasma excitation has a phase velocity ${\sim c}$, resulting in a long-wavelength excitation. A similar effect has been identified in low-density plasma, in which the excitation arises from ponderomotive nonlinearity, and has been suggested as a method to allow controlled electron acceleration with relatively low-intensity pulses.[@wakefield-shvets-periodicstructures] The effect observed here has the potential advantage that higher density plasma may be used, allowing a larger accelerating field. Further, there is no constraint on the probe duration, making the effect more widely accessible; for a sufficiently intense pump, the only requirement is that the integrated probe amplitude is sufficiently high for wavebreaking to occur. Analytical model {#anal} ================ The decrease in the effective probe amplitude caused by self-steepening is comparable to the effect of shadowing [@raman-yampolsky-shadow], in which the leading edge of the probe is preferentially amplified, lowering the effective seeding power. The effect here, however, is distinct, as wavebreaking changes the interaction, preventing the $\pi$-pulse solution which arises in the pump-depletion regime [@raman-malkin-pumpdepletion]. To illustrate this, we consider the coupled three-wave equations widely used in the study of parametric amplification. Phenomenological treatments for wavebreaking in the three-wave model have been investigated in other works [@raman-balakin-break; @raman-farmer-pop], as have three-wave models incorporating damping and frequency shifts calculated from a nonlinear density distribution function [@raman-lindberg-etw]. Rather than attempting to derive the exact behaviour of the system in regimes far above the wavebreaking threshold, we find that using only simple assumptions we can recover the qualitative behaviour observed in Fig. \[evolve\]. We note that, although dispersion plays a role towards the end of the simulation in Fig. \[evolve\], amplification remains the dominant process until the end of the pump-probe interaction. We therefore limit ourselves to the linearised, dispersion-free equations for pump, probe and plasma wave, to obtain: $$\begin{aligned} \left({\partial_t}-{\partial_z}\right) a &= \frac{{i}}{2\omega_a} \tilde{\psi}^\ast b,\nonumber\\ \left({\partial_t}+{\partial_z}\right) b &= \frac{{i}}{2\omega_b} \tilde{\psi} a,\nonumber\\ \left({\partial_t}+ \Omega\right) \tilde\psi &= \frac{{i}\omega_p\omega_a^2}{2} a^\ast b.\end{aligned}$$ Here $a$ and $b$ are the envelopes of the pump and probe, respectively, which satisfy $\vec{a} = {\mathfrak{Re}}\left(\left(a{\operatorname{e}}^{{i}\phi_a}+b{\operatorname{e}}^{{i}\phi_b}\right)\vec{u}\right)$, with $\vec{a}$ the reduced vector potential, $\phi_{a,b}=\omega_{a,b}(t\pm z/c)$ the carrier phases of the pump and probe, and $\vec{u}$ the polarisation vector, $\vec{u}=(\hat{x}+{i}\hat{y})/\surd{2}$ for circularly polarised light. We retain the coupling susceptibility, $\tilde\psi=\left<(ne^2/\varepsilon_0\gamma m){\operatorname{e}}^{{i}(\phi_a-\phi_b)}\right>$, which is related to the normalised electric field used in, e.g., [@raman-malkin-pumpdepletion], by $\tilde\psi=2{i}\omega_a\omega_pf^\ast$. The functional $\Omega[x,t,\tilde\psi]$ allows the effects of wavebreaking to be taken into account. Assuming an initially cold plasma, valid for the low temperatures considered here, we expect no influence from wavebreaking below the threshold $\psi_\textrm{br}=0.5\omega_p^2$, which yields: $$\begin{aligned} \Omega[x,t,\tilde\psi] = \begin{cases} 0,\qquad& \max\limits_{0\leq t^\prime\leq t}\left(|\tilde{\psi}(x,t^\prime)\right|)\leq \tilde\psi_\textrm{br},\\ \nu+{i}\delta,\qquad& \max\limits_{0\leq t^\prime\leq t}\left(|\tilde{\psi}(|x,t^\prime)|\right)>\psi_\textrm{br}, \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ where $\nu$ and $\delta$ are the damping rate and shift in the resonant frequency of the plasma wave due to wavebreaking (in a full treatment, these quantities will certainly vary in time). Assuming the probe is sufficiently intense for wavebreaking to occur (readily satisfied for high pump intensities), the analytical $\pi$-pulse solution for the pump-depletion regime will remain valid only for the leading edge of the interaction, before the wave breaks. Substituting the wavebreaking threshold for $\tilde\psi$ into these equations, we obtain the pump amplitude at wavebreaking, $a_\textrm{br}=(a_0^2-(\omega_p/2\omega_a)^3)^{1/2}$. We note that $a_\textrm{br}$ is independent of the initial probe amplitude. Moreover, we find that the pump depletion at wavebreaking, $\sim a_0^2-a_\textrm{br}^2=(\omega_p/2\omega_a)^3$, is independent of both pump and probe amplitudes, and corresponds to the threshold pump intensity for wavebreaking to occur. The energy density of the plasma wave at wavebreaking depends only on its frequency and wavenumber. Since the pump depletion is fixed, it follows that the intensity increase of the probe up to wavebreaking is also independent of the laser amplitudes. Either the probe growth rate is high, in which case wavebreaking occurs rapidly, or the growth rate is low, and wavebreaking occurs proportionally later. The energy gain can only be modified by changing the laser and plasma frequencies, which alters the energy partition and the wavebreaking threshold, or by changing the interaction volume, i.e. a longer pump or wider-diameter beams. Therefore, in order to improve amplification, we must consider the interaction after wavebreaking. As the plasma electrons move with finite velocity, $\tilde\psi$ must be continuous in time, and so $\Omega$ must remain finite. Since the damping and the shift in resonance arise due to phase mixing within the broken wave, we expect the characteristic decay time of the wave to be of the order $1/\omega_p$. In the finite time for coupling to break down after wavebreaking, we therefore find the total energy transfer will be greater for larger pump and probe amplitudes. Put simply, the energy transfer prior to wavebreaking is independent of the laser amplitudes, and so efficient amplification relies on maximising the energy transfer after the wave has broken. This is achieved by maximising the probe amplitude in the period immediately after wavebreaking, before phase mixing destroys the coupling between pump and probe, which requires high-contrast probe pulses of duration ${\sim1/\omega_p}$. The “soft-wavebreaking” model discussed by Balakin [@raman-balakin-break], in which wavebreaking limits but does not reduce the probe growth, can be considered as equivalent to this model in the limit of very low plasma density, where the probe duration is $\ll 1/\omega_p$. The model discussed here, however, remains valid for the higher plasma densities necessary for significant amplification. We therefore make a distinction between the wavebreaking regime [@raman-toroker-break], in which amplification of a long probe is significantly reduced by phase mixing after the plasma wave breaks, and the coherent wavebreaking (CWB) regime, observed for the shortest pulse in Fig. \[evolve\], in which the probe is sufficiently short that the probe peak is amplified, even after the wave breaks. The CWB regime is therefore characterised by much higher efficiencies than the wavebreaking regime, and so the use of a high-quality probe pulse, with short duration and good contrast ratio, is vital for experimental campaigns. Applicability to experiments {#apply} ============================ To illustrate this importance, Fig. \[efficiency\] shows the pump-to-probe energy-transfer efficiency while varying the pump intensity for different initial probe durations. Only energy transferred to the probe within 500 fs the initial probe peak is considered. Other parameters are as for Fig. \[evolve\]. Using a shorter pulse gives rise to higher efficiencies over a wide range of pump intensities beyond the wavebreaking threshold. Despite this, better efficiencies are achieved by using a pump below the wavebreaking threshold. In this regime, longer probe pulses exhibit higher efficiencies, as the more energetic probe is better able to deplete the pump. Although below-wavebreaking amplification yields higher efficiencies, this regime is not necessarily preferable for experiments, as the large interaction volumes required for the same total pump energy may be technically difficult to achieve. Physically, changing the pump intensity while keeping the probe constant, as is the case for Fig. \[efficiency\], can be understood as the effect of stretching the pump in time – the same total energy for a 1[$\times10^{13}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{} pump would therefore require a 45 cm interaction length. For limited interaction volumes, then, a higher intensity pump may be preferable in order to maximise energy transfer, despite the decrease in efficiency. With these considerations in mind, the use of a shorter probe pulse becomes important in order to access the the CWB regime. This regime has the additional advantage that the duration of the amplified probe can also be significantly shorter than that achieved at lower pump intensities. Although the $\sim$95% efficiency observed at low pump intensity is more than one order of magnitude better than the best experimental results to date, we note that no experiments have been carried out with similar parameters – Ren [*et al.*]{} [@raman-ren-experiment] used an initial probe intensity $\sim$[$10^{12}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{}, compared to the 1[$\times10^{16}$]{}[ Wcm$^{-2}$]{} used here. We note, however, that the low efficiencies observed in recent campaigns at petawatt-scale facilities (Vulcan, PHELIX) may be due to the lack of a suitable probe – the shortest available pulses at such facilities are often $\gg100$ fs duration. Multidimensional simulations show that for beams with Gaussian transverse profiles, the optimal probe duration for a given pump intensity tends to be longer than that shown here, although the general trends are the same. This is due to the fact that at larger radii, the pump and probe intensities are lower, and so while the centre of the interaction may be far beyond wavebreaking, some parts of the interaction will be in the near-wavebreaking or below-wavebreaking regimes, for which longer probe durations are preferable. As each regime has different requirements for optimal efficiency, purpose-built Raman amplifiers would likely benefit from the use of flat-top profile beams, as the optimal probe parameters are the same for all radii. Conclusions {#conc} =========== To conclude, we identify the coherent wavebreaking (CWB) regime of Raman amplification, in which significant amplification occurs after the onset of wavebreaking. The regime is accessed by using a short, intense probe pulse, which results in wavebreaking occurring close to the peak of the amplified probe, maximising the energy transfer from pump to probe in the time before significant phase mixing occurs. This regime is of great importance to achieving high amplification, as experimental constraints act to limit the possible interaction volume, and as such limit the possible energy-transfer that can be attained below the wavebreaking threshold. This work was funded by DFG TR18, EU FP7 EuCARD$^2$ and BMBF. [20]{}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 [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4879) [****,  ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys1793) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.4448) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.113.383) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3023153) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1134/1.1800205) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.045003) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.065005) [****,  ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/13/i=6/a=063042) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys717) [****,  ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4902362) [****,  ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4926514) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.88.063104) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1117/12.2179570) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.165002) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.235004) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.60.2218) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevE.69.036401) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3492713) [****,  ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2907777)

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We derive upper limits on the sum of neutrino masses from an updated combination of data from Cosmic Microwave Background experiments and Galaxy Redshifts Surveys. The results are discussed in the context of three-flavor neutrino mixing and compared with neutrino oscillation data, with upper limits on the effective neutrino mass in Tritium beta decay from the Mainz and Troitsk experiments and with the claimed lower bound on the effective Majorana neutrino mass in neutrinoless double beta decay from the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment.' address: - 'Dipartimento di Fisica and Sezione INFN, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica and Sezione INFN di Bari, Via Amendola 173, 70126, Bari, Italy' - 'Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Rome, Italy' - 'Astrophysics, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, OX13RH,Oxford, United Kingdom' author: - 'A. Melchiorri, G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A.  Palazzo, P. Serra and J. Silk' title: 'Constraints on the Neutrino Mass from Cosmology and their impact on world neutrino data.' --- Introduction ============ Cosmological observations have started to provide valuable upper limits on absolute neutrino masses (see, e.g., the reviews [@Barg; @Dolg]), competitive with those from laboratory experiments. In particular, the combined analysis of high-precision data from Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies and Large Scale Structures (LSS) has already reached a sensitivity of $O(\mathrm{eV})$ (see, e.g., [@Be03; @Tg04; @Laha]) for the sum of the neutrino masses $\Sigma$, $$\label{Sigma} \Sigma = m_1+m_2+m_3\ .$$ We recall that the total neutrino energy density in our Universe, $\Omega_{\nu}h^2$ (where $h$ is the Hubble constant normalized to $H_0=100$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$) is related to $\Sigma$ by the well-known relation $\Omega_{\nu}h^2=\Sigma / (93.2 \mathrm{\ eV})$ [@PDG4], and plays an essential role in theories of structure formation. It can thus leave key signatures in LSS data (see, eg.,[@Hu98]) and, to a lesser extent, in CMB data (see, e.g.,[@Ma95]). Very recently, it has also been shown that accurate Lyman-$\alpha$ (Ly$\alpha$) forest data [@Mc04], taken at face value, can improve the current CMB+LSS constraints on $\Sigma$ by a factor of $\sim 3$, with important consequences on absolute neutrino mass scenarios[@Se04]. On the other hand, atmospheric, solar, reactor and accelerator neutrino experiments have convincingly established that neutrinos are massive and mixed. World neutrino data are consistent with a three-flavor mixing framework (see [@fogli04] and references therein), parameterized in terms of three neutrino masses $(m_1,m_2,m_3)$ and of three mixing angles $(\theta_{12},\theta_{23},\theta_{13})$, plus a possible CP violating phase $\delta$. Neutrino oscillation experiments are sensitive to two independent squared mass difference, $\delta m^2$ and $\Delta m^2$ (with $\delta m^2\ll \Delta m^2$), hereafter defined as [@Delt] $$\label{DeltaDef} (m^2_1,m^2_2,m^2_3)= \mu^2 + \left( -\frac{\delta m^2}{2}, +\frac{\delta m^2}{2},\pm\Delta m^2 \right),$$ where $\mu$ fixes the absolute neutrino mass scale, while the cases $+\Delta m^2$ and $-\Delta m^2$ identify the so-called normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies, respectively. Neutrino oscillation data indicate that $\delta m^2\simeq 8\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and $\Delta m^2\simeq 2.4\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$. They also indicate that $\sin^2\theta_{12}\simeq 0.3$, $\sin^2\theta_{23}\simeq 0.5$, and $\sin^2\theta_{13}\leq \mathrm{few}\%$. However, they are currently unable to determine the mass hierarchy ($\pm\Delta m^2$) and the phase $\delta$, and are insensitive to the absolute mass parameter $\mu$ in Eq. (\[DeltaDef\]). The absolute neutrino mass scale can also be probed by non-oscillatory neutrino experiments. The most sensitive laboratory experiments to date have been focussed on tritium beta decay and on neutrinoless double beta decay. Beta decay experiments probe the so-called effective electron neutrino mass $m_\beta$ [@Mbet], $$\label{mb} m_\beta = \left[c^2_{13}c^2_{12}m^2_1+c^2_{13}s^2_{12}m^2_2+s^2_{13}m^2_3 \right]^\frac{1}{2}\ ,$$ where $c^2_{ij}=\cos^2\theta_{ij}$ and $s^2_{ij}=\sin^2\theta_{ij}$. Current experiments (Mainz [@Main] and Troitsk [@Troi]) provide upper limits in the range $m_\beta\leq \mathrm{few}$ eV [@PDG4; @Eite]. Neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu2\beta$) experiments are instead sensitive to the so-called effective Majorana mass $m_{\beta\beta}$ (if neutrinos are Majorana fermions), $$\label{mbb} m_{\beta\beta} = \left| c^2_{13}c^2_{12}m_1+c^2_{13}s^2_{12}m_2e^{i\phi_2}+s^2_{13}m_3 e^{i\phi_3}\right|\ ,$$ where $\phi_2$ and $\phi_3$ parameterize relative (and unknown) Majorana neutrino phases [@ScVa]. All $0\nu2\beta$ experiments place only upper bounds on $m_{\beta\beta}$ (the most sensitive being in the eV range, with the exception of the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment [@Kl01], which claims a positive (but highly debated) $0\nu2\beta$ signal $m_{\beta\beta}>0.17$ eV at $95 \%$ c.l. and corresponding to $m_{\beta\beta}$ in the sub-eV range at best fit [@Kl03; @Kl04]. In these proceedings, we will briefly illustrate the impact of the cosmological constraints on the sum of neutrino masses on the three-flavor mixing theoretical and observational scenario. Upper bounds on $\Sigma$ from cosmological data =============================================== The neutrino contribution to the overall energy density of the universe can play a relevant role in large scale structure formation and leave key signatures in several cosmological data sets. More specifically, neutrinos suppress the growth of fluctuations on scales below the horizon when they become non relativistic. A massive neutrinos of a fraction of eV would therefore produce a significant suppression in the clustering on small cosmological scales (namely, for comoving wavenumber $k\sim 0.05 \ h\ \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$). To constrain $\Sigma$ from cosmological data, we perform a likelihood analysis comparing the recent observations with a set of models with cosmological parameters sampled as follows: cold dark matter (cdm) density $\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}h^2 \in [0.05,0.20]$ in steps of $0.01$; baryon density $\Omega_{b}h^2 \in [0.015, 0.030]$ (motivated by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) in steps of $0.001$; a cosmological constant $\Omega_{\Lambda} \in [0.50, 0.96]$ in steps of $0.02$; and neutrino density $\Omega_{\nu}h^2 \in [0.001, 0.020]$ in steps of $0.002$. We restrict our analysis to [*flat*]{} $\Lambda$-CDM models, $\Omega_\mathrm{tot}=1$, and we add a conservative external prior on the age of the universe, $t_0 > 10$ Gyrs. The value of the Hubble constant in our database is not an independent parameter, since it is determined through the flatness condition. We adopt the conservative top-hat bound $0.50 < h < 0.90$ and we also consider the $1\sigma$ constraint on the Hubble parameter, $h=0.71\pm0.07$, obtained from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) measurements [@freedman]. We allow for a reionization of the intergalactic medium by varying the CMB photon optical depth $\tau_c$ in the range $\tau_c \in [0.05,0.30]$ in steps of $0.02$. We restrict the analysis to adiabatic inflationary models with a negligible contribution of gravity waves. We let vary the spectral index $n$ of scalar primordial fluctuations in the range $n\in [0.85, 1.3]$ and its running $dn/d\ln k \in [-0.40,0.2]$ assuming pivot scales at $k_0=0.05 \mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}$ and $k_0=0.002 \mathrm{\ Mpc}^{-1}$. We rescale the fluctuation amplitude by a prefactor $C_{110}$, in units of the value $C_{110}^\mathrm{WMAP}$ measured by the Wilkinsin Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite. Finally, concerning the neutrino parameters, we fix the number of neutrino species to $N_{\nu}=3$, all with the same mass (the effect of mass differences compatible with neutrino oscillation being negligible in the current cosmological data [@pastor]). An higher number of neutrino species can weakly affect both CMB and LSS data (see, e.g., [@bowen]) but is highly constrained by standard big bang nucleosynthesis and is not considered in this work, where we focus on $3\nu$ mixing. The cosmological data we considered comes from observation of CMB anisotropies and polarization, galaxy redshift surveys and luminosity distances of type Ia supernovae. For the CMB data we use the recent temperature and cross polarization results from the WMAP satellite [@Be03] using the method explained in [@map5] and the publicly available code. Given a theoretical temperature anisotropy and polarization angular power spectrum in our database, we can therefore associate a $\chi^2_\mathrm{WMAP}$ to the corresponding theoretical model. We further include the latest results from other CMB datasets. The CMB data analysis methods have been already described in [@fogli04] and will not be reported here. In addition to the CMB data we also consider the real-space power spectrum of galaxies from either the 2 degrees Fields (2dF) Galaxy Redshifts Survey or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), using the data and window functions of the analysis of [@thx] and [@Tg04]. We restrict the analysis to a range of scales over which the fluctuations are assumed to be in the linear regime ($k < 0.2 h^{-1}\mathrm{\ Mpc}$). When combining with the CMB data, we marginalize over a bias $b$ for each data set considered as an additional free parameter. We also include information from the Ly$\alpha$ Forest in the SDSS, using the results of the analysis of [@Se04] and [@Mc04], which probe the amplitude of linear fluctuations at very small scales. For this data set, small-scale power spectra are computed at high redshifts and compared with the values presented in [@Mc04]. As in [@Se04], we do not consider running. We finally incorporate constraints obtained from the SN-Ia luminosity measurements of [@riess] using the so-called GOLD data set. Luminosity distances at SN-Ia redshifts are computed for each model in our database and compared with the observed apparent bolometric SN-Ia luminosities. In Fig. 1 we plot the likelihood distribution for $\Sigma$ from our joint analysis of CMB + SN-Ia + HST + LSS data, transformed into an equivalent $\Delta\chi^2_\Sigma$ function, which allows to derive bounds on $\Sigma$ at any fixed confidence level. We take LSS data either from the SDSS or the 2dF survey (dashed and solid curves, respectively).[^1] As we can see, these curves do not show evidence for a neutrino mass (the best fit being at $\Sigma\simeq 0$) and provide the $2\sigma$ bound $\Sigma \leq 1.4$ eV. Such bound is in good agreement with previous results in similar analyses [@Be03; @hannestad; @Tg04; @barger; @crotty]. Also plotted in Fig. 1 is the $\Delta\chi^2_\Sigma$ function from a joint analysis of CMB + SN-Ia + HST + 2dF + Ly$\alpha$. No running is assumed in this analysis, and we find a $2\sigma$ bound $\Sigma < 0.47$ eV, in very good agreement (despite the more approximate method we used) with the analysis already presented in [@Se04]. As shown in Fig. 1 and already discussed in [@Se04], the inclusion of the Ly$\alpha$ data from the SDSS set greatly improves the constraints on $\Sigma$. ![\[fig2\] Upper bounds on the sum of neutrino masses $\Sigma$ from our $3\nu$ analysis of cosmological data, given in terms of the $\Delta\chi^2_\Sigma$ function. The solid and dashed curves refer to the combination of CMB and LSS data (CMB+2dF and CMB+SDSS, respectively). The two CMB+LSS fits provide comparable results and, for definiteness, the CMB+2df one is adopted. In addition, we consider also the case where the recent Ly$\alpha$ data from the SDSS are included, providing significantly stronger constraints on $\Sigma$ (dotted curve). See [@fogli04] for details.](Fig2.eps){width="6.0cm"} ![\[fig4\] Global $3\nu$ analysis in the $(m_{\beta},m_{\beta\beta},\Sigma)$ parameter space, using oscillation data plus laboratory data and cosmological data. This figure implements also upper limits (shown as dashed lines at $2\sigma$ level) on $m_\beta$ from Mainz+Troitsk data, on $m_{\beta\beta}$ from $0\nu2\beta$ data, and on $\Sigma$ from CMB+2dF+Ly$\alpha$ data. In combination with oscillation parameter bounds, the cosmological upper limit on $\Sigma$ dominates over the laboratory upper limits on $m_\beta$ and $m_{\beta\beta}$. See [@fogli04] for details.](Fig6.eps){width="6.0cm"} Adding bounds from laboratory and Astrophysics ============================================== Here we consider confidence regions obtained from analysis of neutrino oscillation data, of $m_\beta$ and $m_{\beta\beta}$ data and cosmological CMB+LSS data (see [@fogli04] for more details). Figure 2 shows such regions projected in the three coordinate planes. Separate laboratory and cosmological upper bounds at the $2\sigma$ level are shown as dashed lines, while the regions allowed by the combination of laboratory, cosmological, and oscillation data are shown as thick solid curves for normal hierarchy and as thin solid curves for inverted hierarchy. It can be seen that the upper bounds on the $(m_\beta,m_{\beta\beta},\Sigma)$ observables are dominated by the cosmological upper bound on $\Sigma$. This bound, via the $(m_\beta,\Sigma)$ and $(m_{\beta\beta},\Sigma)$ correlations induced by oscillation data, provides upper limits also on $m_{\beta\beta}$ and $m_\beta$, which happen to be stronger than the current laboratory limits by a factor $\sim 4$. Since significant improvements on laboratory limits for $m_{\beta\beta}$ and $m_\beta$ will require new experiments and several years of data taking [@Eite], cosmological determinations of $\Sigma$, although indirect, will continue to provide, in the next future, the most sensitive upper limits (and hopefully a signal) for absolute neutrino mass observables. In Fig. 2, the tension (at $2\sigma$) between the limits from cosmology and the lower limit on $m_{\beta\beta} >0.17$ eV claimed by the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment is a clear symptom of possible problems, either in some data sets or in their theoretical interpretation, which definitely prevent any global combination of data. It would be premature to conclude that, e.g., the $0\nu2\beta$ claim is“ruled out” by cosmological data but it is anyway exciting that global neutrino data analyses have already reached a point where fundamental questions may start to arise. [*Acknowledgements*]{} A.M. would like to thank the Organizers of the [*NOW-2004*]{} workshop. The work of A.M. is supported by the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione, Università e Ricerca (MIUR) through the “GEMINI” research project and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) through the “Astroparticle Physics” research project. The work of G.L.F., E.L., A.M.$2$, and A.P. is supported by the Italian Ministero dell’Istruzione, Università e Ricerca (MIUR) and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) through the “Astroparticle Physics” research project. [99]{} V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E [**12**]{}, 569 (2003). A.D. Dolgov, Phys. Rept.  [**370**]{}, 333 (2002). WMAP Collaboration, C.L. Bennett [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. Suppl.  [**148**]{}, 1 (2003). SDSS Collaboration, M. Tegmark [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 103501 (2004). See also O. Lahav, “Massive Neutrinos and Cosmology,” in [*Neutrino 2004*]{}. Review of Particle Physics, S. Eidelman et al., Phys. Lett. B [**592**]{}, 1 (2004). W. Hu, D.J. Eisenstein, and M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. Lett.  [**80**]{}, 5255 (1998). C.P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Astrophys. J.  [**455**]{}, 7 (1995). SDSS Collaboration, P. McDonald [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/0405013. U. Seljak [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/0407372. G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri, A. Palazzo, P. Serra and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 113003 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0408045\]. G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino, and A. Palazzo, Phys. Rev. D [65]{}, 073008 (2002). B.H.J. McKellar, Phys. Lett. B [97]{}, 93 (1980); F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [100]{}, 273 (2001); J. Studnik and M. Zralek, hep-ph/0110232. See also the discussion in Y. Farzan and A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Lett. B [557]{}, 224 (2003). C. Weinheimer, in the Proceedings of [*Neutrino 2002*]{}, p. 279. V.M. Lobashev, in the Proceedings of [*NPDC 17*]{}, ed. by N. Auerbach, Zs. Fulop, Gy. Gyurky, and E. Somorjai, Nucl. Phys. A [**719**]{}, 153 (2003). K. Eitel, “Direct Neutrino Mass Experiments,” in [*Neutrino 2004*]{} [@Catt]. S.M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, and S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B [94]{}, 495 (1980); J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D [22]{}, 2227 (1980). H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harney, and I.V. Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [16]{}, 2409 (2001). H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, I.V. Krivosheina, and O. Chkvorets, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [522]{}, 371 (2004). H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I.V. Krivosheina, A. Dietz, and O. Chkvorets, Phys. Lett. B [586]{}, 198 (2004). W. Freedman [*et al.*]{}, Astrophysical Journal, [553]{}, 47 (2001). J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor, and L. Perotto, Phys. Rev. D [70]{}, 045016 (2004). R. Bowen [*et al.*]{}, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.  [334]{}, 760 (2002). L. Verde [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. Suppl.  [148]{}, 195 (2003). W.J. Percival [*et al.*]{}, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.  [327]{}, 1297 (2001). Supernova Search Team Collaboration, A.G. Riess [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J.  [607]{}, 665 (2004). S. Hannestad, JCAP [0305]{}, 004 (2003). V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and A. Tregre, Phys. Lett. B [595]{}, 55 (2004). P. Crotty, J. Lesgourgues, and S. Pastor, Phys. Rev. D [69]{}, 123007 (2004). [^1]: For the sake of brevity, the subdominant block of data (SN-Ia + HST) is not explicitly indicated in figure labels.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'T. GISIGER, M.B. PARANJAPE' title: | LOW ENERGY NUCLEON-NUCLEON SCATTERING\ IN THE SKYRME MODEL --- =0 -0.50 in 0.25 in 0.25 in \#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{}[**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{} Groupe de physique des particules, Département de physique, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succ. centre-ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3J7, Canada Introduction ============ In this work[@ref:TGMBP2] we present some of the implications of the Skyrme[@ref:Sk] model on the scattering of two nucleons. We will first start with a short introduction to the Skyrme model and its simplest solution, the Skyrmion. Then in the next section we study the problem of the scattering of two Skyrmions using the product ansatz and present the constraints imposed by this parametrization to the scattering processes. The expression of the energy of the two Skyrmion system is then written as an expansion in inverse powers of the separation between the particles. We then briefly describe the approximation methods used to find and solve the equations of motion of the system, namely the method of Lagrange and the method of variation of constants. In order to study the scattering of nucleons, we have to quantize the remaining degrees of freedom of the system, namely the rotation of each Skyrmion so as to give them the proper spin and isospin. This is done with the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization technique. We are then able to compute the scattering of two nucleons for certain spin and isospin polarizations. The Skyrme model and the Skyrmion ================================= The Skyrme mode was introduced[@ref:Sk] in the 60’s and is described by the following Lagrangian: $${\cal L}_{sk} = -{f_\pi^2 \over 4}\; tr(U^\dagger \partial_\mu U U^\dagger \partial^\mu U) + {1\over 32 e^2}\;tr( [U^\dagger \partial_\mu U,U^\dagger \partial_\nu U]^2) \label{eq1}$$ where $U(x^\mu)$ is an element of $SU(2)$ which represents a pseudoscalar massless particle, namely the pion. $f_\pi$ and $e$ are phenomenological parameters related to meson decay and low energy scattering, and are theoretically computable using QCD. The simplest stable solution of the Skyrme model is the Skyrmion: $$U_s(\vec x) = e^{i F(r) \vec \tau\cdot\hat r}\label{eq2}$$ where $\vec\tau=(\tau^1,\tau^2,\tau^3)$ are the three Pauli matrices and the function $F(r)$ is a monotonous function of $r$ which decreases from $\pi$ at the origin, to 0 at infinity. $F(r)$ has to be computed numerically but falls off at large distance like $\kappa/r^2$. Since the Skyrmion field attains the $SU(2)$ identity when $r\rightarrow\infty$, we can consider the three dimensional space $R^3$ to be topologically compactified into a 3-sphere $S^3$. $U_s(\vec r)$ then defines an application from an $S^3$ to the manifold $S^3$ of the $SU(2)$ group. This type of application is classified into disjoint homotopy classes labeled by the winding number of the first 3-sphere onto the second, $N$, defined by $$N = {1 \over 24 \pi^2} \int{d^3 \vec x\, \epsilon^{ijk} \; tr(U^\dagger \partial_i U U^\dagger \partial_j U U^\dagger \partial_k U)}. \label{eq3}$$ An application belonging to one class cannot be deformed continuously into another: it is topologically stable. The Skyrmion has winding number 1, rendering it stable against deformation into the vacuum defined by $N=0$. It was Skyrme who first interpreted $N$ as the baryon number. The Skyrmion is a static solution. In order to set it into motion, we shift its position by the time dependent vector $\vec R(t)$ and conjugate it by the time dependent $SU(2)$ matrix $A(t)$: $$U_1(\vec r,t)=A(t) U_s(\vec x-\vec R(t)) A^\dagger (t).\label{eq4}$$ We then replace $U_1(\vec r,t)$ into the Skyrme Hamiltonian density and integrate over all space. This gives the following expression for the energy: $$E_{1} = M + {M\over 2} \dot{\vec R^2} + 2 \Lambda {\cal L}^a(A) {\cal L}^a(A)\label{eq5}$$ where we defined the generators of the right and left action of the $SU(2)$ group: $${\cal R}^a(A)=-{i\over 2}\; tr[\tau^a A^\dagger \partial_0 A]\label{eq6}$$ $${\cal L}^a(A)=-{i\over 2}\; tr[\tau^a \partial_0 A A^\dagger].\label{eq7}$$ $E_1$ has the familiar form of the energy of a translating and spinning spherically symmetric rigid body if $M$, of the order of 1 GeV, is interpreted as the mass, and $\Lambda$ as the moment of inertia. The last term is the rotational energy, with ${\cal L}^a(A) {\cal L}^a(A)$ equal to the square of the angular velocity. ${\cal L}^a(A)$ is usually interpreted as the tensorial part of the isospin of the Skyrmion, and ${\cal R}^a(A)$ as its spin. It was shown by Atkins, Nappi and Witten[@ref:Witt], that by quantizing the rotational degrees of freedom $A(t)$ the characteristics of the nucleon could be reproduced with an error varying between 10% and 30%. This guides us towards investigating the predictions of the Skyrme model in the baryon number 2 sector. The Skyrmion-Skyrmion interaction ================================= We will now attempt to compute the classical Lagrangian describing a pair of Skyrmions in order to study their scattering. To achieve this we need a parametrization of the pair of Skyrmions. The simplest is the so-called “product ansatz” where the Skyrmion fields are multiplied together: $$\begin{array} {l} U_2(\vec r,t)=\;U_1(Skyrmion\; 1) \; U_1(Skyrmion\; 2) \\ \qquad\qquad=\;A(t) U_s(\vec x-\vec R_1(t)) A^\dagger (t)\; B(t) U_s(\vec x-\vec R_2(t)) B^\dagger (t). \end{array}\label{eq8}$$ $A$ and $B$ are $SU(2)$ matrices representing the iso-orientation of the Skyrmions and $\vec R_1$ and $\vec R_2$ their position. This parametrization is not completely general and we have to restrict the initial conditions in order to obtain physically correct results. First, it is a well known result from numerical studies of the Skyrme model[@ref:Wal] that Skyrmions deform when they come close to each other. In fact, the bound state of two Skyrmions, putatively the deuteron, has the form of a torus. These deformations cannot be described by Eq. \[eq4\], let alone the product ansatz, so we have to consider only configurations where the distance $d=|\vec R_1(t)-\vec R_2(t)|$ is large. Second, it was shown by N.S. Manton[@ref:Man] that only low energy soliton systems can be described with a finite number of degrees of freedom. We refer the interested reader to his article and will only say here that it is physically evident that the number of degrees of freedom of a system rises with its energy. Then if we keep the energy of the system sufficiently low, the system might excite only a finite number of modes. If we wish to describe our system with the 12 degrees of freedom of the product ansatz (6 to define the positions of the particles, and another 6 for their iso-orientations), we have to consider only low energy scattering. We now give the expression of the energy for the pair of Skyrmions, in the center of mass frame, as an expansion in inverse powers of the relative distance $d$ which is assumed to be large at all times: $$\begin{array} {l} T = {1\over 4} M \dot{\vec d^{\;2}} + 2 \Lambda \bigl({\cal L}^a(A)\, {\cal L}^a(A) + {\cal L}^a(B)\,{\cal L}^a(B)\bigr) \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad+ {\Delta\over d} \epsilon^{iac}\epsilon^{jbd}\;{\cal R}^c(A) \,{\cal R}^d(B)\; \bigl(\delta^{ij}-\hat{d}^i \hat{d}^j\bigr)\, D_{ab}(A^\dagger B) +O(1/d^2). \end{array}\label{eq9}$$ $\Delta=2 \pi \kappa^2 f_\pi^2$ is a result of the integration over space, $\hat d =\vec d/d$ and $D_{ab}(G)=1/2\;\hbox{tr}[\tau^a G \tau^b G^\dagger]$ is the $3\times 3$ representation of the $SU(2)$ matrix $G$. This term, induced by the kinetic energy of the Skyrme Lagrangian, was found by us[@ref:TGMBP1] and independently by B.J. Schroers[@ref:Schr]. We note that this term has a structure similar to the spin-spin and tensorial terms found in the traditional nuclear potentials. Also, the leading contribution from the potential part of the Skyrme Lagrangian behaves as $1/d^3$, thus is neglected to leading order of our expansion of the energy. The kinetic energy defines a metric on the tangent space of the modulii space, the motion implied by the Lagrangian simply follows the geodesics of this metric. This is what we call the geodetic approximation. Equations of motion of the system and quantization ================================================== We now have to find the equations of motion corresponding to the Lagrangian of Eq. \[eq9\]. Because of the very complicated form of the interaction term, we have to resort to various approximation methods. We first choose the observables of the system, meaning, what we need to know from the scattering in order to possibly compare the results with experimental data. We choose the relative velocity $\dot{\vec d}$, the tensorial part of the spins ${\cal R}^a(A)$ and ${\cal R}^a(B)$, and isospins ${\cal L}^a(A)$ and ${\cal L}^a(B)$. The approximation method of Lagrange[@ref:Gold] is perfectly suited to compute the time derivatives of the observables without having first to derive the equations of motion of $A$, $B$ and $\vec d$. The method uses the Poisson brackets formalism and is based on the following principle. Let us consider the degree of freedom $q^i$. Conjugate to $q^i$ is the momentum $p^i$ which can be written as an expansion in powers of $1/d$: $$p^i=p_0^i + \delta p^i(1/d).\label{eq10}$$ Then the Poisson brackets, which are functions of the $q^i$ and the $p^i$, also form an expansion in powers of $1/d$. If we denote by $C^k$ the observables of the system, the time derivative of $C^k$ is $${d\over dt}C^k = \{C^k,H\} = \{C^k,H_0+H_I\}\label{eq11}$$ where we have divided the Hamiltonian into a free $H_0$ (of order $1/d^{\,0}$) and interaction $H_I$ part (of order $1/d$ and higher). By dividing also the Poisson bracket into a free and interaction part, we get $${d\over dt}C^k = \{C^k,H_0\}_I + \{C^k,H_I\}_0\label{eq12}$$ plus higher order terms. By computing the various Poisson brackets involved, we get the following set of 5 coupled equations: $$\begin{array} {l} {d\over dt}\dot d^k == -{2\Delta\over M d^2}\biggr[\delta^{ij}\hat d^k + \delta^{jk}\hat d^i +\delta^{ik}\hat d^j - 3\hat d^i \hat d^j \hat d^k\biggl] \epsilon^{iac} \epsilon^{jbd} {\cal R}^c(A) {\cal R}^d(B) D_{ab}(A^\dagger B) \\ {d\over dt}{\cal L}^k(A) = {\Delta\over 2 M d} \epsilon^{iac} \epsilon^{jbd} {\cal R}^c(A) {\cal R}^d(B) \bigl(\delta^{ij}-\hat d^i\hat d^j\bigr) \epsilon^{kef} D_{fa}(A)D_{eb}(B) + \cdots \\ {d\over dt}{\cal L}^k(B) = {\Delta\over 2 M d} \epsilon^{iac} \epsilon^{jbd} {\cal R}^c(A) {\cal R}^d(B) \bigl(\delta^{ij}-\hat d^i\hat d^j\bigr) \epsilon^{kef} D_{ae}(A^\dagger )D_{fb}(B) + \cdots \\ {d\over dt}{\cal R}^k(A) = - {\Delta\over 2 M d}\epsilon^{iac} \epsilon^{jbd} {\cal R}^d(B)\bigl(\delta^{ij}-\hat d^i\hat d^j\bigr) \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\biggl[\epsilon^{kcf} {\cal R}^f(A) D_{ab}(A^\dagger B) + \epsilon^{kaf} D_{fb}(A^\dagger B) {\cal R}^c(A)\biggr] + \cdots \\ {d\over dt}{\cal R}^k(B) = - {\Delta\over 2 M d}\epsilon^{iac} \epsilon^{jbd} {\cal R}^c(A)\bigl(\delta^{ij}-\hat d^i\hat d^j\bigr) \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\biggl[\epsilon^{kdf} {\cal R}^f(B) D_{ab}(A^\dagger B) + \epsilon^{kbf} D_{af}(A^\dagger B) {\cal R}^d(B)\biggr] + \cdots \end{array}\label{eq13}$$ where the dots represent other complicated terms. This is still too complicated to solve algebraically and we have to resort to further approximations. We choose the approximation method of the variation of constants[@ref:Gold]. Let us consider as an example the following equation: $${d\over dt} \vec x(t) = f(\vec x(t),t)\label{14}$$ and treat it not as an ordinary differential equation but more like an iteration equation: $${d\over dt} \vec x(t) \simeq f(\vec x_0(t),t)\label{eq15}$$ where $\vec x_0(t)$ is a trial function. Then if the trial function $\vec x_0(t)$ is close to the true solution $\vec x(t)$ or if $f(\vec x_0(t),t)$ is small, then a good estimation of the solution of the equation is: $$\vec x(t) = \int^t_{-\infty} f(\vec x_0(t'),t') dt'.\label{16}$$ In our case, $\vec x_0(t)$ is the free value of the $C^k$, so without the interaction term. The approximation method should give accurate results if the $C^k$ are slowly changing quantities. This is compatible with our working hypothesis. This method decouples the 5 equations of motion and trivializes the integration over time of the observables: all we have to do is replace in each right hand side the free values for $\vec d$, $\dot{\vec d}$, ${\cal R}^a(A)$, ${\cal R}^a(B)$, ${\cal L}^a(A)$, ${\cal L}^a(B)$, $A$ and $B$, and integrate over time each equation separately. We will not consider here the time evolution of the spins and isospins. We will only say that spin-flips and isospin-flips seem to occur, which are consistent with spin 1 and isospin 1 particle exchange. We will only consider from now on the equation for the relative momentum $\vec p = M/2 \dot{\vec d}$: $${d\over dt} p^i = -{\Delta\over d^2}\biggr[\delta^{ij}\hat d^k + \delta^{jk}\hat d^i +\delta^{ik}\hat d^j - 3\hat d^i \hat d^j \hat d^k\biggl] \epsilon^{iac} \epsilon^{jbd} {\cal R}^c(A) {\cal R}^d(B) D_{ab}(A^\dagger B)\label{eq17}$$ in order to extract the scattering angles. To summarize, we now only have the equation for ${\vec p}$ to solve. This is done by replacing in the right hand side of the equation the free values of $\vec d$ and the matrices $A$ and $B$ which define also the spin and isospin of the Skyrmions, and to integrate over time. So far we have only talked about classical scattering. If we want to study the physics of nucleons, we have to quantize the remaining degrees of freedom, $\;$the rotation of each Skyrmion. This means finding the matrices $A$ and $B$ which give the Skyrmions spin and isospin $1/2$. The Bohr-Sommerfeld method is perfectly suited to this task. In the well known problem of the hydrogen atom, the sum of the action variables $$J_i = \oint p_i dq_i\label{eq18}$$ is set equal to a multiple of the Plank constant $h$. This fixes the allowed values for the angular and linear velocities, thereby quantizing the energy and angular momenta of the states. In our case, the same program is applied to the time derivatives of the angles with which the matrices $A$ and $B$ are expressed. Here are the main steps of this procedure. Let us consider the Lagrangian for a single Skyrmion and express the matrix $A$ of its iso-orientation as a function of 3 Euler angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$: $$A=a_0 + i \vec a\cdot\vec\tau=e^{-i\alpha \tau_3/2}\,e^{-i\beta \tau_2/2}\,e^{-i\gamma \tau_3/2}\label{eq19}$$ giving $$L = - M + {1\over 2}\Lambda\,\bigl[ \dot \alpha^2+ \dot \beta^2 +\dot \gamma^2+ 2 \dot \alpha \dot \gamma \cos \beta\bigr].\label{eq20}$$ The equations of motion are satisfied if $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are linear functions of time $t$ and if $\beta$ is equal to 0 or $\pi$. The action variables for the angles $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are then readily computed and give: $$\begin{array} {l} J_\alpha\equiv\oint p_\alpha d\alpha =2 \pi\Lambda\bigl[ \dot \alpha + \dot \gamma \cos \beta\bigr]=-4\pi\Lambda{\cal L}^3(A)\equiv -2\pi I_3 \\ J_\gamma\equiv\oint p_\gamma d\gamma =2\pi\Lambda\bigl[ \dot \gamma + \dot \alpha \cos \beta\bigr]=-4\pi{\cal R}^3(A)\equiv 2\pi S_3 \end{array}\label{eq21}$$ using Eq. \[eq6\] and Eq. \[eq7\], and following the convention used by Adkins[@ref:Witt] $\;$ for the component of the spin and isospin along the $z$ axis $$\begin{array} {l} S_3 = 2 \Lambda {\cal R}^3(A) \\ I_3 = -2 \Lambda {\cal L}^3(A) \end{array}\label{eq22}$$ respectively. The Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization condition states that the sum $J_\alpha+J_\gamma$ is equal to an integer multiple of $h$. This fixes the value of the angular speeds $\dot\alpha$ and $\dot\gamma$ so as to give, in our particular case, spin and isospin $\pm 1/2$. The expression for the matrix $A$ giving the proper quantum numbers is then obtained by extracting the values of $\alpha(t)$ and $\gamma(t)$ from Eq. \[eq21\], after choosing the value of $\beta$ which is either 0 or $\pi$. If $\beta=0$, solving for the angles $\alpha$ and $\beta$ gives the matrix $$A = e^{i (\omega t + \phi_0) \tau^3/2}.\label{eq23}$$ $\omega$ is the quantized quantity here, and has an absolute value of roughly 100 MeV for the nucleon. This matrix represents the state $|p\downarrow>$ if $\omega>0$ and $|n\uparrow>$ if $\omega<0$. If $\beta=\pi$, then we obtain $$A = -i e^{-i (\omega t + \psi_0)\tau^3/2}\,\tau^2\, e^{i (\omega t + \psi_0)\tau^3/2}\label{eq24}$$ which represents the state $|p\uparrow>$ if $\omega>0$ and $|n\downarrow>$ if $\omega<0$. Before going further we note that the time dependence of the matrices $A$ when $\beta=0$ or $\beta=\pi$ are very different. This will have important consequences on the nucleon-nucleon scattering. Nucleon-Nucleon Scattering ========================== We now have all the necessary tools to solve our problem. To solve Eq. \[eq17\] for a particular scattering process, we only replace the corresponding matrices $A$ and $B$ in the right hand side of the equation, as well as the free value of $\vec d$: $$\vec d = (v t,\gamma,0)\label{eq25}$$ which describes a relative particle traveling along the $x$ axis but with an impact parameter $\gamma$ along the $y$ axis. To respect the restrictions underlined in section 3, $v$ is chosen small to guaranty low energy, and $\gamma$ large, so as to keep the particles far from each other. In what follows, we choose $z$ as the axis of polarization of the angular momenta. This gives 2-dimensional trajectories. Other polarization axes give complicated 3-dimensional motion best studied numerically. Since in our approximation scheme the spins and isospins are constant, the only time dependence on the right hand side of Eq. \[eq17\] comes from $d$, $\hat d$ and $D_{ab}(A^\dagger B)$. It is then predictible that scattering processes separate into two cases, depending on whether or not $A^\dagger B$ is time independent. [**$D_{ab}(A^\dagger B)$ time independent:**]{} $$\begin{aligned} & \begin{array} {l} p\uparrow p\uparrow \\ n\downarrow n\downarrow \\ p\downarrow p\downarrow \\ n\uparrow n\uparrow \end{array} & {d\over dt} p^k = - {\Delta\omega^2\over d^2} \cos({2\delta}) \hat d^k \\ & p\uparrow p\downarrow & \begin{array}{l} {d\over dt} p^k = - {\Delta\omega^2\over d^2}\bigl[ \hat d^k + 4 r^k \hat r\cdot\hat d - 6 \hat d^k (\hat r\cdot\hat d)^2 \bigr] \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\hat r^k = (-\sin(\delta),\cos(\delta),0) \end{array} \\ & n\uparrow n\downarrow & \begin{array}{l} {d\over dt} p^k = - {\Delta\omega^2\over d^2}\bigl[ \hat d^k + 4 r^k \hat r\cdot\hat d - 6 \hat d^k (\hat r\cdot\hat d)^2 \bigr] \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\hat r^k = (\sin(\delta),-\cos(\delta),0) \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta=\phi_0^A-\phi_)^B$. The scattering angle defined as the angle between the initial $(t=-\infty)$ and final $(t=+\infty)$ momenta is the same for all these different processes and readily computed: $$\begin{array}{l} \cos\theta = {\vec p(+\infty)\cdot\vec p(-\infty)\over |\vec p(+\infty)||\vec p(-\infty)|} \\ \quad\quad={M\gamma v^2\over 4 \Delta} {1\over\bigl( {M^2\gamma^2 v^4\over 16 \Delta^2} + \omega^4 \cos^2 2\delta \bigr)^{1/2}}. \end{array}\label{eq29}$$ [**$D_{ab}(A^\dagger B)$ time dependent:**]{} $$\begin{aligned} & \begin{array} {l} p\uparrow n\downarrow \\ p\downarrow n\uparrow \end{array} & {d\over dt} p^k = {\Delta\omega^2\over d^2} \cos(4\omega t+2\epsilon)\hat d^k \\ & p\uparrow n\uparrow & \begin{array}{l} {d\over dt} p^k = {\Delta\omega^2\over d^2}\bigl[ \hat d^k + 4 r^k \hat r\cdot\hat d - 6 \hat d^k (\hat r\cdot\hat d)^2 \bigr] \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\hat r^k = (-\sin(2\omega t + \epsilon), \cos(2\omega t + \epsilon),0) \end{array} \\ & p\downarrow n\downarrow & \begin{array}{l} {d\over dt} p^k = {\Delta\omega^2\over d^2}\bigl[ \hat d^k + 4 r^k \hat r\cdot\hat d - 6 \hat d^k (\hat r\cdot\hat d)^2 \bigr] \\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\hat r^k = (-\sin(2\omega t + \epsilon), -\cos(2\omega t + \epsilon),0) \end{array}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon=\phi_0^A+\phi_0^B$. For those scattering states, the right hand side of the equations oscillates very quickly and the scattering angle is suppressed by the very small factor $$\sim e^{-({\omega\gamma\over v})}\label{eq33}$$ since $\omega$ and $\gamma$ are large while $v$ is small. We underline that this is the first analytical calculation of nucleon-nucleon scattering from essentially first principles, without recourse to $\;$ models or potentials. We emphasize that the Skyrme model is in principle derivable from QCD and $f_\pi$ and $e$ are, as such, calculable parameters and, in that sense this is also a QCD calculation. To calculate the classical scattering cross-section we need to compute the scattering for all different polarizations relative to the initial scattering plane. This would comprise a different project which would probably be best achieved by numerical methods. Therefore we are unable at this point to make a direct comparison with the experiment. A peculiar aspect of our treatment is the strong dependence of the scattering angle on the variables $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ which are just the phase lag between the rotation of the Skyrmions at some time $t$ before the scattering. These act as hidden variables, and have to be measured after the scattering or averaged over. Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ================ This work supported in part by NSERC of Canada and FCAR of Québec. [99]{} T. Gisiger and M.B. Paranjape, UdeM-LPN-TH-94-196, in press [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D**]{} T.H.R. Skyrme, G.S. Adkins, C.R. Nappi and E. Witten, See for instance T.S.Walhout and J. Wambach, and references therein N.S. Manton, T. Gisiger and M.B. Paranjape, B.J. Schroers, , H. Goldstein, Second edition, Addison-Wesley publishing company 1980, 505

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We prove that a strongly $F$-regular scheme $X$ admits a finite, generically Galois, and étale-in-codimension-one cover $\tld X \to X$ such that the étale fundamental groups of $\tld X$ and $\tld X_{\reg}$ agree. Equivalently, every finite étale cover of $\tld X_{\reg}$ extends to a finite étale cover of $\tld X$. This is analogous to a result for complex klt varieties by Greb, Kebekus and Peternell.' address: - | Department of Mathematics\ University of Michigan\ Ann Arbor\ MI 48109 - | Department of Mathematics\ University of Utah\ Salt Lake City\ UT 84112 Escuela de Matemática\ Universidad de Costa Rica\ San José 11501\ Costa Rica - 'Lehrstuhl für Mathematik I, Universität Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany' - | Department of Mathematics\ University of Utah\ Salt Lake City\ UT 84112 - | Department of Mathematics\ University of Illinois at Chicago\ Chicago\ IL 60607 author: - Bhargav Bhatt - 'Javier Carvajal-Rojas' - Patrick Graf - Karl Schwede - Kevin Tucker bibliography: - 'MainBib.bib' title: 'Étale fundamental groups of strongly $F$-regular schemes' --- [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4] [^5] Introduction ============ In [@XuFinitenessOfFundGroups], Chenyang Xu proved that the algebraic local fundamental group (the profinite completion of the topological fundamental group of the link) of a complex klt singularity is finite. This result was then used by Greb–Kebekus–Peternell [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental] to show that for a complex quasi-projective variety $X$ with klt singularities, any sequence of finite quasi-étale ( étale in codimension one) and generically Galois covers eventually becomes . In particular, for any quasi-projective klt variety $X/\C$ there exists a finite quasi-étale generically Galois cover $\rho\colon \tld X \to X$ such that any further quasi-étale cover $Y \to \tld X$ is actually étale. Inspired by the relation between klt singularities and strongly $F$-regular singularities in characteristic $p > 0$ [@HaraWatanabeFRegFPure], a subset of the authors showed that if $(R, \fram)$ is a strictly Henselian strongly $F$-regular local ring and $U \subseteq \Spec R$ is the regular locus, then $\pi_1^{\et}(U)$ is finite [@CarvajalSchwedeTuckerEtaleFundFsignature], a variant of Xu’s result in characteristic $p > 0$. In this paper we use this result, a theorem of Gabber [@TravauxdeGabber], and recent work on the non-local behavior of $F$-signature [@deStefaniPolstraYao-Globalizing], to prove a variant of the result of Greb–Kebekus–Peternell in characteristic $p > 0$. Philosophically, both these results are studying the obstructions of extending finite étale covers of the regular locus $X_{\reg}$ of a scheme $X$ to the whole scheme. The expected general answer is that for more severe singularities on $X$, there are more obstructions. Analogous to [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental], we show that schemes with strongly $F$-regular singularities are mild in this sense. Suppose $X$ is an $F$-finite Noetherian integral strongly $F$-regular scheme. Suppose we are given a sequence of finite surjective quasi-étale (étale in codimension one) morphisms of normal integral schemes $$X = X_0 \xleftarrow{\;\;\gamma_1\;\;} X_1 \xleftarrow{\;\;\gamma_2\;\;} X_2 \xleftarrow{\;\;\gamma_3\;\;} \cdots$$ such that each $X_i/X$ is generically Galois. Then all but finitely many of the $\gamma_i$ are étale. In particular, there exists a finite quasi-étale generically Galois cover $\tld X \to X$ so that any further finite quasi-étale cover $Y \to \tld X$ is actually étale. Equivalently, the map ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld X_{\reg}) \to {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld X)$ induced by the inclusion of the regular locus is an isomorphism. Note that we do not require any quasi-projectivity hypothesis. We actually obtain a slightly stronger version, just as in [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental]. As a corollary, we also obtain a variant of [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Theorem 1.10], see , which says in particular that there exists an integer $N > 0$ such that for every $\bQ$-Cartier divisor $D$ on $X$ with index not divisible by $p$, $N \cdot D$ is in fact Cartier. Finally, we observe that the map $\tld X \to X$ from our Main Theorem above is tame wherever it is not étale, see . Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered} ---------------- The authors began working on this project while visiting CIRM Luminy in September 2016. Notation and conventions ======================== All rings and schemes considered will be Noetherian. We will typically also be working with normal connected and hence integral schemes. Let $\rho\colon Y \to X$ be a morphism of normal schemes. 1. We say that $\rho$ is *quasi-étale* if it is quasi-finite and there exists a closed subset $Z \subseteq Y$ of codimension $\ge 2$ such that $\rho|_{Y \setminus Z}\colon Y \setminus Z \to X$ is étale. Notice that if $\rho$ is further finite, then $Y$ coincides with the integral closure of $X$ in $K(Y)$. 2. \[not.b.branchlocus\] Assume that $\rho$ is finite and surjective. Let $W \subseteq X$ be the largest Zariski-open subset such that $\rho^{-1}(W) \to W$ is étale. The *branch locus* of $\rho$ is defined to be $X \setminus W$. It is worth to remark that by Purity of the Branch Locus, if $\rho$ is quasi-étale then its branch locus is contained in the non-regular locus of $X$. 3. If $X$ and $Y$ are connected, we say that $\rho$ finite and surjective is *generically Galois* if the fraction fields extension $K(Y)/K(X)$ is Galois. In this case, it follows that $\rho^{-1}(W) \to W$ is Galois, where $W$ is as in . 4. By a *geometric point* $\bar x \in X$ of a scheme $X$ we mean a morphism $\Spec L \to X$, where $L$ is a separably closed field. Note that $\bar x \to X$ factors through $\Spec k(x) \to X$, where $x \in X$ is the scheme-theoretic image point. 5. Suppose that $\bar s, \bar t \in X$ are geometric points of a scheme $X$. A *specialization of geometric points $\bar s \rightsquigarrow \bar t$* is a factorization $$\bar s \to \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X, \overline{t}}^{\sh} \to X$$ where the composition is the map defining the geometric point $\bar s \to X$. Note that then we get a map $\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,\overline{s}}^{\sh} \to \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,\overline{t}}^{\sh}$. In particular, the image of $\overline{t}$ as a scheme theoretic point on $X$ is contained in the Zariski closure of the image of $\overline{s}$. Conversely, if $\bar s \in X$ is a geometric point and $t \in \overline{ \{ s \} }$, then we can find a geometric point $\bar t \in X$ with scheme-theoretic image point $t$ such that $\bar s$ specializes to $\bar t$. Gabber’s constructibility and applications to the fundamental group =================================================================== Recall the following theorem of Gabber. [[@TravauxdeGabber Exposé XXI, Théorème 1.1, 1.3]]{.nodecor} \[thm.GabberConstructibility\] Suppose that $X$ is a normal excellent scheme and $Z \subseteq X$ a closed subscheme of codimension $\geq 2$. Let $j\colon U = X \setminus Z \to X$ be the inclusion. Then for all finite groups $G$, $R^i j_* (G_U)$ is constructible for $i = 0, 1$. Here $G_U$ denotes the constant sheaf $G$ on $U$ equipped with the étale topology. We use this to obtain: \[prop.GabberStratification\] Let $i\colon Z \hookrightarrow X$ be a closed subscheme of codimension $\ge 2$ in a normal excellent scheme. Let $j\colon U = X \setminus Z \hookrightarrow X$ be the complement. Suppose that $$\big| \pi_1^{\et}(\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,x}^{\sh} \setminus {Z}^{\sh}) \big|$$ is bounded for all geometric points $x \in X$ (here $Z^{\sh} = Z_{X,x}^{\sh}$ is the inverse image of $Z$). Then there exists a finite stratification $\{ Z_i \}_{i \in I}$ of $X$ into locally closed subschemes $Z_i$ with the following property: - Fix a specialization $s \rightsquigarrow t$ of geometric points of $Z_i$. Consider the map $$\label{eq.MapOfHenselizations} \Spec({\mathscr O}^{\sh}_{X,s}) \longrightarrow \Spec({\mathscr O}^{\sh}_{X,t}).$$ Remove the inverse images of $Z$ to obtain $$\label{eq.TubularMapOfHenselizations} T_s \xrightarrow{\;\;\alpha\;\;} T_t.$$ Then applying ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(-)$ to yields an isomorphism. Note there are only finitely many finite groups $G_x = \pi_1^{\et}(\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,x}^{\sh} \setminus Z^{\sh})$ for geometric points $x \in X$, since there are only finitely many groups of size less than a given number. Letting $G_x$ also denote the constant sheaf on $U_{\et}$, since $R^1 j_* G_x$ is constructible by , we may choose a stratification $\{ Z_i \}$ of locally closed irreducible subschemes of $X$ so that $R^1 j_* G_x$ is locally constant on each $Z_i$ for all geometric points $x$. Note $R^1 j_* G_x$ is zero over $U$ so the induced stratification has the same data as a stratification of $Z$. Using our stratification, we know that for any geometric point $x \in X$, the stalks of $R^1 j_* G_x$ at $s$ and $t$ are the same. These stalks however are $H^1(T_s, G_x)$ and $H^1(T_t, G_x)$, respectively [@MilneEtaleCohomology Chapter III, Theorem 1.15]. In other words, the functor of isomorphism classes of $G_x$-torsors over produces isomorphisms. But we have functorial bijections $$H^1(T_s, G_x) \cong \factor \Hom_{\cont} \big( \pi_1^{\et}(T_s), G_x \big). G_x.$$ and $$H^1(T_t, G_x) \cong \factor \Hom_{\cont} \big( \pi_1^{\et}(T_t), G_x \big). G_x.,$$ where $G_x$ acts on $\Hom_{\cont}(-, G_x)$ by conjugation. For more discussion see for instance [@GortzWedhornAlgebraicGeoemtryI Section 11.5], [@MilneLecturesOnEtaleCohomology Example 11.3] and [@MilneEtaleCohomology Chapter I, Remark 5.4 and Chapter III, Corollary 4.7, Remark 4.8]. In particular, the map $$\label{eq.alpha} \factor \Hom \big( G_t \cong {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_t), G_x \big). G_x. \longrightarrow \factor \Hom \big( G_s = {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_s), G_x \big). G_x.$$ induced by ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha)$ is a bijection for any geometric point $x \in X$. Recall that we want to prove that ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha)$ is an isomorphism. We apply  with $x = s$. Considering the identity $\pi_1^{\et}(T_s) \to G_s$ as an element of the right-hand side, observe that there exists a homomorphism $\kappa\colon G_t \to G_s$, unique up to conjugacy, so that $$\label{eq.kappa} G_s \xrightarrow{{\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha)} G_t \xrightarrow{\;\;\kappa\;\;} G_s$$ is equal to a conjugate of the identity, that is, an inner automorphism. In particular, $\kappa$ is surjective and $\pi_1^{\et}(\alpha)$ is injective. We now apply $\Hom(-, G_t) / G_t$ to . This gives us $$\factor \Hom(G_s, G_t). G_t. \longrightarrow \factor \Hom(G_t, G_t). G_t. \longrightarrow \factor \Hom(G_s, G_t). G_t..$$ The second map, which is induced from ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha)$, is a bijection by  applied with $x = t$. The composition is also a bijection, by construction. Hence the first map, which is induced by $\kappa$, is bijective too. By the same argument as above, this implies that there exists a homomorphism $\lambda\colon G_s \to G_t$ such that the composition $G_t \xrightarrow{\kappa} G_s \xrightarrow{\lambda} G_t$ is an inner automorphism. In particular, $\kappa$ is injective and hence an isomorphism. By , it follows that ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha)$ is likewise an isomorphism, which was to be shown. \[rem.StratificationBehavesWellUnderPullback\] The crucial property of the stratification $\{ Z_i \}$ in is preserved by finite quasi-étale covers: Suppose that $\rho\colon X' \to X$ is a separated quasi-finite cover with branch locus contained in $Z$. By Zariski’s Main Theorem, we may assume that $\rho$ is finite since the statement is obvious for open inclusions. Consider a specialization $s' \rightsquigarrow t'$ of geometric points of $\rho^{-1}(Z_i)$ mapping to a specialization of geometric points of $Z_i \subseteq X$, $s \rightsquigarrow t$, under $\rho$. The diagram $$\label{fibre product} \xymatrix{ \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X',s'}^{\sh} \ar[r] \ar[d]_-{\rho_s} & \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X',t'}^{\sh} \ar[d]^-{\rho_t} \\ \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,s}^{\sh} \ar[r] & \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t}^{\sh} }$$ is a fibre product diagram up to taking a connected component (in the end it will follow that there can be at most one connected component from our assumptions). Denote $T_{t'} := \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X', t'}^{\sh} \setminus \text{inverse image of $\rho^{-1}(Z)$}$ and likewise with $T_{s'}$. Then removing the preimages of $Z$ from yields a fibre product diagram (up to taking a connected component, for now) $$\xymatrix{ T_{s'} \ar[rr]^-{\alpha'} \ar[d]_-{\rho_s} & & T_{t'} \ar[d]^-{\rho_t} \\ T_s \ar[rr]^-\alpha & & T_t. }$$ The vertical maps are étale since the branch locus of $\rho$ is contained in $Z$, so the induced maps on $\pi_1^{\et}$ are injective. Since ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha)$ is an isomorphism, we have that ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_{s'})$ and ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_{t'})$ define the same subgroups in ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_s) \cong {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_t)$ (up to conjugation). In particular, ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\alpha')$ is also an isomorphism and so $\{ \rho^{-1}(Z_i) \}_{i \in I}$ stratifies $X'$ in the sense of . \[prop.StrataAndCovers\] Suppose that $Z, U \subseteq X$ and let $\{ Z_i \}_{i \in I}$ be such a stratification as in made up of connected $Z_i$. Let $\rho\colon Y \to X$ be a finite surjective map whose branch locus is contained in $Z$ (in particular $\rho$ is quasi-étale), and let $W \subseteq X$ be the maximal Zariski-open subset over which $\rho$ is étale. Then, for every $i \in I$, either $W \cap Z_i = \emptyset$ or $Z_i \subseteq W$. Equivalently, either the branch locus of $\rho$ contains $Z_i$ or it is disjoint from $Z_i$. We have the following criterion for geometric points of $X$ to belong to $W$. \[clm.EtaleIffLocallyTrivial\] A geometric point $t \in X$ is contained in $W$ ($\rho$ is over $t$) if and only if the pullback of $\rho\colon Y \to X$ to $T_t := \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X, t}^{\sh}\setminus Z^{\sh}$ is trivial (a finite disjoint union of copies of $T_t$). Since the condition of being étale is Zariski-local, we see that $t \in W$ if and only if $\rho_{t}\colon Y_t = Y \times_{X} \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t} \to \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t}$ is étale (here we identify $t$ with its image at $X$ to avoid cumbersome phrasing and notation). However, by faithfully flat descent [@stacks-project Tag 02YJ, Lemma 34.20.29] this morphism is étale if and only if its pullback to $\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t}^{\sh}$, say $\rho_t^{\sh}\colon Y_t^{\sh} \to \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t}^{\sh}$, is étale. But the target being the spectrum of a strictly henselian local ring, the latter condition implies that the finite cover $\rho_t^{\sh}$ is trivial (a finite disjoint union of copies of $\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t}^{\sh}$). In particular, if $t \in W$ then the pullback $\rho^{-1}(T_t) \to T_t$ is trivial. Conversely if $\rho^{-1}(T_t) \to T_t$ is trivial, then so is $\rho_t^{\sh}$ since[^6] all the schemes are normal and the complement of $T_t \subseteq \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,t}^{\sh}$ has codimension $\geq 2$. As above this implies $t \in W$. Now let $t \in Z_i$ be a geometric point and let $s \in Z_i$ be a generic geometric point with a specialization $s \rightsquigarrow t$. It is sufficient to show that $t \in W$ if and only if $s \in W$. This follows by recalling that we have a canonical map $T_s \to T_t$ which induces an isomorphism on the level of fundamental groups, and moreover a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix@R=12pt{ T_t \ar[rd] \\ T_s \ar[u]\ar[r] & W \subseteq X. \\ }$$ It follows that the images of ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_t)$ and of ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_s)$ coincide in ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(W)$ up to conjugation. By [@MilneEtaleCohomology Chapter I, Theorem 5.3], the finite étale cover $\rho^{-1}(W) \to W$ corresponds to a continuous ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(W)$-action on the finite set $Q := F(\rho^{-1}(W))$, where $F$ is the fibre functor. Now assume $s \in W$,  $\rho$ is étale over $s$. By , the induced action of ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_s)$ on $Q$ is trivial. It follows that the induced action of ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(T_t)$ on $Q$ is also trivial. By [@MilneEtaleCohomology Chapter I, Theorem 5.3] again, $\rho^{-1}(T_t) \to T_t$, or more precisely $Y \times_X T_t \to T_t$, is trivial,  the disjoint union of $\deg(\rho)$ copies of $T_t$. Hence by again, we get $t \in W$. Conversely, $t \in W$ implies $s \in W$ by running the argument backwards. Maximal quasi-étale covers ========================== As mentioned, our result is somewhat more general than the one in the introduction. [( [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Theorem 2.1])]{.nodecor} \[thm.QuasiEtaleStabilize\] Suppose $X$ is an $F$-finite Noetherian integral strongly $F$-regular scheme. Suppose that we have a commutative diagram of separated quasi-finite maps between normal $F$-finite Noetherian integral schemes $$\xymatrix{ & Y_1 \ar@{->>}[d]_{\eta_1} & \ar[l]_{\gamma_1} Y_2 \ar@{->>}[d]_{\eta_2} & \ar[l]_{\gamma_2} Y_3 \ar@{->>}[d]_{\eta_3} & \ar[l]_{\gamma_3} \ldots\\ X & \ar@{_{(}->}[l]^{j_0} X_1 & \ar@{_{(}->}[l]^{j_1} X_2 & \ar@{_{(}->}[l]^{j_2} X_3 & \ar@{_{(}->}[l]^{j_3} \ldots }$$ such that the following conditions hold. - The maps $j_i$ are inclusions of open sets. - The maps $\eta_i$ are finite, quasi-étale and generically Galois. Then all but finitely many of the $\gamma_j$ are étale. To recover the statement in the introduction, simply set all the $X_i = X$. By [@deStefaniPolstraYao-Globalizing Theorem B] (see also the semi-continuity of Hilbert-Kunz multiplicity and $F$-signature [@SmirnovUpperSemicontinuity; @PolstraSemicontinuityFsignature; @TuckerPolstraUniformApproach]) and the fact that $X$ is quasi-compact, we know there exists a uniform lower bound $\delta > 0$ on $s({\mathscr O}_{X,x} =: R_x)$ for each scheme-theoretic point $x$ of $X$. Let $R_x^{\sh}$ denote the strict henselization of the local ring $R_x$. Since $R_x \subseteq R_x^{\sh}$ is flat with regular closed fiber, we know that $s(R_x^{\sh}) = s(R_x) \ge \delta$ by [@YaoObservationsAboutTheFSignature Theorem 5.6]. Also $R_x^{\sh}$ is $F$-finite since quite generally, the strict henselization of a normal $F$-finite local ring is again $F$-finite[^7]. In other words, we see that $s({\mathscr O}_{X,x}^{\sh}) \geq \delta$ and ${\mathscr O}_{X,x}^{\sh}$ is $F$-finite for every geometric point $x$ of $X$. By [@CarvajalSchwedeTuckerEtaleFundFsignature Theorem A], we thus know that $$\big|\pi_1^{\et}(\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,x}^{\sh} \setminus Z^{\sh})\big| \leq 1/\delta$$ for each geometric point $x$ of $X$, where $Z$ is the singular locus of $X$. Construct the stratification $\{ Z_i \}_{i \in I}$ as in , where $Z = X_{\sing}$; assume the $Z_i$ are irreducible. Observe that the $Z_i \cap X_k$ also stratify the open sets $X_k \subseteq X$ (although we may lose some pieces of the stratification). Let $s_i$ be a geometric generic point of $Z_i$ and let $T_{s_i} := \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X, s_i}^{\sh} \setminus Z^{\sh}$ be its “tubular neighborhood”. Pull back the whole sequence $X \leftarrow Y_1 \xleftarrow{\gamma_1} Y_2 \xleftarrow{\gamma_2} \cdots $ to $T_{s_i}$ to obtain $$T_{s_i} \xleftarrow{\;\;\gamma_{0, i}\;\;} T_{1, s_i} \xleftarrow{\;\;\gamma_{1, i}\;\;} T_{2, s_i} \xleftarrow{\;\;\gamma_{2, i}\;\;} \cdots.$$ Then all but finitely many of the $\gamma_{k, i}$ become trivial, as $\pi_1^{\et}(T_{s_i})$ is finite (of course, it is possible that $T_{k, s_i}$ becomes empty for $k \gg 0$ if $s_i \notin X_k$). Note here is where we use the hypothesis that each $\eta_k : Y_k \to X_k \subseteq X$ is generically Galois, in particular Galois over the regular locus $U_k$ of $X_k$. Now, given that $I$ is finite, one can pick $N \gg 0$ such that $\gamma_{n, s_i}$ is trivial for all $i \in I$ and all $n \geq N$. But by , the inverse images of the generic points $s_i$ of the $Z_i$ in $Y_n$ are exactly the generic points $s_{n,j}$ of a stratification $\{ Z_{n,j} \}_{j \in J_n}$ of $Y_n$ satisfying the conclusion of , with the $Z_{n,j}$ irreducible. Since $$\xymatrix{ \gamma_n\colon Y_{n+1} \ar@{->>}[r]^-{\text{finite}} & \eta_{n}^{-1}(X_{n+1}) \ar@{^{(}->}[r]^-{\text{open}} & Y_{n} }$$ is trivial after base changing with $$T_{s_{n,j}} := \Spec {\mathscr O}_{Y_n, s_{n,j}}^{\sh} \setminus \text{preimage of $\eta_n^{-1}(Z)$}$$ for $n \ge N$ and $j \in J_n$, by we see that $\gamma_n$ is étale over the geometric generic point of every stratum $Z_{n,j}$ (of course, it might miss some completely). Now applying shows that $\gamma_n$ is finite étale over every point of $\eta_n^{-1}(X_{n+1})$, which completes the proof. The following corollary follows immediately. [( [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Theorem 1.5])]{.nodecor} \[cor.MaximalQuasiEtale\] Suppose that $X$ is an $F$-finite Noetherian integral strongly $F$-regular scheme. Then there exists a finite quasi-étale generically Galois cover $\rho\colon \tld X \to X$ with $\tld X$ normal and which satisfies the following property: Every finite étale cover of the regular locus of $\tld X$ extends to a finite étale cover of $\tld X$. Equivalently, the map ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld X_{\reg}) \to {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld X)$ induced by the inclusion of the regular locus is an isomorphism. We give two proofs of this result. The first one uses , while the second one is a direct proof which emphasizes the Galois correspondence. Suppose not, then for every finite quasi-étale generically Galois cover $Y \to X$ there exists a further finite quasi-étale cover $Y' \to Y$, which we may also assume to be generically Galois over $X$, such that $Y' \to Y$ is not étale. Repeating this process now with $Y'$ taking the role of $Y$, we obtain a sequence of covers contradicting the conclusion of . The proof of the statement about the map ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld X_{\reg}) \to {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld X)$ is the same as [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Step 2 of the proof of Thm. 1.5], and is thus omitted. \[Second proof of \] Consider the stratification $\{ Z_i \}_{i \in I}$ as in where each $Z_i$ is connected. Set $Z = X_{\sing}$. As before, for every $Z_i$ choose $s_i$ to be a geometric generic point. As observed in the proof of , if $t$ is a geometric point of $Z_i$ generizing to $s_i$ (as in ), then $\pi_1^{\et}(T_t)$ and $\pi_1^{\et}(T_s)$ have a common image in $\pi_1^{\et}(U)$, where $U = X \setminus Z$. Let then $G_i \subseteq \pi_1^{\et}(U)$ denote this common image. Note this common image is only unique up to conjugation. In particular, since the index set $I$ is finite, there are only finitely many $G_i$ up to conjugation. There is an open normal subgroup $H \leq \pi_1^{\et}(U)$ that intersects $G_i$ trivially for every $i$. Note that $\pi_1^{\et}(U)$ is a profinite group $$\pi_1^{\et}(U) = \varprojlim Q_j$$ where the $Q_j$ are quotients of $\pi_1^{\et}(U)$. Thus each $G_i$ maps injectively to $Q_j$ for large enough $j \gg 0$. Choose a large enough $j$ that works for all $G_i$ and let $H = \ker(\pi_1^{\et}(U) \to Q_j)$. In particular, $H$ is an open normal subgroup that intersects each $G_i$ trivially and hence by normality, it also intersects any conjugate trivially. This proves the claim. Returning to the proof, by the Galois correspondence, there is a Galois cover $\varrho\colon \tld U \to U$ such that $\Aut_U(\tld U) = Q_j$ and $\pi_1^{\et}\bigl(\tld U\bigr) = H \subseteq {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(U)$. Let $\rho\colon \tld X \to X$ be the integral closure of $X$ in $K(\tld U)$, which is finite and its pullback to $U$ is exactly $\varrho$. In particular, $\rho$ is quasi-étale and generically Galois. In what remains, we prove that $\rho$ has the desired property. Let $V\to \tld U$ be a finite étale cover in $\textsf{F\'{E}t}\bigl(\tld U\bigr)$, we will extend it across $\tld X$. Take $\sigma\colon Y \to \tld X$ to be the integral closure of $\tld X$ in $K(V)$. It suffices to prove that $Y \to \tld X$ is étale. Let $W \subseteq \tld X$ be the complement of the branch locus of $\sigma$. Let $\tld Z$ denote the inverse image of $Z$ in $\tld X$ and note that $\tld U$ is the inverse image of $U$ in $\tld X$, so that $\tld U = \tld X \setminus \tld Z$. Now $\tld U \subseteq W$ and we want to show that $W = \tld X$. By , a geometric point $x \in \tld X$ belongs to $W$ if and only if the pullback of $\sigma\colon Y \to \tld X$ to $\tld T_x := \Spec {\mathscr O}_{\tld X, x}^{\sh} \setminus \tld{Z}^{\sh}$ is trivial, where $\tld Z^{\sh}$ is the preimage of $\tld Z$. For any geometric point $x \in \tld X$, $\tld T_x \to \tld X$ factors through $\tld U$. Thus the pullback of $\sigma\colon Y \to \tld X$ to $\tld T_x$ coincides with the pullback of $V \to \tld U$ to $\tld T_x$. We see that $x \in W$ if and only if the pullback of $V \to \tld U$ to $\tld T_x$ is trivial. Hence it suffices to show that for all geometric points $x \in \tld X$ and all $V / \tld U \in \textsf{F\'{E}t}(\tld U)$, the pullback of $V \to \tld U$ to $\tld T_x$ is trivial. Equivalently, we want the induced homomorphism of fundamental groups ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}\bigl( \tld T_x \bigr) \to {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}\bigl( \tld U \bigr)$ to be zero [@MurreLecturesFundamentalGroups 5.2.3]. This is argued below. Let $t \in X$ be the image of the geometric point $x \in \tld X$. We have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ \tld T_x \ar[r] \ar[d] & \tld U \ar[d] \\ T_t \ar[r] & U }$$ with finite étale vertical morphisms. By applying ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(-)$ we obtain the commutative square $$\xymatrix{ \pi_1^{\et}\bigl(\tld T_x\bigr) \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \ar[r] & H \ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\ \pi_1^{\et}(T_t) \ar[r] & \pi_1^{\et}(U) }$$ However, by construction $H$ meets the image of $\pi_1^{\et}(T_t)$ in $\pi_1^{\et}(U)$ trivially, which forces the top map in this square to be zero, as required. If $X$ is a strongly $F$-regular proper variety over an $F$-finite field $k$, and $U = X_{\reg}$, then it follows from [@SchwedeTuckerTestIdealFiniteMaps Theorem 7.6] that any cover $U$ is cohomologically tame and hence tame in all the senses of [@KerzSchmidtOnDifferentNotionsOfTameness]. From this we immediately obtain the following corollary. \[cor.MaximalTameCover\] If $X$ is a strongly $F$-regular proper variety over an $F$-finite field $k$ with $U = X_{\reg}$, then the map $\tld X \to X$ from restricts to a tame cover of $U$. We also obtain a local version of . [(cf. [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Theorem 1.9])]{.nodecor} \[cor.LocalMaximalQuasiEtale\] Suppose that $X$ is an $F$-finite Noetherian integral strongly $F$-regular scheme and that $x \in X$ is a point. Then there exists a Zariski-open neighborhood $x \in X^\circ \subseteq X$ and a finite quasi-étale generically Galois cover $\rho\colon \tld X^\circ \to X^\circ$ with $\tld X^\circ$ normal and which satisfies the following property: For every further Zariski-open neighborhood $x \in W \subseteq X^\circ$, with $\tld W = \rho^{-1}(W)$, any further finite quasi-étale cover $\overline{W} \to \tld W$ is étale. Equivalently, ${\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld W_{\reg}) \to {\pi_1^{\textnormal{\'{e}t}}}(\tld W)$ is an isomorphism. Suppose not,  assume that for every $x \in X^\circ \subseteq X$ and every finite quasi-étale generically Galois $\tld{X^\circ} \xrightarrow\rho X^\circ$, there is $x \in W \subseteq X^\circ$ and a finite quasi-étale $\overline W \to \rho^{-1}(W)$ that is not étale. By taking Galois closure, we may assume that $\overline W \to W$ is Galois. Apply this assumption with $X^\circ := X$ and $\rho := \id_X$. We obtain a map $\overline W \to W$, which we denote $\eta_1\colon Y_1 \to X_1$. Applying the assumption again, this time to $\eta_1$, we get a map $\eta_2\colon Y_2 \to X_2$ together with maps $\gamma_1\colon Y_2 \to Y_1$ and $X_2 \hookrightarrow X_1$. Inductively, we construct a diagram as in , but where none of the $\gamma_i$ are étale. This contradicts . Note that one cannot always take $X^{\circ} = X$ in the statement of , even in characteristic zero. Indeed let $X$ be the *projective* quadric cone $V(x^2 - yz) \subseteq \bP^3_{\bC}$. Then $X_{\reg}$ is simply connected (it is an $\mathbb A^1$-bundle over $\bP^1_{\bC}$), so every finite quasi-étale cover of $X$ is trivial. On the other hand, the *affine* quadric cone $U \subseteq X$ does have a finite quasi-étale cover that is not étale, corresponding to $k[x^2, xy, y^2] \subseteq k[x,y]$. In characteristic 2, $\pi_1^{\et}$ of the punctured quadric cone singularity is trivial and hence this computation does not work (the local cover above is in fact inseparable). However, one can obtain the same conclusion over an algebraically closed field of characteristic $p > 2$. Let $X' \to X$ be a finite quasi-étale generically Galois cover of $X$ that is not étale. Let $O \in X$ be the cone point. It follows that $$X' \times_X \Spec {\mathscr O}_{X, O}^{\sh}$$ is a disjoint union of copies of $V \to {\mathscr O}_{X,O}^{\sh}$ where $V$ is the regular 2-to-1 cover of $\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X, O}^{\sh}$ (corresponding to $k[x^2, xy, y^2] \subseteq k[x,y]$). Let $L$ be a ruling of the cone and consider $X' \times_X L \to L$. This map is except over the cone point $O \in L \subseteq X$, and over that point $X' \times_X L$ is not even reduced. However, if one takes $L' = (X' \times_X L)_{\red}$ then the computation $k\llbracket x^2, xy, y^2 \rrbracket/\langle x^2, xy \rangle \subseteq k\llbracket x,y \rrbracket /\langle x^2, xy \rangle$ shows that $L'$ is normal and furthermore that $L' \to L$ is ramified of order 2 over $O$ on each connected component. In particular, $L' \to L$ is ramified over a single point and that ramification is tame (since $p > 2$), but $L \cong \bP^1$ and so this is a contradiction. Hence any quasi- cover of $X$ is in fact and so we cannot take $X^{\circ} = X$ in just as in characteristic zero. We believe one can prove using a strategy similar to . In particular, we can first assume that $x$ is in the closure of any stratum $Z_i$ (if not, shrink $X$ to remove those strata). Then use $$\pi_1^{\et}\big((\Spec {\mathscr O}_{X,x}) \setminus \text{(inverse image of $Z$)}\big)$$ as the replacement for $\pi_1^{\et}(U)$ in the proof of . The $H$ we obtain produces a cover that is quasi-étale over a neighborhood $X^\circ$ of $x$ and which satisfies the desired property. Just as in [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Theorem 1.10], we obtain a result on simultaneous index-one covers. \[cor.SimultaneousIndex1Cover\] Suppose that $x \in X$ and $\tld X^\circ \twoheadrightarrow X^\circ \subseteq X$ is as in . Suppose further that $X^\circ$ is chosen to be affine (or quasi-projective over an affine scheme). - If $\tld D$ is any $\bZ_{(p)}$-Cartier[^8] divisor on $\tld X^\circ$, then $\tld D$ is Cartier. - There exists an integer $N > 0$ so that if $D$ is any $\bZ_{(p)}$-Cartier divisor on $X^\circ$, then $N \cdot D$ is Cartier. The proof is exactly the same as the proof of [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental Theorem 1.10], and so we omit it. Of course, the main idea is to take a cyclic cover. The hypothesis that $X^\circ$ is affine (or more generally quasi-projective over an affine) is assumed so that for any finite collection of points $S \subseteq X^\circ$ and for any line bundle $\sL$ on $X$, that there exists an open neighborhood of $S$ which trivializes $\sL$. Just as in [@GrebKebekusPeternellEtaleFundamental], implies that for any $F$-finite Noetherian integral strongly $F$-regular scheme, there exists an integer $N > 0$ such that if $D$ is $\bZ_{(p)}$-Cartier, then $N \cdot D$ is Cartier. The point is that by quasi-compactness, $X$ can be covered by finitely many open $X^\circ$ satisfying . [^1]: Bhatt was supported in part by the NSF Grant DMS \#1501461 and a Packard fellowship [^2]: Carvajal-Rojas was supported in part by the NSF FRG Grant DMS \#1265261/1501115 [^3]: Graf was supported in part by the DFG grant “Zur Positivität in der komplexen Geometrie” [^4]: Schwede was supported in part by the NSF FRG Grant DMS \#1265261/1501115 and NSF CAREER Grant DMS \#1252860/1501102 [^5]: Tucker was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS \#1602070 and a fellowship from the Sloan foundation. [^6]: Note finite maps between normal schemes are determined outside a set of codimension 2 [@HartshorneGeneralizedDivisorsOnGorensteinSchemes]. [^7]: Indeed, if $R$ is an $F$-finite ring and $S$ is a direct limit of maps (an ind- map), then $R^{1/p} \otimes_R S = S^{1/p}$ so that $S \subseteq S^{1/p}$ is finite. [^8]: This just means it is $\bQ$-Cartier with index not divisible by $p$.

ArXiv

--- author: - 'Francesca Peccati,$^{*,a}$ Rub[é]{}n Laplaza$^{a,b}$ and Julia Contreras-García$^{*,a}$' bibliography: - 'bibliography\_solid\_state\_error.bib' title: 'Overcoming Distrust in Solid State Simulations: Adding Error Bars to Computational Data' --- $^{a}$ Sorbonne Universit[é]{}, CNRS, Laboratoire de Chimie Th[é]{}orique, LCT, F 75005 Paris, France $^{b}$ Departamento de Qu[í]{}mica F[í]{}sica, Universidad de Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain \* email: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered} -------- X-ray and neutron diffraction are well-established techniques for structural determination, whose success allowed the development of materials science. At the same time, simulation techniques are providing with each passing day a deeper insight into the structure and properties of materials. Two main obstacles appear for the cooperation of simulation and experiment. On the one hand, the frequent lack of a degree of uncertainty associated with calculated data. On the other, the concomitant underlying feeling that calculation parameters can be tuned with the explicit aim of matching the experimental results, even at the expense of the quality of the simulation. Without the definition of an error bar for estimating the precision of the calculation, direct comparison of calculated and experimental data can lack physical significance. In this contribution, we employ the well known delocalization error of DFT and HF to develop a simple and robust procedure to quickly estimate an error bar for calculated quantities in the field of solid state chemistry. First, we validate our model on one of the simplest properties of a solid, the geometry of its unit cell, which can be determined experimentally with high accuracy. In this case, our computational window is too large to provide a useful error bar. However, it provides computational material scientists with a pointer on how much a given system is affected by the method of choice, i.e. how much it is sensible to parameter tuning and how much care should be taken in doing it. Then, we move to another quantity which has a greater experimental uncertainty, namely transition pressure, and show that our approach can lead to error bars comparable to experiment. Hence, both experiment and theory can be compared on an even basis taking into account the uncertainty introduced by the scientist, both in the measuring conditions and the tuning of computational parameters. Introduction ============ More than a century has passed since the first determination of the structure of a crystal (W.H. and W.L. Bragg, 1913).[@early_cryst] Since then, X-ray and neutron diffraction have developped into maturity, providing a virtually unlimited access to high resolution structures, spanning not only over a wide range of material complexity but also over a wide range of temperature and pressure conditions. This technological advance was essential for the development of all branches of material science. The evolution of material science has also profited from the parallel development of simulation techniques, which made accessible not only “bulk” features such as band structure, phase transitions mechanisms and defectivity, but also surface properties, including formation energy and reactivity, which are of paramount importance for the rationalization of heterogeneous catalysis.[@dov2005] At this point, a close collaboration between simulation and experiment has become routine in the mutual validation of data. What often hinders this joint effort is the lack of a degree of uncertainty associated with simulated data, which are usually presented as naked numbers, without an associated precision, contrarily to experimental values, which are generally accompanied by a range that estimates the precision of the measurement. This often leads, in the comparison of experimental and calculated results, to shady situations in which objectiveness succumbs to personal interpretation (and wishful thinking): is it acceptable to assert a good agreement between theory and experiment when the calculated value falls just narrowly out of the experimental error range? The temptation to tamper with simulation parameters to have the calculated value nicely falling within the experimental range is hard to resist and gives rise to suspicion in the interaction between computational and experimental chemists.[@patrick_ipea_2017; @bias_physics_2005] In this work, we aim at changing the paradigm of the experiment-computational interaction, presenting in a clear way how much of the uncertainty on selected properties depends on the method employed in the calculations. To introduce the problem, we will start with one of simplest features of a crystal: its cell parameters. Nowadays, a routine X-ray diffractometer measurement provides the cell parameters with an excellent precision, the uncertaintanty being as low as some parts in 10^-4^, even for organic crystals, which can be lessened by a further order of magnitude by employing special techinques.[@precision_Xray] The case of NaCl is emblematic. In the first work by Bragg, dating back to 1913, the value of the cell parameter $a_{expt}$ was set to 4.45 Å, only to be corrected in the same year to the value of 5.62 Å, which is extremely close to the currently accepted value of 5.6401 Å. [@early_cryst; @Bragg13] Owing to its simplicity, the geometry of the unit cell is often one of the first quantities that are checked in the comparison between computation and experiment. In this situation, what is the result of the comparison between $a_{expt}$ = 5.6401 Å  and an hypothetical calculated value $a_{calc}$ = 5.7835 Å  with no error bar? With such a difference between $a_{calc}$ and $a_{expt}$, can we trust the computational technique employed to represent acceptably the real crystal, and therefore draw conclusions based on the physical insight provided by the simulation? To answer this question we have to investigate the sources of error that affect the value of the calculated cell parameter. A first consideration is that the geometry optimization of a solid, which yields the cell parameters, does not have an associated random error except the numerical one associated to arithmetic operations, which is negligible. This means that irrespective of the number of repetitions, a geometry optimization with the same starting point, method and simulation parameters will always converge to the same structure, and thus to the same $a_{calc}$ value. As a consequence, all the errors in this kind of calculation are systematic and therefore hard to eliminate. The main sources of systematic error are the level of theory employed (the combination of method and basis set) and other less evident variables, such as the sampling of the reciprocal lattice, integral truncation criteria and grids. We can group these errors into two groups, which we will call discretization and modelization errors. Discretization errors cover those errors coming from the finite treatement of infinite series: basis set, sampling and truncation.[@discretization]. Model errors refer to the method - the physical model used to describe a real system. Under this umbrella we have wavefunction and Density Functional Theory (DFT) methods. Whereas the first ones can build systematic improvements adding correlation on top of Hartree-Fock (HF), the latter are not systematic-improvement prone. However, wavefunction correlated methods are not generally available for solid state, so that basically all material science computations are done within the DFT framework. Within this framework, many exchange-correlation functionals are available. However, the increase in computational cost and theoretical involvement of the functional does not ensure better results at all. This means that computational material scientists are left with the choice of functional and no security whatsoever of how the method is affecting the results (i.e. a more expensive functional will not necessarily lead to a better result). Having fixed all the remaining degrees (which can be systematically improved), we will now focus on the uncertainty related to working within the DFT framework, which is not predictable in advance, trying to answer the question: how is the model (functional) affecting the results? For this, one first needs to understand the main errors coming from solid state computations. These have been summarized as: non-covalent interactions, strongly correlated systems and delocalization error.[@yang] In the absence of non-covalent interactions or strongly correlated systems (which are easy to identify), the main source error in DFT simulations is the ever-present delocalization error.[@Srebro2014] Delocalization error is the tendency of approximated methods to over-localize or over-delocalize electron density. The extreme behavior of over-delocalization is given by the Local Density Approximation (LDA). LDA describes the homogeneous electron gas. Hence, it tends to delocalize electrons like in a metal. Semilocal improvements of DFT build on the Local Density Approximation, partially correcting for this feature, but still leading to over-delocalization. On the other extreme, Hartree-Fock (HF) is built to promote electron-pairing, yielding over-localized electrons. It is then easy to see that HF and LDA provide the upper and lower bounds to electron localization. But this electron localization also translates into properties. Let uss see one prototypical example. Conjugated double bonds chains are especially prone to this error: whereas HF tends to localize electrons leading to stronger double bonds and weaker single bonds, LDA tends to make all distances similar to each other. These deviations can be summed up in one single number known as Bond Length Alternation (BLA)[@bla]: $$BLA=\frac{\sum_i l_{db,i}-l_{sb,i}}{i}$$ where $l_{db,i}$ and $l_{sb,i}$ are the lengths of adjacent double and single bonds. Large BLAs reveal that double and single bonds are very different in length and vice-versa. The effect of delocalization error can be easily grasped in Figure \[BLA\], where the evolution of BLA with the number of CH=CH units is calculated with different methods. HF provides the least delocalized and LDA the most delocalized conjugated system. The reference value, CC2, as well as all other methods, fall within the HF/LDA range. The difference between the HF and LDA value, which already at two CH=CH units represents 30% of the absolute value, is not constant, but increases with the length of the chain, leading to a dramatic difference between the two methods. In other words, this error becomes crucial for big systems and solid state. Moreover, the lack of regularity of this error implies that a systematic scheme for correcting this problem is difficult to implement. However, knowing the limiting cases, an estimation of uncertainty can be designed for any crystal. ![Bond Length Alternantion (Å) in a chain of conjugated double bonds as the length of the chain increases. Calculations carried out with different functionals, Hartree-Fock and CC2.[]{data-label="BLA"}](chain_label){width="\linewidth"} Let us see how delocalization error is transferred to solid state calculations. We will consider as an example the crystal structure of boric acid, belonging to space group $P\, 3_2$, whose primitive cell is shown in Figure \[bacid\]. B(OH)~3~ molecules are organized in sheets, parallel to the $a,b$ plane and perpendicular to the $c$ axis. The crystal is stabilized by a strong network of hydrogen bonds, while across-sheet contacts are regulated by electrostatic and dispersion interactions. Table \[table\_bacid\] reports the experimental, HF and LDA values of: [*i)*]{} intramolecular B-O bond distances, [*ii)*]{} intermolecular O-H hydrogen bonds and [*iii)*]{} and inter-sheet B-O distance. Results clearly show that intramolecular distances are only slighly affected by the method (b~1~ to b~3~). HF over-localization leads to shorter intramolecular bonds than LDA, but the overall accuracy is good and not subject to important deviations. However, the wrong concentration of charge in teh crystal is transmitted to the non-bonded network, so that LDA underestimates non-bonded contacts and HF severely overestimates them. In this case, the difference between both values is as large as 0.4 Å  (hb~1~ to hb~3~). The difference is even more dramatic when looking at the B-O distance (along $c$) that accounts for across-sheet contacts. In this regard, HF predicts a distance almost 1 Å  larger than LDA. This huge error in the non-bonded contacts dominates the model errors in a crystal (where non-bonded contacts are ever-present). This result is particularly significant because as we will see, it persists when dispersion is included in the calculation and it also applies to a wide range of extended (covalent, ionic) systems, highlighting the relevance of the wrong energy description as a functional of the density and its consequences for computation. ![Structure of the B(OH)~3~ crystal.[]{data-label="bacid"}](boric_acid){width="80.00000%"} Distances HF LDA expt.[@boric_acid] ----------- ------- ------- -------------------- b~1~ 1.359 1.368 1.377 b~2~ 1.358 1.364 1.351 b~3~ 1.357 1.364 1.349 hb~1~ 1.874 1.398 1.822 hb~2~ 1.882 1.416 1.843 hb~3~ 1.880 1.411 1.911 B-O 3.697 2.758 3.187 : Geometrical parameters of the B(OH)~3~ crystal. Bond labels refer to Figure \[bacid\]. Distances are in Å. The structure was resolved at T=297 K.[]{data-label="table_bacid"} Results and discussion ====================== Ionic solids ------------ With the aim of testing the hypothesis that HF and LDA can be used to asses the uncertainty of a calculation, we will start by discussing the properties of a set of ionic solids. The HF and LDA values of cell parameter $a$ are reported in Figure \[ionic\] (full set of structures and computational data available in ESI). They are invariably the upper and lower bound, respectively, for the experimental data, proving a robust computational error bar. The green and black bars represent the absolute and normalized amplitude, respectively, of the error bars associated to each structure. Let us have a look at the LiF-KI family of rocksalt structures. Whereas the absolute error bar in general increases with the size of the cell parameter, the normalized error bar remains fairly constant along the family (with the exception of the smallest structure, LiF). Similar considerations can be drawn for the other families reported in Figure \[ionic\], further suggesting that the delocalization error at the origin of the amplidude of the error bar is constant within a given family of structures. This is extremely interesting because it means that once that the effect of the delocalization error on one member of a given family is known, the corresponding uncertainty for different members of the same family can be quickly estimated (see ESI). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that computational errors can be estimated from another compound. Moreover, such estimations are done on the basis of only one compound and can then be applied to other members of the family, meaning that quick *a priori* estimations can be done just based on the symmetry of the structure. We also tested the HF-LDA bar on less common compounds, such as CuBr. For the III, V and VI phases, HF and LDA parameters have been compared with the accepted reference value, which is itself calculated (Tersoff potential).[@CuBr] CuBr III and VI have a B3 and a B1 structure, respectively; and CuBr VI crystallizes in the SC16 tetragonally bonded structure. CuBr shows the highest error bar among the set of ionic compounds in Figure \[ionic\], more than 1 Å. This means that CuBr is extremely sensitive to the computational method, and a much more careful calibration is required than for studying a heavier binary compound like CaTe. Hence, this approach enables to identify those compounds whose computational simulation is more complicated (bigger delocalization error) and whose choice of method should be dealt with care. Molecular solids ---------------- The discussion of molecular solids is more complex due to several factors, among which thermal expansion and the contribution of non-covalent interactions are particularly relevant. For small molecules, whose intermolecular distances contribute to the cell size (and thus the cell parameters) to a large extent, thermal expansion is significant and can involve volume expansion up to 8% moving from 0 K to room temperature.[@michele16] The standard calculation of cell parameters, which involves a minimization of the potential energy of the crystal, does not account for these thermal effects that have to be included separately, usually by means of the Quasi-Harmonic Approximation (QHA). Additionally, DFT methods are plagued by an insufficient description of dispersion interactions, whose effect can be accounted for with a variety of methods.[@disp2011] Dispersion interactions are attractive, and therefore shrink the cell. Overall, these two contributions, thermal expansion and dispersion, go in opposite directions and partially cancel out (see ESI for a full discussion). This is evident when looking at Figure \[molecular\], which shows the experimental values and HF-LDA error bars calculated for a series of molecular solids without accounting for thermal or dispersion effects. In spite of the other model errors, all experimental values of cell parameters fall within the error bars, with the only exception of acetylene crystals. As shown in Figure \[molecular\], the width of the error bar is much larger for molecular solids than for ionic ones. As already discussed for Table \[table\_bacid\], this is due to the dependence of intermolecular distances on the method employed. Dispersion and thermal effects, which are of extreme importance in the simulation of molecular solids and cannot be neglected, have effects that are some orders of magnitude inferior to the method-dependent error (see ESI). This implies that our simple HF/LDA model, which uses the potential energy and does not account for thermal or dispersion effects, can also be applied to molecular solids for assessing the sensitivity of the system to delocalization error. Transition pressures -------------------- We have shown that the uncertainty associated to DFT calculated cell parameters can be expressed in terms of the HF and LDA values, and that this error is some orders of magnitude higher than the corresponding experimental uncertainty. In this sense, the case of cell parameters is: [*(i)*]{} a proof-of-concept of the validity of our model, [*(ii)*]{} an inductive proof of how this difference can be used to estimate how much a given computation depends on the model (functional) chosen. However, it is not useful in the experiment-theory validation due to the extremely low experimental uncertainty. The mutual validation of measured and simulated quantities along with their error bars can be recovered when tackling experimentally less accessible quantities, such as transition pressures. Transition pressures are commonly used to assess the quality of DFT functionals,[@Tpressure2006] and they can have an associated experimental uncertainty up to 2.9 GPa even for simple structures.[@XA_tp] This uncertainty derives from a complex set of factors, including the accuracy of the pressure and temperature readings of the sample during the crystallographic measurement.[@High_P_cry] What happens when we look at HF and LDA derived transition pressures? Similarly to what was reported for cell parameters, LDA underestimates and HF overestimates transition pressures. Figure \[tpres\] shows the HF and LDA values of a series of transition pressures. For the B1 to B2 transition of alkali halide, we see that again the experimental value falls between the HF and LDA values.[@XA_tp] This holds even for large systems (KCl to KI), which are characterized by very low transition pressures. In these cases LDA inverts the order of stability of the two phases, which have been plotted as zero. Just like for the cell parameter, it is easy to see that the choice of functional should be handled with much more care for ZnS than for alkali halides.[@ZnS_tp] But what is more interesting, in all cases, our computational uncertainty is of the same order of magnitude as the experimental one. Hence, the delocalization error based computational uncertainty can be directly compared with the experimental error bar to mutually asses the quality of the results. Conclusion ========== Summarizing, we showed that the choice of DFT functional for the simulation of solid systems greatly affects both cell parameters and transition pressures. This is attributed to the well-known delocalization error of DFT, and it has been shown that HF and LDA provide a robust error bar for the calculated values. The amplitude of this error bar can be used not only to identify (and even [*a priori*]{} estimate) which systems are more affected by the density functional used, but in some cases it can also be directly compared with experimental results and their uncertainty. First, we focused on the cell parameters of ionic solids as a proof-of-concept, confirming the validity of our method and showing that the DFT-derived uncertainty is several orders of magnitude superior to the experimental one. Moving to molecular solids, we showed that also the extent of thermal and dispersion effects affect cell parameters to an extent that is by some orders of magnitude inferior to the delocalization error, which is confirmed as the main source of uncertainty. After validating our model on cell parameters, we focused on transition pressures, and showed that for experimentally less precise data, HF and LDA yield an error bar of the same order of magnitude as the experimental one. In this case, the experimental and calculated transition pressure values can be compared directly along with their associated error bars. The general picture that emerges from this study is that a paradigm shift in the interaction between experimental and computational chemistry is needed. Too often, simulation parameters are tuned case by case to match as closely as possible a given experimental value, when a reasoned approach based on the properties of the solid at hand and its method dependence should be rather preferred. This is because the intrinsic variability associated with the computational method chosen is no lower than the experimental uncertainty, and thus accurately matching the calculated value to the experimental one does not necessarily improve the quality of the simulation. Finally, we have also constructed a solid state dataset of experimental cell parameters and transition pressures that can be used for future benchmarking (see ESI). Out of all these data, we have that the computational error bar encloses in most cases the experimental value data we have collected. Overall, we have devised a simple and robust indicator that provides for any quantity of interest of a material a guide in the choice of the simulation setup.

ArXiv

--- author: - | [^1]\ INFN Sezione di Napoli\ E-mail: - | Agostino De Iorio\ Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II and INFN Sezione di Napoli\ E-mail: - | Alberto Orso Maria Iorio\ Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II and INFN Sezione di Napoli\ E-mail: title: Managing Many Simultaneous Systematic Uncertainties --- Systematics uncertainties and nuisance parameters ================================================= The dependence of a probabilistic model on sources of systematic uncertainty is modeled in terms of nuisance parameters. Those parameters may be known from external measurements with some uncertainty. Data samples can constrain nuisance parameters and reduce the original uncertainties. Different approaches are adopted in Bayesian or frequentist applications, but the resulting effect is similar. Assume a signal-extraction problem based on a data sample $x$ modeled by parameter(s) of interest $\mu$ and nuisance parameters $\theta$. $\mu$ is in many cases the so-called signal strenght, i.e.: the ratio of the measured cross section and the corresponding theory prediction. Under the Bayesian approach, the posterior probability density for the unknonw parameters $\mu$ and $\theta$ is [@lista]: $$P(\mu,\theta\,|\,x) = \frac{ L(x;\,\mu, \theta)\pi(\mu,\theta) }{\int L(x;\,\mu^\prime, \theta^\prime)\pi(\mu^\prime,\theta^\prime)\,\mathrm{d}\mu^\prime\mathrm{d}\theta^\prime }\ . \label{eq:prob}$$ From Eq. (\[eq:prob\]), the probability density of the parameter of interest $\mu$ alone is given by integrating $P(\mu,\theta\,|\,x)$ over the nuisance parameters $\theta$: $$P(\mu\,|\,x) = \int P(\mu,\theta\,|\,x)\,\mathrm{d}\theta = \frac{ \int L(x;\,\mu, \theta)\pi(\mu,\theta)\,\mathrm{d}\theta }{\int L(x;\,\mu^\prime, \theta^\prime)\pi(\mu^\prime,\theta^\prime)\,\mathrm{d}\mu^\prime\mathrm{d}\theta^\prime }\ . \label{eq:prob1}$$ Under the frequentist approach, the preferred choice of test statistic is the profile likelihood: $$\lambda({\mu}) = \frac{L(\mu,\hat{\hat{\theta}})}{L(\hat{\mu},\hat{\theta})}\ ,$$ where $\hat{\mu}$ and $\hat{\theta}$ are the best-fit value of the parameters $\mu$ and $\theta$, respectively, and $\hat{\hat{\theta}}$ is the best-fit value of $\theta$ for a fixed value of $\mu$, given the data sample $x$. The distribution of $q_\mu = -2\ln\lambda(\mu)$, or other variations of this test statistic, are used to determine the signal strength parameter $\mu$ and/or to set upper limits to the new signal yield. The distribution of the test statistic for $\mu=0$ may be asymptotically approximated to a $\chi^2$ distribution with one degree of freedom, in the case of a single parameter of interest [@cowan]. This result is due to Wilks’ theorem. Simultaneous fits ================= A complementary dataset, or control sample, $y$, may be used to constrain nuisance parameters $\theta$. This could be the case of calibration data, background estimates from independent data samples, etc. Statistical problems can be formulated in terms of both the main data sample ($x$) and the control sample ($y$) assumed to be statistically independent, with a likelihood function determined as the product of the likelihoods of the two samples: $$L(x, y;\,\mu,\theta) = L_{x}(x;\,\mu,\theta) L_{y}(y;\,\mu,\theta)\ ,$$ where $L_y$ does not depend on $\mu$ only if there is no signal contamination in the control sample. Control samples data are not always available in realistic cases, like calibrations from test beam, data stored in different formats or analyzed with different software framework, etc. A simple case may be modeled with a simplified probability density function (PDF) model, given the ‘nominal’ value $\theta^{\mathrm{nom}}$, that could be a Gaussian, log-normal, Gamma, etc. In this case, the likelihood function becomes: $$L(x,\theta^{\mathrm{nom}};\,\mu,\theta) = L_x(x;\,\mu,\theta) L_{\theta^\mathrm{nom}}(\theta^{\mathrm{nom}};\,\theta)\ .$$ A real-case example of analysis performed by fitting simultaneously control regions and a signal region is the single-top cross-section measurement performed by CMS [@singletop] at center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV. Effectively, background yields measured from background-enriched regions are extrapolated to signal regions using scale factors predicted from simulation. Events are categorized according to the number of selected hadronic jets and number of jets identified as b jets, in the aforementioned measurement. In many cases, an effective way to model nuisance parameters is to provide distributions modeled as histograms (templates) obtained from simulations by varying each source of systematic uncertainty by plus or minus one standard deviation of the corresponding nuisance parameter. Intermediate values (or outside the $\pm 1\sigma$ range) are obtained with interpolation (or extrapolation) using either parabolic or piece-wise linear models. Systematic uncertainties may affect the rate (i.e.: cross section) or shape (i.e.: distribution) of a process, or both. Examples are luminosity, pile-up modeling in simulation, jet energy scale, b-tagging efficiency, misidentification probability, lepton selection, reconstruction and trigger efficiencies, as well as uncertainties related to theory modeling: individual cross section predictions, shape and normalization due to renormalization and factorization scales, parton distribution function models, parton shower modeling, generator choice, etc. Uncertainty may also be due to the limited size of Monte Carlo generated simulation samples. Software implementations ======================== Most of the methods adopted in High Energy Physics are implemented in the [RooStats]{} C++ framework using convenient modeling of PDF via the [RooFit]{} package [@roofit], released as part of the [Root]{} toolkit [@root]. PDFs from templates are derived from [Root]{} histograms ([RooHistPdf]{} class). Such PDF models, together with data and parameter definitions, are stored in a convenient file format using the class [RooWorkspace]{}. Asymptotic approximations from [@cowan] are available and allow to save CPU time avoiding intensive toy Monte Carlo generation. Many analyses in the CMS experiment use a command-line, datacard-driven, python-powered tool originally developed for the combination of multiple Higgs production and decay channels. Code and documentation are open to public access [@cmscombine]. A datacard language allows to define the analyzed channels and the signal and background processes. Nuisance parameters are associated via datacards to individual channels and processes, and their PDF models and nominal values are defined. Data and simulated distributions are stored as histograms. Special care should be given to naming conventions that are used to identify histograms related to specific processes, channels, and with the proper one-sigma up or down variations of nuisance parameters. Bookkeeping may become an issue for complex cases: histograms may be arranged in different files with overloaded names, or in the same files with different names or in the same file but different [Root]{} sub-directories. Separators, usually underscores, are used in histogram titles in order to match tags with various meanings. Limited simulation statistics in each bin is also a source of uncertainty: one parameter per bin implies many parameters in the model. Considering only the uncertainty in the bin content of the least-populated bins may speed up the computation considerably. In some cases, backgrounds in signal region are constrained from control region scaled by bin-dependent factors: $$h_i^{\mathrm{sig}} = h_i^{\mathrm{bkg}}\,\alpha_i\ ,$$ where the scale factors $\alpha_i$ are determined from Monte Carlo samples. Histogram content in each bin depends on the value of nuisance parameters. Scaled histograms can be represented by a customized [RooAbsPdf]{} object. The [RooFit]{} helper class [RooFormulaVar]{} may help, with the caveat that formulae are encoded into strings, which may require convoluted code in complex cases, and bugs in the string definition are only spotted at run time. In some real case applications, automatic data-cards generation may simplify the problem. Large data cards can be automatically generated with ad-hoc software that anyway constitute one extra layer on top of CMS Higgs combine tool. The organization of parameters into categories may simplify the definition of the problem. Parameters may be common to groups of distributions, e.g.: - Common to all spectra: - Luminosity, jet-energy scale, b-tag, ... - Common to a process: - Theory uncertainties (renormalization and factorization scale, affect both shape and rate) - Common to a decay channel: - Muon, electron efficiencies (reconstruction, isolation, trigger) - Specific to a single spectrum: - Statistical uncertainty from simulation in each bin More easily management of the most commonly used cases may be approached with possible extensions of the CMS Higgs combine interface, that can be potentially promoted as common HEP tool that could eventually even be released in the [Root]{} toolkit. The Insights Project ==================== [Insights]{}, International Training Network of Statistics for High Energy Physics and Society [@insights], is a 4-year Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks project for the career development of 12 Early Stage Researchers (ESRs) at 10 partner institutions across Europe. INSIGHTS is focused on developing and applying latest advances in statistics, and in particular machine learning, to particle physics CERN is part of the network with deep interconnection with the ROOT development team. [Insights]{}’ Early-Stage Researchers have been selected and will shortly start working on different statistical tools and applications. One of the projects proposes development for the presented problem. Conclusions =========== Most of data analyses at the Large Hadron Collider, both precision measurements and search for physics beyond the Standard Model, require simultaneous statistical analysis of many data samples in order to constrain systematic uncertainties. Managing the achieved complexity requires a substantial amount of coding and challenges the structure of the present software interfaces. Ad-hoc solutions and mini-framework are implemented in experiment and for specific analyses. A common implementation in the framework of [RooFit]{}/[RooStats]{}/[Root]{} tools is desirable in order to simplify the management of many applications. [99]{} Luca Lista, Statistical Methods for Data Analysis in Particle Physics, $2^{\mathrm{nd}}$ edition, Springer, Lect. Notes Phys. 941 (2017), ISBN 978-3-319-62840-0. Glen Cowan, Kyle Cranmer, Eilam Gross and Ofer Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics, Eur. Phys. J. C71 (2011) 1554. CMS Collaboration, Measurement of the $t$-channel single-top-quark production cross section and of the $|V_{\mathrm{tb}}|$ CKM matrix element in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV, J. High Energ. Phys. (2014) 2014:90. Wouter Verkerke and David P. Kirkby, The RooFit toolkit for data modeling, eConf C0303241 (2003) MOLT007. Rene Brun and Fons Rademakers, ROOT - An Object Oriented Data Analysis Framework, Proceedings AIHENP’96 Workshop, Lausanne, Sep. 1996, Nucl. Inst. Meth. in Phys. Res. A 389 (1997) 81-86. See also http://root.cern.ch/. CMS Combine tool, https://cms-hcomb.gitbooks.io/combine/content/. , International Training Network of Statistics for High Energy Physics and Society, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, call H2020-MSCA-ITN-2017, under Grant Agreement n. 765710. https://www.insights-itn.eu/ [^1]: The speaker is note PI of the project [Insights]{}, funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, call H2020-MSCA-ITN-2017, under Grant Agreement n. 765710.

ArXiv

--- abstract: 'We report on ongoing work to determine the pion-cloud contribution to the electromagnetic $N\rightarrow\Delta$ transition form factors. The starting point is an $SU(6)$ spin-flavor symmetric constituent-quark model with instantaneous confinement that is augmented by dynamical pions which couple directly to the quarks. This system is treated in a relativistically invariant way within the framework of point-form quantum mechanics using a multichannel formulation. The first step is to determine the electromagnetic form factors of the bare particles that consist only of three quarks. These form factors are basic ingredients for calculating the pion-cloud contributions. Already without the pion cloud, electromagnetic nucleon and $N\rightarrow \Delta$ transition form factors compare reasonably well with the data. By inclusion of the pion-cloud contribution coming from the $\pi$-$N$ intermediate state the reproduction of the data is further improved.' author: - 'Ju-Hyun Jung' - Wolfgang Schweiger - 'Elmar P. Biernat' date: 'Received: date / Accepted: date' title: 'Constituent-quark model with pionic contributions: electromagnetic $N\rightarrow\Delta$ transition' --- Introduction and Formalism\[sec:Introduction\] ============================================== Electroexcitation of the $\Delta$ resonance in electron-nucleon scattering provides important information on the structure of the $\Delta$. Although the $\Delta$ resonance was discovered several decades ago, precise experimental data became available only recently [@Aznauryan:2009mx; @Blomberg:2015zma]. Many model calculations and also lattice simulations predicted electromagnetic $N\rightarrow\Delta$ transition form factors, indicating that the pion cloud of the nucleon and the $\Delta$ may play a substantial role, not only in the sub-leading form factors $G_{E}^{*}$ and $G_{C}^{*}$, but also in the leading form factor $G_{M}^{*}$ [@Ramalho:2008dp; @Ramalho:2009df; @Alexandrou:2004xn; @Ledwig:2008es; @Sanchis-Alepuz:2017mir]. The electromagnetic $N\rightarrow\Delta$ transition form factors encode the structure of the $\gamma^\ast N\Delta$ vertex and show up in the covariant decomposition of the $N\rightarrow \Delta$ transition current. A common choice for the covariant decomposition of this current, involving the form factors $g_{M}$, $g_{E}$ and $g_{C}$, is given by [@Pascalutsa:2006up]: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:1} J^{\mu}_{N\rightarrow\Delta}(p',\sigma';p, \sigma) & = & i\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\frac{3e\left(m_{\Delta}+m_{N}\right)}{2m_{N}\left[\left(m_{\Delta}+m_{N}\right)^{2} +Q^{2}\right]}\bar{u}_{\beta}\left(p',\sigma'\right) \nonumber \\ & &\times \Big\{ g_{M}\left(Q^{2}\right)\epsilon^{\beta\mu\rho\sigma}p'_{\rho}q_{\sigma} \nonumber \\ & & \phantom{\times} +g_{E}\left(Q^{2}\right)\left(q^{\beta}p'{}^{\mu}-q\cdot p'g^{\beta\mu}\right)i\gamma_{5} \nonumber \\ & &\phantom{\times} + g_{C}\left(Q^{2}\right)\left(q^{\beta}q^{\mu}-q^{2}g^{\beta\mu}\right)i\gamma_{5}\Big\} u\left(p,\sigma\right)\, .\end{aligned}$$ Here $\bar{u}_{\beta}\left(p',\sigma'\right)$ denotes the Rarita-Schwinger spinor of the spin-3/2 $\Delta$ and $u\left(p, \sigma\right)$ the Dirac spinor of the spin-1/2 nucleon. These spinors are normalized according to $\bar{u}_{\beta}\left(p,\sigma'\right)u^{\beta}\left(p,\sigma\right)=-2m_{\Delta}\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}$, $\bar{u}\left(p,\sigma'\right)u\left(p,\sigma\right)=2m_{N}\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}$. Like the nucleon spinor, the Rarita-Schwinger spinor satisfies a Dirac equation, i.e. $p_{\nu}' \gamma^{\nu} {u}_{\beta}\left(p',\sigma^\prime\right)= m_{\Delta} {u}_{\beta}(p',\sigma^\prime)$ and, in addition, the transversality condition $p^{\prime\beta} {u}_{\beta}(p',\sigma')=0=\gamma^{\beta}{u}_{\beta}\left(p',\sigma^\prime\right)$ as well as current conservation $q_{\mu}J^{\mu}=0$, where $q=\left(p'-p\right)$ and $q^{2}=-Q^{2}$. For a proper relativistic description of the $N\rightarrow\Delta$ transition form factors we make use of point-form relativistic quantum mechanics in connection with the Bakamjian-Thomas construction. Like in previous work [@Biernat:2009my; @GomezRocha:2012zd; @Biernat:2014dea] we use this framework to determine the one-photon-exchange amplitude for $e^- p\rightarrow e^- \Delta^+$ scattering. From this scattering amplitude we extract the electromagnetic $p\rightarrow \Delta^+$ transition current and determine the form factors by means of a covariant analysis. Thereby both, the nucleon and the Delta are assumed to consist of a $3q$ and a $3q$+$\pi$ component and, in addition to the dynamics of electron and quarks, the dynamics of the photon and the pion are fully taken into account. This is accomplished by means of a multichannel formulation that comprises all states which can occur during the scattering process (i.e. $|3q, e \rangle$, $|3q, \pi, e \rangle$, $|3q, e, \gamma \rangle$, $|3q, \pi, e, \gamma \rangle$). What one then needs, in principle, are scattering solutions of $$\label{EVequation} \left(\begin{array}{cccc} \hat{M}_{3qe}^{\mathrm{conf}} & \hat{K}_\pi & \hat{K}_\gamma & \hat{K}_{\pi\gamma} \\ \hat{K}_\pi^\dagger & \hat{M}_{3q \pi e} ^{\mathrm{conf}}& \hat{K}_{\pi\gamma}^\prime & \hat{K}_\gamma \\ \hat{K}_\gamma^\dagger & \hat{K}_{\pi\gamma}^{\prime\dag} & \hat{M}_{3q e \gamma} ^{\mathrm{conf}}& \hat{K}_\pi \\ \hat{K}_{\pi\gamma}^\dag & \hat{K}_\gamma^\dagger & \hat{K}_\pi^\dagger & \hat{M}_{3q \pi e \gamma}^{\mathrm{conf}} \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{l} { | \psi_{3q e} \rangle} \\ { | \psi_{3q \pi e} \rangle} \\ { | \psi_{3q e \gamma} \rangle} \\ { | \psi_{3q \pi e \gamma} \rangle} \end{array}\right) = \sqrt{s} \left(\begin{array}{l} { | \psi_{3q e} \rangle} \\ { | \psi_{3q \pi e} \rangle} \\ { | \psi_{3q e \gamma} \rangle} \\ { | \psi_{3q \pi e \gamma} \rangle} \end{array}\right)$$ which evolve from an asymptotic electron-nucleon in-state ${ | e N \rangle}$ with invariant mass $\sqrt{s}$ into an asymptotic electron-Delta out-state ${ | e \Delta \rangle}$. The diagonal entries of this matrix mass operator contain, in addition to the relativistic kinetic energies of the particles in the particular channel, an instantaneous confinement potential between the quarks. The off-diagonal entries are vertex operators which describe the transition between the channels. In a velocity-state representation these vertex operators are directly related to usual quantum-field theoretical interaction-Lagrangean densities [@Biernat:2010tp]. The 4-vertices $\hat{K}_{\pi\gamma}$ and $\hat{{K}}_{\pi\gamma}^{\prime}$ show up only for pseudovector pion-quark coupling. These vertices are neglected in the present form of the model, but obviously have to be included in an improved version. At this point it is convenient to reduce Eq. (\[EVequation\]) to an eigenvalue problem for ${ | \psi_{3q e} \rangle} $ by means of a Feshbach reduction: $$\label{eq:Mphys} \left[\hat{M}_{3qe}^{\mathrm{conf}} +\hat{K}_\pi(\sqrt{s}-\hat{M}_{3q\pi e}^{\mathrm{conf}} )^{-1} \hat{K}_\pi^\dag + \hat{V}_{1\gamma}^{\mathrm{opt}}(\sqrt{s})\right] { | \psi_{3q e} \rangle} = \sqrt{s} \, { | \psi_{3q e} \rangle} \, .$$ Here $\hat{V}_{1\gamma}^{\mathrm{opt}}(\sqrt{s})$ is the 1$\gamma$-exchange optical potential. The invariant 1$\gamma$-exchange amplitude for electroproduction of the Delta is now obtained by sandwiching $\hat{V}_{1\gamma}^{\mathrm{opt}}(\sqrt{s})$ between (the valence component of) physical electron-nucleon ${ | eN \rangle}$ and electron-Delta ${ | e\Delta \rangle}$ states , i.e. eigenstates of $[ \hat{M}_{3qe}^{\mathrm{conf}} +\hat{K}_\pi (\sqrt{s}-\hat{M}_{3q\pi e}^{\mathrm{conf}} )^{-1} \hat{K}_\pi^\dag ]$. The crucial point is now to observe that, due to instantaneous confinement, propagating intermediate states do not contain free quarks, they rather contain bare nucleons $N_0$ or bare Deltas $\Delta_0$. The bare particles are eigenstates of the pure confinement problem. This allows us to rewrite the scattering amplitude in terms of pure hadronic degrees of freedom with the quark substructure being hidden in strong and electromagnetic vertex form factors of the bare baryons. This is graphically represented in Fig. \[fig:1\]. In order to calculate the graphs shown in Fig. \[fig:1\] we obviously have to know the structure of the strong and electromagnetic vertices for bare baryons and also the masses of the bare nucleon and the bare Delta. For scalar, isoscalar confinement these masses and also the three-quark wave functions are the same due to $SU(6)$ spin-flavor symmetry. Instead of choosing a particular confining interaction we therefore rather parameterize the three-quark wave function of $N_0$ and $\Delta_0$ by means of a Gaussian. Knowing further the bare nucleon and Delta mass $m_{N_0}=m_{\Delta_0}=:m_0$, the (pseudovector) pion-quark coupling $f_{\pi q q}$ and the constituent-quark masses $m_u=m_d=:m_q$, one can first calculate the strong couplings and form factors at the $\pi N_0 N_0$, $\pi N_0 \Delta_0$ and $\pi N_0 \Delta_0$ vertices and in the sequel the renormalization effect of pion loops on the nucleon and Delta mass. One thus has a four-parameter model which provides a microscopic description of a coupled system of nucleons, pions and Deltas. With the constituent-quark mass $m_q=0.263$ GeV taken from the literature [@Pasquini:2007iz], the remaining three parameters can be adapted in such a way that the solution of a mass-eigenvalue problem analogous to Eq. (\[EVequation\]) (just without electron and photon) gives the physical nucleon and Delta masses. A more detailed account of how strong form factors and couplings are calculated and the model parameters are fixed can be found in Ref. [@Jung:2017cpy]. The values used here are $\alpha=2.645$ GeV$^{-1}$ for the range of the Gaussian, $f_{\pi q q}=0.678$ for the pseudovector pion-quark coupling and $m_0=1.67$ GeV for the bare nucleon and Delta mass.[^1] The pion-baryon couplings and form factors are thus already determined after having fixed the parameters of the model in the way just sketched. What is still necessary to calculate the leading order electroproduction amplitude as depicted in Fig. \[fig:1\], are the electromagnetic (transition) form factors of the bare baryons. We follow the same strategy as outlined above, but neglect the pion, to end up with the one-photon exchange amplitude $\mathcal{M}_{1\gamma}^{e B_0\rightarrow e B_0^\prime}$ for $e B_0\rightarrow e B_0^\prime$ scattering. As one would expect, this amplitude can be written as (covariant) photon propagator times electron current contracted with the baryonic current, $\mathcal{M}_{1\gamma}^{e B_0\rightarrow e B_0^\prime}\propto j_{e\mu} I^\mu_{B_0\rightarrow B_0^\prime}/Q^2$. This allows to extract a microscopic expression for the baryonic current $I^\mu_{B_0\rightarrow B_0^\prime}$, which turns out to be an integral over the three-quark wave functions of incoming and outgoing baryons, multiplied with the electromagnetic quark current and some Wigner-rotation factors [@Biernat:2009my]. By means of a general covariant decomposition of $I^\mu_{B_0\rightarrow B_0^\prime}$ one would then be able to identify the electromagnetic (transition) form factors of the bare baryons. But here a problem shows up. $I^\mu_{N_0\rightarrow \Delta_0}$, e.g., is expected to have the structure given in Eq. (\[eq:1\]). Numerical studies, however, reveal that one needs additional covariants for a complete covariant decomposition of $I^\mu_{N_0\rightarrow \Delta_0}$, which involve an electron momentum. In addition, the form factors in front of the covariants do not only depend on the square of the transferred four momentum $q^2=-Q^2$, but also on the invariant mass $\sqrt{s}$ of the electron-baryon system. It is an unwanted feature, but does not spoil the relativistic invariance of $\mathcal{M}_{1\gamma}^{e N_0\rightarrow e \Delta_0^\prime}$. A similar observation has already been made in Refs. [@Biernat:2009my] and [@Biernat:2014dea] when calculating electromagnetic $\pi$ and $\rho$ form factors within a constituent-quark model using the same approach as here. There it turned out that the non-physical, spurious contributions to the electromagnetic current vanish, or become at least minimal for large invariant mass of the electron-hadron system. Sensible results for the form factors were obtained in the limit $s\rightarrow \infty$. This limit corresponds to the kinematical situation that the subprocess $\gamma^\ast H\rightarrow H$ is considered in the infinite-momentum frame and momentum is transferred in transverse direction. Before we continue, we want to make a few remarks about the observation that our microscopic current exhibits spurious contributions. An analogous situation occurs in the covariant light-front approach presented in Ref. [@Carbonell:1998rj], where spurious contributions to the current are connected with the four vector that describes the orientation of the light front. Actually it turned out that the results for the physical $\pi$ and $\rho$ form factors in Refs. [@Biernat:2009my] and [@Biernat:2014dea] are the same as corresponding results obtained within the covariant light-front approach. One should also mention that most models for electromagnetic bound-state currents are formulated in a particular reference frame, usually the Breit frame, and the frame dependence of the resulting form factors is kept under the carpet. The advantage of our approach is, that we have some control on the frame dependence and extract the form factors in a frame, namely the infinite momentum frame, in which this dependence vanishes. In our case, the reason that the electromagnetic hadron current exhibits some dependence on the momentum of the scattered electron is most likely that the Bakamjian-Thomas construction, used to implement interactions without spoiling relativistic invariance, causes problems with cluster separability. These problems can be cured by appropriate unitary transformations which are formally known [@Sokolov:1977ym], but technically hard to realize. Work in this direction is in progress. Here we follow the same strategy as in Refs. [@Biernat:2009my] and [@Biernat:2014dea] and go to the infinite-momentum frame to extract the electromagnetic form factors from our microscopic expressions for the currents, $I^\mu_{B_0\rightarrow B_0^\prime}$. Concentrating first on the $N\rightarrow \Delta$ transition we observe that the physical current, as given in Eq. (\[eq:1\]), has only four different spin-matrix elements in leading order in $k=\sqrt{s}/2$. These are $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:J13} J_{N\rightarrow\Delta}^{0}\left(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \hspace{0.2cm} & = & \chi_Q\left\{ \sqrt{3}\left[g_{M}\left(m_{N}+m_{\Delta}\right) \right. \!+\! \left.g_{E}\left(m_{N}-m_{\Delta}\right)\right]kQ+\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right\},\nonumber \\ \\ J_{N\rightarrow\Delta}^{0}\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) \hspace{0.2cm} & = & \chi_Q\left\{ \left[-g_{M}+g_{E}\right]kQ^{2} +\frac{2g_{C}\left(m_{N}-m_{\Delta}\right)kQ^{2}}{m_{\Delta}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right\},\nonumber \\ \\ J_{N\rightarrow\Delta}^{0}\left(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) & = & \chi_Q\bigg\{ \left[g_{M}\left(m_{N}+m_{\Delta}\right)-g_{E}\left(m_{N}-m_{\Delta}\right)\right]kQ\nonumber\\ & & \hspace{0.8cm}\left. +\frac{2g_{C}kQ^{3}}{m_{\Delta}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right\},\\ \label{eq:J1m3} J_{N\rightarrow\Delta}^{0}\left(-\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}\right) & = & \chi_Q\left\{ \sqrt{3}\left[-g_{M}-g_{E}\right]k Q^{2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right)\right\} \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi_Q=(m_{\Delta}+m_{N})/(2 m_N [(m_{\Delta}+m_{N})^{2}+Q^{2}])$. The remaining spin-matrix elements of the current are either related by parity, they are identical, or they vanish. Since there are four spin-matrix elements, but only three form factors, these spin-matrix elements cannot be independent, but must be linearly related. This relation is, what one calls the angular condition [@Carbonell:1998rj] and has the form: $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:angcond} &&J_{N_{\frac{1}{2}}\rightarrow\Delta_{\frac{3}{2}}}^{0}\left(M_{N}^{2}-M_{N}M_{\Delta}+Q^{2}\right)Q+\sqrt{3}J_{N_{\frac{1}{2}}\rightarrow\Delta_{\frac{1}{2}}}^{0}M_{\Delta}Q^{2} \nonumber\\ &&\hspace{0.5cm}+\sqrt{3}J_{N_{\frac{1}{2}}\rightarrow\Delta_{-\frac{1}{2}}}^{0}\left(-M_{N}M_{\Delta}+M_{\Delta}^{2}\right)Q \nonumber\\ &&\hspace{0.5cm}+J_{N_{\frac{1}{2}}\rightarrow\Delta_{-\frac{3}{2}}}^{0}\left(\left(M_{N}-M_{\Delta}\right)^{2}\left(M_{N}+M_{\Delta}\right)+M_{N}Q^{2}\right) = 0\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $J_{N_{\sigma}\rightarrow\Delta_{\sigma'}}^{0}:=\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} J_{N\rightarrow\Delta}^{0} (\sigma',\sigma)$. What we observe is that, due to the unphysical contributions which we pick up in our approach, neither the microscopic model for the bare transition current $I_{N_0\rightarrow \Delta_0}^\mu$, nor the one including the pion cloud $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^\mu$ satisfy this angular condition. A way out would be to make a complete covariant decomposition of the microscopic current, involving additional, unphysical covariants. In this case the right-hand side of the angular condition would become a combination of unphysical contributions and after separating them, one would get a model for the current with the desired properties. This strategy has been pursued in Ref [@Biernat:2014dea] for the $\rho$. As a first attempt, we have rather tried to extract the form factors from the different possible choices of three spin-matrix elements out of the four given in Eqs. (\[eq:J13\])-(\[eq:J1m3\]). Most reasonable results for the form factors are obtained with the combination $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^0(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^0(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ and $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^0(-\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})$. A similar strategy was adopted in Ref. [@Cardarelli:1995dc] to calculate $N\rightarrow \Delta$ transition form factors within a front-form approach. Similar problems with the angular condition are also expected to show up when calculating electromagnetic $\Delta$ form factors. For the nucleon, however, only two independent current matrix elements come with $\mathcal{O}(k)$ in the infinite-momentum frame, allowing for a unambiguous extraction of the electromagnetic nucleon form factors [@Kupelwieser:2015ioa]. Results and discussion ====================== In the present calculation only the $N_0 \pi$ state is taken into account in the pion loop. Therefore we do not need the electromagnetic form factors of the (bare) $\Delta$ at this stage. Having fixed the parameters of the model as described above, we already know the strong $\pi N_0 N_0$ and $\pi N_0 \Delta_0$ couplings and form factors. In a next step we calculate the electromagnetic $N_0$ and $N_0\rightarrow \Delta_0$ form factors. These are then used to determine the one-photon-exchange amplitude as given in Fig. \[fig:1\]. From this amplitude we extract the microscopic transition current $I^\mu_{N\rightarrow \Delta}$ for the physical (dressed) nucleon and Delta and, in the sequel, the electromagnetic transition form factors, taking the spin-matrix elements $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^0(\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^0(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ and $I_{N\rightarrow \Delta}^0(-\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ (see discussion above). The electromagnetic form factors $g_M$, $g_E$ and $g_C$, introduced in Eq. (\[eq:1\]), relate to the more conventional magnetic dipole $G_{M}^{*}$, electric quadrupole $G_{E}^{*}$ and Coulomb quadrupole $G_{C}^{*}$ form factors of Jones and Scadron [@Jones:1972ky] as follows: $$\begin{aligned} G_{M}^{*} & = & g_{M}+G_{E}^{*}\, , \\ G_{E}^{*} & = & \frac{1}{\left(M_{\Delta}+M_{N}\right)^{2}+Q^{2}}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(-M_{\Delta}^{2}+M_{N}^{2}+Q^{2}\right)g_{E}+Q^{2}g_{C}\right]\, , \\ G_{C}^{*} & = & \frac{1}{\left(M_{\Delta}+M_{N}\right)^{2}+Q^{2}}\left[\left(-M_{\Delta}^{2}+M_{N}^{2}+Q^{2}\right)g_{C}-2M_{\Delta}^{2}g_{E}\right]\, .\end{aligned}$$ In the following we will present our results in terms of these form factors. \[fig:2\] Fig. \[fig:2\] shows the magnetic dipole form factor $G_{M}^{*}$, the electric quadrupole form factor $G_{E}^{*}$, and their ratio $R_{EM}$. Pion-cloud effects, seemingly, do not play a role for $G_{M}^{*}$. This does not mean that they are negligible as compared to the bare-baryon contribution (first graph in Fig. \[fig:1\]). The bare contribution is nothing else than the result without pion cloud (pure three-quark model) multiplied with the probabilities to find the bare baryons in the physical (dressed) ones. The resulting reduction is then again compensated by the pion cloud. Pion-cloud effects, however, become more visible in the small form factors $G_{E}^{*}$ and $G_{C}^{*}$. Here we only show predictions for $G_{E}^{*}$ and the ratio $$\begin{aligned} R_{EM} & := & -\frac{G_{E}^{*}\left(Q^{2}\right)}{G_{M}^{*}\left(Q^{2}\right)}\, .\end{aligned}$$ For these quantities pion-cloud effects seem to be significant, at least for $Q^2\lesssim 1$ GeV$^2$, with both contributions, the one in which the photon couples to the pion and the one in which it couples to the nucleon, being of approximately the same importance. Our results compare with the outcome of other theoretical predictions [@Ramalho:2008dp; @Sanchis-Alepuz:2017mir; @Cardarelli:1995dc]. For $Q^2\gtrsim 0.5$ GeV$^2$ our predictions for $G_{M}^{*}$ agree well with the data, for vanishing $Q^2$, however, we underestimate the data by about $25\%$. This is also reflected in $R_{EM}$. For For $Q^2\lesssim 0.5$ GeV$^2$ we get a somewhat larger modulus for this ratio than measured in experiment. One should, however, keep in mind that our calculation is still not complete and additional contributions at small $Q^2$ are expected to come from $\pi \Delta_0$ intermediate states. It is the topic of ongoing work to find out, whether such contributions could improve the agreement with data, or whether further improvements of the model, like a more sophisticated wave function for the $\Delta$, including, e.g., a $d$-wave contribution as in Ref. [@Ramalho:2008dp], will be necessary. J.-H. Jung acknowledges the support of the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung in Österreich (Grant No. FWF DK W1203-N16). He furthermore wants to thank Prof. T. Peña for giving him the opportunity to stay at the Centro de Física Teórica de Partículas, IST Lisboa, where part of this work was done. E. P. Biernat acknowledges the support of the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) under Grant No. SFRH/BPD/100578/2014. I. G. Aznauryan et al., Electroexcitation of nucleon resonances from CLAS data on single pion electroproduction, Phys. Rev. C **80**, 055203 (2009) A. Blomberg et al., Electroexcitation of the $\Delta^{+}$(1232) at low momentum transfer, Phys. Lett. B **760**, 267 (2016) G. Ramalho, M. T. Pena and F. Gross, D-state effects in the electromagnetic N Delta transition, Phys. Rev D **78**, 114017 (2008) G. Ramalho and M. T. Pena, Valence quark contribution for the gamma N $\rightarrow$ Delta quadrupole transition extracted from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. D **80**, 013008 (2009) C. Alexandrou et al., The N to Delta electromagnetic transition form-factors from lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 021601 (2005) T. Ledwig, A. Silva and M. Vanderhaeghen, Electromagnetic properties of the Delta(1232) and decuplet baryons in the self-consistent SU(3) chiral quark-soliton model, Phys. Rev. D **79**, 094025 (2009) H. Sanchis-Alepuz, R. Alkofer and C. S. Fischer, Electromagnetic transition form factors of baryons in the space-like momentum region, Eur. Phys. J. A [**54**]{}, 41 (2018) V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen and S-N. Yang, Electromagnetic excitation of the Delta(1232)-resonance, Phys. Rept. **437**, 125-232 (2007) E. P. Biernat, W. Schweiger, K. Fuchsberger and W. H. Klink, Electromagnetic meson form factor from a relativistic coupled-channel approach, Phys. Rev. C [**79**]{}, 055203 (2009) M. Gomez-Rocha and W. Schweiger, Electroweak form factors of heavy-light mesons: A relativistic point-form approach, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 053010 (2012) E. P. Biernat and W. Schweiger, Electromagnetic rho-meson form factors in point-form relativistic quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. C [**89**]{}, 055205 (2014) E. P. Biernat, W. H. Klink and W. Schweiger, Point-form Hamiltonian dynamics and applications, Few Body Syst. **49**, 149 (2011) B. Pasquini and S. Boffi, Electroweak structure of the nucleon, meson cloud and light-cone wavefunctions. Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 07401 (2007) J.-H. Jung and W. Schweiger, On the microscopic structure of $\pi NN$, $\pi N\Delta$ and $\pi\Delta\Delta$ vertices, Few Body Syst. **58**, 73(2017) J. Carbonell, B. Desplanques, V. A. Karmanov and J. F. Mathiot, Explicitly covariant light front dynamics and relativistic few body systems, Phys. Rept.  [**300**]{}, 215 (1998) S. N. Sokolov, Relativistic addition of direct interactions in the point form of dynamics, Theor. Math. Phys.  [**36**]{}, 682 (1979) F. Cardarelli, E. Pace, G. Salme and S. Simula, Nucleon and pion electromagnetic form-factors in a light front constituent quark model, Phys. Lett. B **357**, 267 (1995) D. Kupelwieser and W. Schweiger, The pion-cloud contribution to the electromagnetic nucleon form factors, EPJ Web Conf.  [**113**]{}, 05006 (2016) H. F. Jones and M. D. Scadron, Multipole $\gamma$-$N \Delta$ form-factors and resonant photoproduction and electroproduction, Annals Phys. **81**, 1 (1973) [^1]: These values differ slightly from those given in Ref. [@Jung:2017cpy], since the numerics in this paper was still afflicted by an error in the computer program.

ArXiv